Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I was heartened to read in the HuffingtonPost today that NASA is appointing someone they call a “Planetary Defense Officer” as part of an overall effort to defend our earth from asteroids, meteors, and other space-based projectiles that threaten the very existence of us Earthlings. I guess they are trying to do whatever they can to try and protect us from threats from space, while Republicans from the Fringe Lunatic Right (which are about 99.7% of Republicans, lately) do their best to destroy our Earth by rejecting all evidence of global warming (“I’m not a scientist, BUT….”) and scoffing at attempts to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Question for NASA: Can you also protect against Earth-bound threats such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, The Koch Brothers, and the NRA?

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed

The Red Ranger: What a great idea, I suggest we round up some far left radicals and assign them to patrol the universe.  I say we send DiBlasio, Sanders, the Clintons (Bill and Hill) and the Obama’s into space on a never ending search for asteroids, meteors, etc.  The cost of providing them a one-way trip through the universe will surely be less than the cost they would inflict on humans should they remain on earth.

Speaking of costs, in the article it indicates that the cost of this effort is budgeted at $50 million in 2016 which is up from $4 million in 2010.  This is a 52% compound annual growth rate. That is outrageous even by Obama’s standards.  I am sure that if they identify an object on a collision course with the earth some bleeding heart liberal will argue against destroying it claiming we must not have borders and these alien objects have every right to enter the earth.

Nattering Naybob: You have proven yourself a true deficit hawk. You would rather save money than help save the world, literally. I’m surprised you aren’t supporting an idea that your Conservative icon and God, Ronald Reagan, first proposed. One of his few good ideas.

The Red Ranger: I am not a deficit hawk just one for sound fiscal policies.  I am not against spending just want to make sure money is spent wisely with the highest benefit return for all.

Nattering Naybob: One would think that saving the planet from getting hit by an asteroid that would potentially cause the mass extinction of most or all animals and human beings, would be something with a high benefit attached. But that’s just me…

 

 

 

Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Round 1

The Red Ranger:  Romney romps in Round 1.  Pretty much a unanimous decision.  Even your comrades on MSNBC  so say except for Rev. Al of course

Next week Ryan will annihilate Biden.

I hope you can get some sleep tonight.  You may be waking up with nightmares given Obama’s dreadful performane.

Nattering Naybob: How about those Yankees, huh? Despite all their injuries and runners left on base all year, they still wound up with the AL East, best record in the American League, and home field in the AL playoffs.

Romney did OK too I guess. Don’t get cocky, my Republican friend..

The Red Ranger: Yes, it was great to see both the Yankees and Romney win last night

Did you see Chris Matthew’s meltdown on MSNBC last night?  I hope he does not consider himself a journalist.

Nattering Naybob: I am surprised that you are questioning the journalistic viability of Chris Matthews because he actually was very complimentary of Mitt Romney last night. He said that Mittens was the more organized and cogent candidate and that he tried to “win” the debate, as he should have. If the scenario were reversed, and it was Obama who had the unexpectedly strong performance, Fox News would be saying that it was because the moderator (JIm “no, no, your time is up, ah, OK, go ahead) Lehrer, was to blame. That is the key difference between MSNBC and Fox News

I too thought that Romney was the more “organized” candidate. Obama looked tired and distracted. I believe he will do much better in the next two debates. The recent history of the modern debate (since 1976), tells us that an incumbent president seeking a second term, often turns in a lackluster debate performance in the first debate (Reagan 1984, Bush Sr. 1992, and Bush Jr. in 2004).

I first thought it might be a long night for Obama as early as the end of the first segment when both candidates were talking over each, and when Jim Lehrer said they were already going past their allotted time, Romney said “It’s fun, isn’t it?” That typified Romney’s level of comfort last night; he seemed to exude a much more positive energy. However. I expect that this will be the “high water” mark for the Romney campaign, especially since the “substance” of Romney’s performance is now being vetted by the fact checkers, and much of what Romney said, is being proven to be almost comically incorrect, especially in terms of what Romney said he believes is and does not believe in. What I want to know is what in the world was going on during Obama’s debate prep, it seemed like he had no plan and not prepared for some of the charges directed towards him by Romney. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Obama.

What can Scott Brown do for you? Nothing.

Nattering Naybob:  Pardon the appropriation of the UPS catchphrase, but I thought it was fitting, since Massachusetts is the Red Ranger’s adopted State. Here I was, all along, thinking that Scott Brown was a semi-sane Republican who at least could be counted on to reject some of the more extremist tendencies of the Modern Republican Party. How mistaken I was.

The question of whether Elizabeth Warren can credibly claim that she should be considered “Native American” may be open for debate. Warren says she was told by both of her parents for years that she her family genealogy included members of the Cherokee and Delaware Indian tribes, thus she was justified in considering herself part Native-American on a questionnaire in the mid-Nineties. Warren says that she never “checked” whether her parents’ claims were correct, that she just accepted them as fact… and that this same practice is followed by most people whose parents tell their children that their ancestors shared a specific ethnicity.

Some assert that Warren’s political opponents are justified in questioning her motivation for “checking the box” when asked if she were a minority. But here’s what I think Scott Brown’s reply should have been to Warren’s claim:

“To be totally honest, I cannot cite the accepted protocol for determining the validity of someone’s stating that they are, or are not, a member of a certain ethnic group. Regardless, if Elizabeth Warren says that she is a Native American, I should and will accept this at face value. But whether she is Native American or not, is totally irrelevant to the campaign at hand to choose the next Senator of Massachusetts. Voters of Massachusetts should make their choice on November 6th not on the ethnicity of either candidate, but on our positions on the issues and our respective visions for the future.”

Instead, Scott Brown chose a different road. Last week at a campaign rally, members of Brown’s own staff– including his deputy Senate Chief of Staff– gleefully performed the “tomahawk chop” and mimicked the clichéd “war whoops” featured in Grade B Hollywood Westerns of the first half of the 20th century (and later). Brown issued the standard “I don’t condone the actions of my supporters”, but his disavowal of these acts strains credibility and credulity, both. Are we really to believe that these people took it upon themselves to put on such a sickening display, without at least the tacit approval of their boss? I think I can predict your answer, but tell me anyway.

The Red Ranger: I know that you Libs always want people to ignore the prior actions of your comrades and shrug them off as just some small inconvenience or minor misstep. However, what people have done in the past is a good reflection of what they will do in the future. I believe that Obama’s association with Bill Ayers and Eric Holder’s participation in an armed takeover at Columbia University in 1970 presented a clear insight into what their mindsets are and how they are governing today.

As far as Elizabeth Warren, I believe her statement in one of Scott Brown’s TV ads sums her up best, she was asked by a reporter if there is anything else that will come out about her and instead of definitively stating no, she says, “I don’t know, we will have to wait and see”. Basically, admitting that there is probably more but someone will have to dig it up rather than being honest about her past. In fact, it is highly likely that she has practiced law in MA without a law license in MA.

How come you are so ready to burn Scott Brown at the stake for the actions of his campaign staff which you admit he did not condone but you are loathe to hold Obama accountable for anything that has happened since he became President.

Nattering Naybob: First, I am not ready to “burn Scott Brown at the stake”. I offered him free advice, did I not? Since you reside in Massachusetts, I think you are probably too familiar with the Salem Witch Trials. But more importantly, what on Earth does Eric Holder or Bill Ayers have to do with the fact that the Senate staff of Scott Brown led a campaign event (if it can be called that), that demeaned Native-Americans with offensive ethnic stereotypes, for no reason other than Elizabeth Warren (his opponent) claims Native American ancestry? Stop trying to deflect the issue.

May I remind you that Eric Holder was appointed in 1988 as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by Ronald Reagan, who last time I checked, is the man that all your Republicans want to install as the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. So apparently any events from Holder’s past “participation in an armed takeover” (of an abandoned ROTC office) did not dissuade Ronald Reagan from appointing him to the Federal Bench.

When someone from the Tea Party shows up with the rest of his or her yahoo anarchist lunatic friends who chant about overthrowing the government, and that person carries a firearm to express their so-called “solidarity” with the Second Amendment, is that person guilty of taking part in “a protest whose purpose is an armed takeover of the United States government”?

Obama supporters

The Red Ranger: I know that you like to portray Romney supporters as idiots but here is one of Obama’s supporters.

The funny thing is that the program that paved the way for these phones was actually enacted during Ronald Reagan’s time in office.  However, Obama has used this program as sort of a bribe to addict his supporters to government handouts.

Natterring Naybob: First, I do not consider Romney’s supporters to be idiots, generally speaking. I consider them elitists who hate anyone with an annual income of less than $100,000. The people I consider idiots, are the ones who actively supported the campiagns of Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. The supporters of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, were a step or two above idiots, but still they were deeply disturbed.

As you mention in your typical “oh by the way” Red Ranger style, this so-called “free phone” program was started in the Reagan Administration (should I bother to remind you that there were no cellphones available to the general public in the Reagan administration, so the “free phones” must have referred to regular home phones…just a bit of factual tidying up). How do you claim that “Obama has used this program as a sort of bribe to addict his supporters to government handouts”? That is such an absurd, irresponsible, unfounded charge that I really don’t know what to say. My only hope is that you mean it “tongue in cheek” as a somewhat comic representation of your party’s default charge that all Obama does is get people (usually minorities) hooked on everything that is bad, and at the taxpayer’s expense, no less. Here is a blog that seems credible (I admit I did not know of its existence until today), that lays out the true story of the “free phone” program. Note that the blogger claims that a program that gives out free phones to people below the poverty line at taxpayer expense, is possibly unconstitutional, so the blogger is obviously NOT a “Lib” to use your snippy shorthand.

Red Ranger, I advise that when you go home tonight, you have a nice dinner, spend time with your lovely wife and two boys, then lay down in a cool, quiet place and watch the Yankees-Red Sox game on your local Boston TV station (go Yanks), and try to forget whatever life trauma has compelled you to endorse such outlandish claims.

The Red Ranger: I find your ability to label Republicans as either elitist or hillbillies depending upon the half-baked position that you are trying to support laughable.  It is widely accepted that the Democratic leadership consider themselves to be the true elites and that anyone who disagrees with them is of marginal intelligence.  The Republican Party is not the party of hate, that belongs to the Dems and their supporters who continuously spew their venom upon anyone who should happen to disagree with their immoral, socialist point of view.  Please refer to my prior Chik-Fil-A blog as support of this.

The facts speak for themselves in regard to the enrollment of people in the “free phone” program under Obama.  Enrollment has grown exponentially in this long-standing program under Obama so his administration must have triggered this growth.  To say otherwise would just be another example of your typical inability to face the facts as they are presented.

Here is a description of the person who you are using to research the “free phone” program:

Robert Scott Bell is a homeopathic practitioner with a passion for health and healing unmatched by anybody on radio.

Sounds like a truly reliable source on “free phones” to me.  I must say that I had a good laugh when I read this about your data source.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, being a homeopathic practitioner who has a passion for health and healing (two issues that you Republicans no doubt consider “elitist”) definitely disqualifies one from speaking with accuracy on any current event or public policy issues. I see what you mean. Damn those homeopathic practitioners! If he were a homophobic practitioner instead, he would have more credentials, from the Republican perspective, I imagine.
Go Yanks.

The Red Ranger: Everyone has the right to speak on any topic.  Whether I choice to believe them or not is up to me. That’s all for today, I am off to see my car mechanic as I am having real bad chest pains….