State of the Union by Carl Moore

?fh=10d1226f328e72e0826c8e58d39b6bd1

Comments (32) Jump to Comments Form

  1. johnnydoc5

    johnnydoc5 said, 7 months ago

    HAHA first comment again!
    That would be an unfortunate scenario.

    Rats, I guess I missed the first comment.

  2. sablebrush5

    sablebrush5 said, 7 months ago

    I’ve seen articles that project just such a scenario - that a significant number of the jobs created by the Dems’ stimulus will be going to illegals. This will not play well in middle America and could possibly put a serious political dent in Obama’s armor.

  3. mytinytown

    mytinytown said, 7 months ago

    These are the facts I am hearing and with Bush’s ignorance of amnesty carried over to that blow hard, it is just going to get worse.
    sablebrush5
    The only problem there is the main stream (Obama’s) media would have to be honest and report it.

  4. kbielefe

    kbielefe said, 7 months ago

    Marktrail,

    It’s not the result he would mind so much as the headline.

  5. wndrwrthg

    wndrwrthgGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    I think the title says it all “Tabloid Nighmares”, not to be confused with the truth. The likes of screwlou dobbs, rush limpballs, glenda beck and sean inanity are not to be believed.

  6. Carmy

    CarmyGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    This made me think of an on Genesis song;

    Consideration for your fellow man
    Would not hurt anybody, it sure fits in with my plan
    Over the border, there lies the promised land
    Where everything comes easy, you just hold out your hand

    It’s no fun being an illegal alien, no no no no no

  7. fogey

    fogeyGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    Obama’s NCAA basketball picks had many misses, but North Carolina won the whole thing as he predicted. Maybe America will be as lucky.
    The Dutch came to America (Manhattan Island) 400 years ago, paid a $24 entry fee, and everybody was happy: would such an entry fee satisfy us native-borns? And the ancestors of the “illegal??” insultingly charicatured in the cartoon might have lived in Texas or California before the USA beat Mexico out of those territories.

  8. mytinytown

    mytinytown said, 7 months ago

    wndrwrthg
    Nice way to insult people. You disagree with them and then insult them, why? Because they do not believe your kind, you liberals resort to insulting when you can not prove someone wrong. Finding out about the illegals getting jobs is easy, you can start with Yahoo.
    fogey
    400 years ago $24 was alot of money.
    I found 1 that did £24 British Pounds, assuming this is what was used in 1600, was worth £3,387.74. Which in US is $4,968. So yes, £24 would be enough. I thought it was only $3,000 to get in now though?
    http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/
    Was the 1600 to 2007 converter.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/currency-converter
    Was the currency converter used.

  9. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Read what you wrote, and I will get to that in a second. First, seems like MatthewJB and you are on the same page. You assert that it is relatively inexpensive to produce an army of missiles with nuclear warhead, MatthewJB thinks that no one will allow it to happen. Evidently then, it is not inexpensive if the entire world community is against you. But you guys are on the same page. You guys rock.

    You need to read what I said completely. The cost of a missile defense has to weighed against the cost of reconstruction post such an attack. The question that one should really ask is if there is a credible threat. If yes, the cost of research is justified. Don’t pick and choose facts that back up your hypotheses.

    Now let me get to the “comparatively inexpensive” part. USA’s GDP (nominal) is 13 Trillion. Iran’s GDP is 285 Billion. North Korea’s GDP is 25 Billion. Pakistan’s GDP is 143 Billion. I left out China because they have too much to lose by getting into a nuclear war. Now in light of these figures, would you explain the “comparatively inexpensive” part again?

    But again, why do I even bother.

  10. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Since you specialize in nit-picking, I must also mention that the missile shield will never be able to defend against a country with enormous nuclear firepower. The entire premise is that this will thwart credible threats from smaller rogue nations and destroy maybe 10 warheads. And that is the reason I eliminated China. Extending this logic, you could eliminate Russia, France, and UK.

  11. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2009-03-08-immigrant-jobs_N.htm

    Man, who woulda thunk that Carl Moore actually wastes time doing his research. Probably he should just hire MatthewJB, FLS and satipera to pick numbers from thin air.

  12. Doctor Toon

    Doctor ToonGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    I had a disturbing dream that there was peace and harmony on the State Of The Union page. I’m glad to see it was just a dream.

  13. Radical-Knight

    Radical-KnightGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    Great ‘Toon, Carl. Comments are bobbins but I must agree with parts of several comments. I heard that cartoonists were afraid they couldn’t parody much from BO, but they seem to be doing OK so far. I think after a year, They’ll be in full form having forgotten all about ‘Dubya’ in two years.
    .
    [EDIT] - Not to worry Doctortoon, the regulars here would never allow this to become boring and peaceful. This is SOTU, not Ozzie and Harriet.

  14. mytinytown

    mytinytown said, 7 months ago

    MatthewJB
    You are VERY, VERY naive if you really think that Iran and Korea will not have nukes and if they do SOMEONE ELSE will take them out. They would expect us to do it then whine about us doing it. This is how the “real” world works.

  15. PossumPete

    PossumPete said, 7 months ago

    At least the illegals work! Unlike the natives that only want hand-outs.

  16. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    I seriously doubt my own sanity since I indulge you. But here I am. You really believe that building a nuclear bomb and exploding it in controlled environment (if at all) is the same as building an ICBM, solving all the associated problems, minifying a nuclear bomb, mounting it on an ICBM and ensuring that the warhead survives the launch, re-entry and speed?

  17. ftbuddy2000

    ftbuddy2000 said, 7 months ago

    Funny, and probably true.

  18. ftbuddy2000

    ftbuddy2000 said, 7 months ago

    (I mean the terror part!)

  19. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Did I say that they can make the odd one? Nope. I said that they are years removed from the time when they will have a strategic nuclear weapon. Even India and Pakistan don’t have a strategic nuclear weapon.

    Seriously satipera, what are you reading? And how exactly do you conclude?

  20. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Logic must not be your strongest suite. My pick is that they can do it in 10 - 12 years. Can that be an option? Or maybe not in your logical world. And given their strength of economy, they may not be able to have more than 10 - 12 strategic weapons. In which case, the missile shields make plenty of sense.

  21. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    So your take is that in 10 years if North Korea has 1 ICBM that can carry a nuclear warhead and target US cities, then it makes no sense whatsoever to build a defense system that can protect US citizens from that attack?

  22. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Your point is well taken. If someone can build 1, then they can build 10 (provided they have the resources - money and weapon grade radioactive material).

    There was a reason why I mentioned the GDP earlier. If you choose to care, you would notice that North Korea’s GDP is 25 Bn and USA’s GDP is 13 Trillion. So the money that North Korea can spend on this research is limited. Hence the importance of timeline.

    The technology is dodgy today. Car technology was dodgy 60 years back. Doesn’t mean that we don’t have good cars today. So my point is that by the time North Korea has its arsenal, this dodgy technology of missile shield will be mature and more than capable of handling any threat posed by smaller nations.

    I fail to see your premise. So if you could please “telegraph your entire thought” may be it would help me see your side of the story much better.

  23. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 7 months ago

    MatthewJB

    Dear god man what are you talking about. I mean really. Are you so hung up on your self that all you can do is complain about a comic strip. Or is this some pathetic attempt for attention. Honest you sound like some pseudo intellectual. WAAAAAAAAAAA. I am smarted then this strip WAAAAAAA. How often is it that any media has to substantiate them selves.

  24. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    Why didn’t I think of that earlier? Now your logic makes sense.

    *@MatthewJB: (from yesterday)
    The stem-cell matter, to name one that Carl Moore proudly mentions, simply entailed lifting a ban that should never have been placed.*

    I love it when folks twist things around. The “ban” was on government funding on destructive embryonic stem cell research. Bush did not “ban stem cell research” because he didn’t have the authority to do so. And Obama also reversed the direction that instructed NIH to look for stem cells in sources other than embryo. Man…isn’t Bush the greatest evil?

    @Jack:
    The data is substantiated Jack. I have posted a USA Today link with the article.

  25. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    No man. The porridge thing…That’s what was eluding me. Now I get it.

    Are you kidding me? You are the one who has not provided a shred of analysis.

  26. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 7 months ago

    Thanks attyush so much for Hope and Change using Government money to increase political rolls. The Republicans and the Democrats are the same.

  27. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 7 months ago

    MatthewJB

    Oh by the way. Calling the people Bigots here every other day shows that you are the guy who likes to call others Bigots to make you feel better about yourself. Believe me you shouldn’t.

  28. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 7 months ago

    There is one other argument of missile defense. It is not one system. They are loading anti missile defense on ships like the two they sent to Korea if needed. They are building a base in Alaska and they have that plan that shoots a laser. All have past some kind of test. All this really means is I like redundancy in my missile defense so how many we can shoot down nobody here knows.

  29. attyush

    attyush said, 7 months ago

    @satipera:

    You still don’t get it. Your analogy/argument, whatever you call that, hinges on the fact that by the time those guys are building #s 2 thru 10, we are sitting twiddling our thumbs. No man, and I need to spell it out else you’d never get it, we are improving on the existing missile shield. You said earlier that timeline was not an important consideration. It is, precisely because of this reason. In 10 years, they may have 10 missiles, but then they have to deal with an even more mature shield.

    So yes, you are right, I am the one being obtuse. I was born this way, man. Logic doesn’t work well with me. Rhetorics do.

  30. Tigger

    TiggerGenius_badge said, 7 months ago

    Much Truth in this one…

    Seems everyone has a short memory of the Youtube Video of the Illegals popping up all over the White House whne Bush was our President.

    Link:http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1696415

  31. mytinytown

    mytinytown said, 7 months ago

    MatthewJB
    My point was not that someone else has not or could not take them out. My point was we can not depend on them doing so. We can not depend on Israel to take out our enemies weapons. We can not depend on the Chinese either. Or anyone else, cause no matter if you are right or wrong on your reasons why, does not always mean it will happen the way you said it would. If our enemy gets nukes we have to to take them out, unless someone beats us to it. As well you ignorant buddy Comrade Obama wants to eliminate all of our nukes first! Typical moronic liberal extremest. Got a question, whats the difference in a liberal and a socialist?
    FYI, if you post something else here let me know or post on tomorrows, I have no plans on looking back after this post. Thank you.

  32. OnTarget

    OnTarget said, 7 months ago

    Mattie
    Nice what did you do delete or edit.