Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has come out in support of nuking the moon, though his reasoning for its necessity is different from mine.
(hat tip to reader Nora)
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has come out in support of nuking the moon, though his reasoning for its necessity is different from mine.
(hat tip to reader Nora)
Dude, he stole your idea, though I’m glad he does point out it would desecrate one of the symbols of Radical Islam and I’m ALL for that…firking, fargon, gorram moonbat lunatics.
While i am in agreement with scaring the shiite out of the world by a fantastic, irrational violent act, I would prefer we nuke something with much less value than the moon. I sorta like our national parks, so let’s not nuke them. Unless we nuked canada, which everyone knows is America’s largest national park.
I also think that you do have to harm (polite psycho way of saying kill) many people. Otherwise they will know although it was irrational we didn’t hurt anyone. The obvious choice is Iran. Iran sucks out loud, and they aren’t even Arab. Sure, there may be one or two innocent kids there who haven’t had the chance to blow themselves up yet, but if they were really innocent they have migrated legally to America. So, do not nuke the moon, let’s build a space station there, just nuke Iran and steal all its oil. Thanks. God bless. Buh-bye now.
I think before we go interplanetary we simply need to nuke North Korea, the Middle East and anyone else that can’t play well with others. It would be less expensive and much more productive and in the end safer.
If North Korean missiles miss the moon, they may impact eventually on some other planet who would I’m sure be seriously P.O.’d. They’d come here and we’d have a “Men in Black” situation, without the benefit of Agents J and K.
The Demoncrat’s would spend their time insisting that there is NO crisis and attempting to get the aliens to fill out voter registration cards. We’d have to sic Hillary on them. One meeting with her and they’d leave our planet like last weeks fuzzy meat-loaf. If she’s in charge maybe I’d go with them.
Scott Adams is a raging moonbat, and giving him traffic is a really bad idea.
He enjoys calling the USA the rapists of the Middle East, supports the USA abandoning Israel, and is currently advocating that Iran should run southern Iraq (where the oil is).
Read his blog and weep.
I find it amusing that four of the comments he received cited your link.
Scott isn’t a raging moonbat, but he does like taking absurd positions just to see the stupid comments people will make.
If he were a true moonbat, he wouldn’t be calling for Bill Gates as president.
And he wanted more wars like the hezbollah attack on Israel because “Everybody wins”, a satire on both Hez and Israel claiming victory.
One of the earlier links posted here was to one of his posts describing the absurdity of the whole “war for oil” idea (“I need a bigger boat!”)
Of course most of the people leaving comments disagreed without actually addressing the point he brought up, so just reading the comments you would think it was a liberal blog.
Yeah, I suppose you could say he enjoys taking absurd positions.
On Israel:
— “So while Americans have an unconditional love for Israel, we also think it’s an arrogant, warmongering, hypocritical, ignorant, psycho dickheaded country.” (8/29/06)
— “America is the father, the Islamic countries in the Middle East are the mother, and Israel is the offspring conceived by rape.” (8/29/06)
On the Iranian President saying the Holocaust is a myth:
— “I’m suspicious of the translation that got him to the word “myth.” To me it sounds like he’s saying the story of the holocaust has too much influence on the present.” (9/6/06)
In reply to Iran’s flogging and public hanging of two young boys charged with disrupting public order:
— “So we don’t like their legal system. That would apply to a lot of our allies as well.” (9/6/06)
On why the USA gives money to Israel:
— “So far I haven’t found anyone who can think of a good reason.” (5/18/06)
— “terrorists would have less justification to attack the U.S. if we discontinued our support for Israel.” (5/19/06)
On the motivations of terrorists:
— “The terrorists would like us to stop raping their countries of natural resources.” (5/27/06)
Shilling for Hizbollah after the war:
— “The leader of Hezbollah said in an interview that kidnapping the two Israeli soldiers was a mistake because of all the destruction it sparked.” (8/29/06)
On the Iranian President saying that Islam will conquer and rule the world:
— “Don’t Christians think the same thing?” (9/6/06)
On the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq:
— “We couldn’t hit the ones who hit us, but we had to hit SOMEONE just to feel better emotionally.” (4/27/06)
— “Our Vietnam-avoiding president needed to prove he wasn’t frickin’ wuss.” (4/27/06)
— “The U.S. couldn’t kill Osama, so we whacked Saddam instead.” (8/10/06)
On whether Iran is lying when it says it has no nuclear weapon ambitions:
— .my first impulse is to assume the Iranians are lying. But that would require me to believe that my own government is telling the truth, and that’s a tough sell too. I’m genuinely embarrassed to admit that it’s a toss up. (5/12/06)
On Iran’s leadership:
— “I think that the Iranian religious leaders value their credibility with their own people.” (5/12/06)
— “has Iran acted in any ways that didn’t make sense? (I remind you that they keep achieving their goals and are growing in influence and power in the region.)” (8/25/06)
— “I don’t think they are collectively less rational than Israel.” (8/25/06)
— “When did the current leadership of Iran vow to annihilate another country?” (9/6/06)
His suggestion (he insists it’s a “thought experiment”) for what the USA should do to achieve Mideast peace:
— “We apologize for supporting the Shah those many years ago and show Iran some respect for their opinions even though we respectfully disagree….. We withdraw our economic support of Israel….. We invite Iran to help in Iraq as we withdraw our forces…. The U.S. starts abstaining from U.N. votes that involve Israel.” (8/25/06)
On the behavior of BOTH sides during the Hizbollah/Israel war:
— “since no one can win or lose, they settle for killing as many random civilians as possible because that’s one thing they can do. The thinking, I gather, is that killing random people and never winning is still better than doing nothing and looking weak.” (8/10/06)
On America:
— “when America is accused of being warmongering Jesus-spouting hypocrites, my first reaction isn’t “Take that back!” I usually just nod and mutter something like, “Good point.” ” (8/29/06)
On how the West feels about Muslims:
— “A lot of Americans want to eliminate all Muslims” (8/25/06)
— “a lot of Israelis want to eliminate Islam” (8/25/06)
His justification of the appeasement of Iran, based on the aftermath of Vietnam:
— “Years later we can see that giving the enemy what they wanted was clearly in our best national interest.” (8/26/06)