America Officially Rejects Death Star

[Giovenith]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those Star Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

It's called a joke, dear.

[Blazedtown]

The fools. How are we suppose to conquer the galaxy without planet destroying super weapons? Maybe we could compromise and just build a small fleet of Star Destroyers.

[The House of Isaac]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those Star Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

It's called a joke, dear.

An object of mass destruction is not something to joke about, madam.

[Constaniana]

Good, good...now the U.K can begin building the H.M.S.S Death Star, and Britannia shall rise again, mightier than she ever was before! *laughs evilly while sipping tea and adjusting monocle and top hat*

[Wisconsin9]

It's called a joke, dear.

An object of mass destruction is not something to joke about, madam.

I beg to differ.

[Arkotania]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those Star Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

Are thou taking fiction seriously?

For one, Star Wars literally tells people not to try to define it within our own area by starting off "Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...". This implies the fact that it is neither happening in our time nor in our space. Thus it is safe to assume that in whatever Galaxy this star wars stuff goes on, they possess the necessary elements and technology to produce such artifacts.

And it seems you underestimate people's intelligence by assuming they meant it seriously. Such a proposition was meant to be humorous.

Destroying planets would be a demonstration of the technology possessed by the creator.

And what have you against Star Wars? Such a belief is considered a reason for bias, thus making your statement obviously intent on discrediting the light-hearted people who agreed with the proposition. Have you no humor?!

[The House of Isaac]

Good, good...now the U.K can begin building the H.M.S.S Death Star, and Britannia shall rise again, mightier than she ever was before! *laughs evilly while sipping tea and adjusting monocle and top hat*

Again, an object of mass destruction is not something to laugh about.

[The Republic of Lanos]

"This is not the petition response you were looking for."

Priceless.

[The House of Isaac]

An object of mass destruction is not something to joke about, madam.

I beg to differ.

Tom Lehrer is not part of this.

[The House of Isaac]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those Star Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

Are thou taking fiction seriously?

For one, Star Wars literally tells people not to try to define it within our own area by starting off "Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...". This implies the fact that it is neither happening in our time nor in our space. Thus it is safe to assume that in whatever Galaxy this star wars stuff goes on, they possess the necessary elements and technology to produce such artifacts.

And it seems you underestimate people's intelligence by assuming they meant it seriously. Such a proposition was meant to be humorous.

Destroying planets would be a demonstration of the technology possessed by the creator.

And what have you against Star Wars? Such a belief is considered a reason for bias, thus making your statement obviously intent on discrediting the light-hearted people who agreed with the proposition. Have you no humor?!

To answer your questions, yes and yes.

[Wisconsin9]

I beg to differ.

Tom Lehrer is not part of this.

You said an object of mass destruction is not something to joke about. I begged to differ. As did Tom Lehrer. And his audience. And a lot of people, based on the comments.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Good, good...now the U.K can begin building the H.M.S.S Death Star, and Britannia shall rise again, mightier than she ever was before! *laughs evilly while sipping tea and adjusting monocle and top hat*

Again, an object of mass destruction is not something to laugh about.

Clearly someone with no sense of humor.

[Arkotania]

Good, good...now the U.K can begin building the H.M.S.S Death Star, and Britannia shall rise again, mightier than she ever was before! *laughs evilly while sipping tea and adjusting monocle and top hat*

Again, an object of mass destruction is not something to laugh about.

Dr.Strangelove disagrees.

[Bleckonia]

The United States officially responded to an online petition asking that government to build a death star. (yes the one from Star Wars)
While refusing on the grounds of the cost of the project (allegedly $850 quadrillion), the United States government stated that the United States of America is adamantly opposed to blowing up planets that have people on them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

How much would you like to bet the first Republican gets elected President will try to build a Death Star to spite Obama?

How much would you like to bet that same Republican would blame the next Democratic president for their budget problems?

[Nationstatelandsville]

I have lost all respect for this nation.

[Undivulged Principles]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those S
tar Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

Not sure which is sillier, the proposal or this response.

[Wisconsin9]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those S
tar Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

Not sure which is sillier, the proposal or this response.

At least the proposal was deliberately silly.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I have lost all respect for this nation.

You haven't been here long if you just broke your hate-cherry.

[Gigaverse]

America + Death Star = Dream On.

[Wikkiwallana]

Officially becoming republican now.

First guns, now my goddamn lightsaber.

Actually, if you had read it, you would have seen them demonstrate that Obama is pro-lightsaber.

[Arkotania]

Again, an object of mass destruction is not something to laugh about.

Clearly someone with no sense of humor.

What are the odds? Two Dr.Strangelove refereneces on a single page.

Oh god. I think this means the world will end.

[The House of Isaac]

Thousands of people have died from WMDs. Now, who would like to meet those families and see if they would enjoy a joke on WMDs?

[San-Silvacian]

What an silly proposal. This will never happen under current technology, and even if Star Wars was cool (I find it ridiculous, personally, so no offense to all you fans), what is the point of a Death Star? A Tesla death ray is perfectly fine, and they are less expensive. I believe in developing technologies to create a perpetually habitable space station, but a Death Star is not necessary. A small colony on the moon or Mars should be the first step. Besides, who in their right mind would spend 850 quadrillion dollars on some ugly space station that could be infiltrated by small objects. It honestly should not have come up in the first place. If this proposal was seriously accepted and thought about, it would be centuries before we could develop the technology and the resources to build something that huge. A wouldn't the sheer mass and gravity make the center, or core, of the Death Star melt, making most of it unlivable. The sheer firepower is silly. What is the point of destroying planets. We need Jupiter because it deflects many asteroids from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud headed for Earth. A perfect thing to destroy would be Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt. We do not need that little dwarf planet, and breaking it into smaller pieces could allow us to mine those smaller pieces and more resources, making the remains useful. A proposition such as this should never have been brought up, in my opinion. Let those Star Wars fans, revel in their lost dreams forever, I say.

Alright Captain Buzzkill.

It was a serious joke, most likely something that went allot farther than expected. Get over it and chill. Go complain about something more meaningful.

Also Commie Obama doesn't want this because all the defense money is going to obama kkkare.

down with liberal commie slime balls.

palpatine vader 2016

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Officially becoming republican now.

First guns, now my goddamn lightsaber.

Actually, if you had read it, you would have seen them demonstrate that Obama is pro-lightsaber.

...

...You read it?

[Nationstatelandsville]

I have lost all respect for this nation.

You haven't been here long if you just broke your hate-cherry.

(glances at post count)

I suppose I'm just shy.