Message boards :
Politics :
Obama to cancel NASA
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Probes are easier and require much less space than sending people to planets. I'd rather see near time use of NASA's budget spent on probes to planets/asteroids than trying to get someone there. Of course he wants to scrap NASA. Spending on space doesn't get him as many votes as spending on welfare fraud does. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
google this "NASA 2012 budget" You'll find that there is plenty of news. All from February of this year. Wanna guess why? Because the Gov't budget is set in advance of the fiscal year. The fiscal Year for the Federal gov't starts October 1st. So if the budget is going to be eliminated it would have had to have been done sometime in the past. http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/08/large-budget-cu.html "The Obama administration is directing federal agencies to submit fiscal 2013 budget requests that are at least 10 percent below their current appropriation level." So most likely there won't be any change in NASA. As I said before we are predicting the end of NASA from one article that cannot be substantiated anywhere else other than that one article. Soooo the administration sees that private companies are further along with the technology for the next gen of space platforms and suddenly we have the Capitalists screaming in the night that NASA is dying. I'm afraid it isn't going anywhere. The big change is that they appear to be relying in private corporations to create advanced launch vehicles for their probes. Also from what I've read they've not cut the NASA budget. They've frozen it. That seems generous since they will no longer be spending a bucket load of cash on refurbishing the aging shuttles. I do wonder why we didn't have plans to make new shuttles with updated designs and modern technology on board. retire one every 4 years and put a new one out to take its place. [url][/url] In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
I see you too are a gleeful consumer of the Bectaid and Rushful. Prove to me that welfare fraud gets him votes. Note, I said welfare fraud. I realize that opposing efforts to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and let the sick and poor simply die off might seem a fraudulent concern to some. But for that breed of folks, the preface of the constitution doesn't count.
|
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Prove to me that welfare fraud gets him votes. Note, I said welfare fraud. Now that is going to be hard to prove, since you are asking me to find the fraud. So you find the fraud first, and I'll show you the votes for Obama. Government found fraud, well, the fraudsters loose their right to vote ... so I can only show you the votes for fraud cases the government hasn't found yet. Find some. Or do you want to go with the assumption that the people who do fraud are a cross section of Americans. Since a cross section of Americans is more Democratic party ... there are your votes. Or would you rather assume that fraudsters are a cross section of convicted felons. I'm sure you can find statistics on what political party most convicted felons belonged to. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
You see, it was your original assertion here -- so you get the do the extra work. It is a ploy of the Bechtoads, and Rushbies to use a presumption of guilt in their various wails. But that's not how our system of justice operates. I suspect most Bechtoholics don't know this, but that you do. But you are correct, when concepts of safety nets for the poor and the ill, or addressing the increasingly disproportionate share of wealth in this country are discussed, it is inevitable that TeaPublican partisans will turn a cold shoulder. They seemingly never get sick, and are all in the 1%, and further, lack a Christian moral compass. They believe, with Cain (what an apt name) that the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and the poor more numerous as a function of God's will and the generalized laziness of the masses. Unlike you, I don't accept that presumption of guilt.
|
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
so much for discussing the space program...Oh and congratulations on derailing the thread. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
You see, it was your original assertion here -- so you get the do the extra work. Sorry you didn't like the result. If you can, prove the average welfare fraudster is different. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
They seemingly never get sick, and are all in the 1%, and further, lack a Christian moral compass. Some of us consider the part in bold a good thing. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
I understand regarding my choice of words to modify moral compass, I figured I might be playing to a TeaPublican audience. Back to the topic at hand, with a government budget under intense pressure to get smaller and be (as some TeaPublicans have championed) *inconsequential*, it should come as no surprise that programs such as NASA are under the gun. When you have a blocking majority in the House and a blocking minority (under Senate Rules) in the Senate against ANY increases in any taxes, AND that same group insists on monumental efforts to balance the budget, and yet also insists that defense spending must increase, programs like NASA go to the head of the chopping block. If you want to see NASA funded, I guess it must be re-militarized. And make sure the same corporations which profit from the military funding profit from a militarized NASA program as that way advocates for military funding get the right effluence from lobbyists. One alternative is to take the *corporations are people* and *corporations are soul of America* vantage point and privatize NASA. Either of those should be fine, since corporations profiting from the military budget, and simply private corporations NEVER engage in fraud, waste and abuse -- the only folks who do that are the welfare moms, people on disability, the poor and the elderly -- they are the only ones getting rich off of the government these days. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
The thread seemingly got derailed when the railing turned out to be to blame Obama for making a choice between welfare fraud and NASA. As rational people might realize, that is truly a straw man -- and a thread derailing approach. so much for discussing the space program...Oh and congratulations on derailing the thread. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
The thread seemingly got derailed when the railing turned out to be to blame Obama for making a choice between welfare fraud and NASA. As rational people might realize, that is truly a straw man -- and a thread derailing approach. Unfortunately funding is part of the space program. The money is going somewhere else. Given that Obama is a Chicago Politician, there is every reason to believe that it will be used as a bribe for more votes. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
As opposed to the Texas politicians who NEVER use funding for other purposes. Cool, glad to know <giggle>. LBJ is now turning over, let alone the chuckles that Rove is getting out of this. Find a clean politician -- go ahead, make my day.
|
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space hardware, specifically manned space craft. Boeing and Lockheed/Martin are private corporations just like Space X. I doubt that anybody will build a fully functioning manned spacecraft without any government backing and funding. No matter who builds a manned spacecraft they will have to meet NASA safety standards before getting permission to put one human into orbit or beyond. So there won't be any backyard homeboys building their own low tech space dump trucks to collect space garbage. So whether or not a small underfunded start up aerospace corporation will build the next manned space vehicle remains doubtful to me. I am not counting Burt Rutan's sub orbital craft as it has no potential to evolve into an orbital vehicle. Abandoning NASA is about as stupid as closing the FAA would be. Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Bob, I agree, but then again, I've been branded a socialist <smile> That being said, it seems that NASA over the past 20 years or more, has had its share of mishandled and mismanaged programs. These make it a target in the political sphere from both the left and the right. I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
does seem like you have really drunk Becktaid or Rushpills. I took you for less stupid than that. Wah, wah, Rush coined Feminazis, so when some less moral wonks on the "other side" mimic him, Rush fans cry foul when it's "turnabout is fair play." Except there probably is no other side. MSNBC is owned by a corporation. Those corporations the Occupiers you dislike are protesting against. So which is it? Do you support the protesters or oppose them? Do you support corporations and the media outlets they own, or oppose them? Sowwsh. Slam. Dunk. Thank you. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
does seem like you have really drunk Becktaid or Rushpills. I took you for less stupid than that. I mean, seriously, Sarah, "I studied journalism in college", "I hate the lamestream media" that I "manipulate so well" Palin? She and Obama could be best friends for all we know. A video AFTER the election with McCain and Obama sure seemed to show cooler sides of them way to soon after a supposedly vitriolic election. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Probes are easier and require much less space than sending people to planets. I'd rather see near time use of NASA's budget spent on probes to planets/asteroids than trying to get someone there. Face it, when Bush said let's go BACK to the MOON, an accomplishment we already achieved and didn't need to revisit before shooting for MARS, you know NASA was screwed right then and there. BACK TO THE MOON? NUTS!!! :) |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I wonder about all the hype over the "privatization" of building space hardware, specifically manned space craft. Boeing and Lockheed/Martin are private corporations just like Space X. I doubt that anybody will build a fully functioning manned spacecraft without any government backing and funding. No matter who builds a manned spacecraft they will have to meet NASA safety standards before getting permission to put one human into orbit or beyond. So there won't be any backyard homeboys building their own low tech space dump trucks to collect space garbage. Despite standards and laws, eventually, someone who thinks they can do it is going to do it or try to do it. And the question is, will it be the right choice? Still, someone will most definitely try. And I'd rather see them try that than see if they can rap better than Marshall Smathers. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.