On Feb 17, 6:32 am, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 10:17:05PM -0500, "Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 " wrote:

Mark R. Whittington wrote:
Recently both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were interviewed by the
editorial board of the Houston Chronicle. While Hillary Clinton seemed
to flip flop on space policy, Barack Obama reiterated his opposition
to publically funded human space flight.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._clinton_and_b....

We could have a base on every moon in the solar system for what the
stupid ****ing president has spent on his war machine.

That's a good point although I doubt the monies would have bought
moonbases, as such. There can be no real argument that had the war
expenditures been redirected at advancing the state of the art in space and
rocket systems, commercial off-planet access of any kind would be an
entirely different proposition.

I suppose it boils down to a question of priorities. Those with the purse-
strings are sold on the war, and so that's where the money goes.

Wallace Wright

There's big-time profit and many other gains to behold about war,
especially if you can manage to perpetrate it, taking from others, or
the keeping of others from ever affordably sharing in the energy
wealth of what Muslims have to offer. War (hot or cold) is a win-win
for the old status quo gipper, no matters how many innocent souls and
collateral damage it demands, whereas the rich and powerful get a
whole lot richer and more powerful.

NASA's space explorations are thus far a lose-lose for the old gipper,
often based upon evidence exclusions, carefully orchestrated public
disinformation and outright lies to boot. It's an insiders game
that's entirely funded by our hard earned loot, whereas every dollar
we give them buys another $10 that we also get to pay for.
. - Brad Guth