Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Discuss Space Policy

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...a_discuss.html

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...a_discuss.html


This is yet another reason to support this candidate.

Clinton supports Mr Bush plans to play down science and
take priority in human spaceflight.

Obama doesn't see any practical use of sending people
in space.



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Feb 16, 2:29 pm, jacob navia 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...

This is yet another reason to support this candidate.

Clinton supports Mr Bush plans to play down science and
take priority in human spaceflight.

Obama doesn't see any practical use of sending people
in space.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatiquehttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Unless we can establish anything as manned within the moon's L1, Obama
is 100% correct. Of course Venus L2 would be much cooler and far less
gamma and hard-X-ray saturated.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 16, 7:17 pm, "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.

--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 7/8

That's true enough, as well as having established a Bigelow POOF City
at Venus L2, not to mention of something Clarke Station worthy parked
within the Earth-Moon L1. Instead, we've ****ed off nearly half the
world, got ourselves another century of debt and WWIII to look forward
to.
. - Brad Guth

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...a_discuss.html

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

On 17 Feb, 14:32, 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

Your logic defeats me. Commercial operations are about MAKING money,
NOT spending it.


- Ian Parker

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On 17 Feb, 14:32, 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

Your logic defeats me.

*Everyone's* logic defeats you, since you have no comprehension of
logic.

On 17 Feb, 15:09, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





On 17 Feb, 14:32, 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

Your logic defeats me.

*Everyone's* logic defeats you, since you have no comprehension of
logic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh! Youve started up again with your friend Wallace. Don't know what
his real name is. He writes under a pseudonym. says so himself.
Perhaps he has several. No one knows. Is he a woman, Geoge Elliot was.
Could I ask you a question, a simple English question. What does the
word "commercial" mean? Surely it is to do with trading and making
money.


- Ian Parker

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:29:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On 17 Feb, 15:09, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:53:15 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





On 17 Feb, 14:32, 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

Your logic defeats me.

*Everyone's* logic defeats you, since you have no comprehension of
logic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh! Youve started up again with your friend Wallace.

He is not my "friend." I have no idea who he is, and little interest
in what he writes. I was simply warning him about you as a common
courtesy.

Could I ask you a question, a simple English question. What does the
word "commercial" mean? Surely it is to do with trading and making
money.

What a bizarre, non sequitur question.