...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:18:37 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

This commision was the first step of the Bush administration to
revamp Nasa and the space industry. Which eventually
became the Vision. Notice the word 'defense' is used
270 times.

Unsurprising, since its a report on the Aerospace Industry, and not
just NASA, and defense is an enormous fraction of that industry, far
more than is NASA. By most (sane) accounts, the Columbia accident is
what spurred the Vision, and that didn't happen until three months
after this report.

"Recommendation #3
The Commission recommends that the United
States create a space imperative. The DoD, NASA,
and industry must partner

I was wondering if you'd see that part. What this
says to me is aerospace needs a big infusion of govt
cash so the industry doesn't fall apart.
I don't have a problem at all with the govt preventing
the loss of an important capability.

But if we're going to pump hundreds of billions into
the industry, it should be done in a way that
benefits society as much as possible.
So the program isn't just make-work.

It's like the govt bailing out GM by having them
build a hundred million buggy-whips.
It's just plain stupid at best, most likely ignorant
and at worst flat-out corrupt.

Of the benefits listed below, national security, the
defense dept, is getting the lions share
of the benefits. Missile defense is the priority
of this administration. The other benefits are
tokens and you know it.

Those billions could be building something
that changes the world, and makes Nasa
relevant again. That deals with problems
facing society.

But since the foxes are guarding the hen-house
it only makes sense they'd design a program
for themselves that doesn't break any new ground.
That doesn't sove any hard problems. That just
repeats what we've done before. Why put any
pressure on themselves when they don't
have to?

This is about their bottom line, not about us.

s




in innovative aerospace
technologies, especially in the areas of propulsion
and power. These innovations will enhance our
national security, provide major spin-offs to our
economy, accelerate the exploration of the near and
distant universe with both human and robotic missions,
and open up new opportunities for public
space travel and commercial space endeavors in the
21st century."

Oh yeah, that's a bunch of war-mongers at work, alright...

But don't read it, God forbid you should
know what you're talking about and no longer be
able to mindlessly call everyone a loon.

If the mating call fits...

Brian

On 18 Jan 2007 18:17:45 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Okay, then what did Libby lie about?

How would I know? I don't know if he lied about anything.

But there are grounds for him being in court for lying. So someone in a
legal capacity that has spoken to him has found instances where his
stories were not straight.

What he's
accused of lying about is who he talked to and when about lying Joe
Wilson's wife.

So Rand, is it Joe Wilson that you are calling a liar or his wife?

The Senate Intelligence Committee called Joe Wilson a liar, and
documented it.

Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.

If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
for his foolish trip explained, then yes.

Rand, Joe Wilson is not the only person on earth that has found that
there no WMD in Iraq when Bush and Co. said that there were.

If Wilson is such a liar then why did Bush's lackies bother with
outting his wife as a CIA agent as punishment?

They didn't, you moron.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ps.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 11:16:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..


You really don't read the paper or keep up with politics
do you? If Libby is lying, he's falling on his sword for
somebody, probably Cheney. Just like Poindexter
did for Reagan. He'll do a couple of years, if he's
guilty, and be rewarded for his loyalty with a big
fat job. Selling out your boss, when he's a really
big insider, is the professional kiss of death.




So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
reason?

Face it, Rand, the neocons and their movement has run its course.
Clowns like you that blindly support these crooks are going to be
marginalized as the electorate is tired have having the wool pulled
over their eyes.

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Morons of a feather, and all that...
: :
: :Top posting, Freddy? How desperate are you?
:
: It's preamble, you moron. The posting is in-line, as usual.
:
:Preamble, like the Constitution? The only constitution you really know
:is the you take, or I should say leave, each morning.

And once again we see El Chimpko make an ignorant statement and then
act as if it's 'true' to say something even more stupid.

:
: :
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Jonathan wrote:
: : :
: : : I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
: : : President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
: : : an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.
: : :
: : : This is a huge program designed to maintain
: : : our aerospace capabilities for future military
: : : needs, as they arise. This is a gigantic make-work
: : : program for the military industrial contractors.
: : :
: : :Unfortunately, to a degree, so was Apollo.
: :
: : Wee what I mean? Loon to loon communication.
: :
: :So there was no aspect of "beat the Russians" -space race- WRT to
: :Apollo? Freddy, surely you haven't gone brain-dead?
:
: What's that got to do with it being "a gigantic make-work program for
: the military industrial contractors", you stupid ass?
:
:Temper Freddy. Ad hominem really doesn't suit you, nor anyone for that
:matter.

Stupid Usenet Tricks 101.

:As far as make-work programs go, Apollo was a very good and and
:justified, IMO. Many other make-work programs like the current war are
:not.

Get back to me when you come down from whatever the hell it is you're
on.

: : :
: : : If you think Bush and Cheney are moved by
: : : visions of grandiose space colonies that
: : : usher in a trekkian utopia....you need to
: : : aquaint yourself with this concept
: : :
: : :
: : :Again, despite that Bush/Cheney making their claim, you are right,
: : :there is a military aspect to it.
: :
: : Oh? What military aspect would that be?
: :
: :Going back to the moon to set up the first lunar base? Are you mad?
:
: Let's try again. Oh? What military aspect would that be?
:
:You don't see the military advantage to having the first lunar base?

No. Neither does the military.

: : :Again, so was Apollo.
: :
: : Oh? What military aspect would that be?
: :
: :Having the first lunar landing is the de facto military superiority in
: :space. Freddy, did you miss the memo?
:
: It's got nothing to do with the "military superiority". El Chimpko,
: did you miss the reality?
:
:So then, why would we feel threatened if someone else beat us to it?

Did I say you would or should feel threatened, or are you confused by
your own delusions again.

:I
:mean are you going to tell me that if the Chinese were to establish the
:first lunar base we would not feel threateded militarily by the move?

Only insofar as the capabilities it demonstrates. A lunar base is
militarily meaningless insofar as the Earth goes.

What do you think such a base allows them to do that they couldn't do
without it?

:Counter-intelligence never was your bag, was it Freddy? You only know
:how to think one way don't you?

True. That way would be 'correct'. You, on the other hand,
apparently never even learned to think ONE way...

: : :
: : : We get nothing, at least they could've come
: : : up with a military industrial welfare program that
: : : also benefited society. But then they'd have
: : : to actually accomplish something, produce
: : : a product that mattered to us. With the Vision they
: : : don't have to create anything new or valuable
: : : for society, just repeat what's been done before.
: : : And watch society go ho-hum-been-there-done-that
: : : -who-cares. Which is just fine with them.
: : :
: : : As they don't care what we think about it.
: :
: : That's because you're certifiable.
: :
: :Be clear on who you are posting to, as you claim to have a
: :certification to being sane and stable.
:
: It's in-line posting, you moron. Any idiot can tell what (and who)
: it's in response to.
:
:Sure what ever you say, McClod. What happened your latest advances get
:rejected? Ex-wife get an increase in alimony. You're actually much
:nastier than usual, if that is possible.

No, you're just stupider than usual (if that is possible).

:
: :
: : :
: : :Use their money and make it the way we want, like Apollo.
: : :
: :
: : Whose money do you think you're getting to use, Eric?
: :
: OD and NASA along with NSF and others. Do you want to go to Mars or
: :not?
:
: And you think DoD money is going into that? What the **** are you
: smoking NOW?
:
:Sure would be nice. How much DOD $ went into Apollo? None? Shuttle?
:None? Where is the NASA/DOD line drawn WRT $, Freddy? Can you predict
:it?

Can you actually cite a fact for a change? I'm betting not.

[Shuttle got DoD dollars from USAF, but only because it was supposed
to be used to launch their satellites. When that stopped, USAF
support ended.]

:
: : Oh, and you calling yourself a 'scientist' is absolute
: : misrepresentation.
: :
: :No Freddy, sorry to burst your bubble. Your taken math and econ degrees
: :vs. my earned CompSci degrees beg to differ.
:
: Sorry, but CS degrees don't make you a 'scientist', you silly ass. I
: have one of those, too, you see.
:
:Yes, but you don't seem to know the difference between OS-9 and OS/9.
:And maybe you are just a programmer with your CS degree, I'm a
:scientist.

snicker

:
: :I'l stand toe-to-toe with
: :you on any subject and have. You have no inherent superiority here,
: :never have.
:
: The government has a book that gives job classification and title by
: function. I seriously doubt yours is 'scientist'. Your head is far
: to far up your ass for that.
:
:You're right. I'm actually both a computer scientist (senior, actually)
:and an engineer (software, systems, computer). All of the above.
:Currently, my title is Test Data Engineer, before that it was Systems
:Engineer and before that Sr. Computer Scientist. Now unless they
:stripped me of my title since I switched jobs.

That last isn't a complete sentence, but yes, they did.

I'll simply note that you're avoiding the question (again).

: :P.S. Come to MD. Look me up. I will take take you to places in the
: :Smithsonian and DC in general you have never seen.
:
: Unlikely. Been there, done that.
:
:Yes, I'm sure.

Yes, you usually are. Of course, you're usually wrong, too, but you
don't let that affect your surety.

: You need to make up your mind. I have no choice but to believe your
: previous threats to visit bodily harm upon me, which means should I
: ever find myself in your presence I would feel compelled to act in
: self-defense.
:
:Yes, I think you're too chicken so best we don't meet. I'd completly
:undo this whole business have you posting a retraction, with no
hysical harm.

Quite right. You have threatened to inflict serious physical harm on
me, which terrifies me to the point where I feel compelled to do
whatever is necessary to defend myself should we ever meet.

: :Further, when done,
: :we will raise a glass and you will come back to this board touting me
: :as a friend and take back well over 50% of what you have stated about
: :me. That is a promise not a threat.
:
: If you want people to take back things they've said about you, try not
: acting like quite such a colossal git.
:
:What, seek your approval? Is that what you're asking of me? I don't
:need your approval, Freddy.

In other words, you are unable to act like anything other than what
you manifestly are -- a colossal git.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Brian Thorn wrote:
: : On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:04:02 GMT, h (Rand
: : Simberg) wrote:
: :
: : Why the smiley face Thorn? Tommorrow Libby goes on trial and said GOP
: : and MIC cronies will be under the microscope. With the Dems in Congress
: : now don't expect any soft treatment. Just because his daddy's name is
: : on the CIA buidling doesn't mean his administration has full access to
: : the agency. Some heads are going to roll when Libby sings. I hope that
: : in the very least Cheney gives up the roll list of the Energy Task
: : Force he had secret meetings with when he was getting his instructions
: : to invade Iraq.
: :
: : Eric, no one here is interested in your lunatic fantasies.
: :
: : Damn, I killfiled Chomko long ago... now that I see he's aligning
: : himself with conspiracy loons like KT and Jonathan, I'm certain I made
: : the right decision...
: :
: :Yeah, right. No, I get to laugh at right-wingers that will squirm.
: :Libby is on the block. It will be the Church Committee all over again.
: :Mark my words...
:
: Sounds more like you're looking for the McCarthy hearings...
:
:No, no, that is only when Republicans go after Democrats...

Welcome to the world of Chimpko Think, where *everything* is
ideological...

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 17 Jan 2007 12:39:20 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 15 Jan 2007 11:16:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 15 Jan 2007 10:54:47 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
: Why the smiley face Thorn? Tommorrow Libby goes on trial and said GOP
: and MIC cronies will be under the microscope. With the Dems in Congress
: now don't expect any soft treatment. Just because his daddy's name is
: on the CIA buidling doesn't mean his administration has full access to
: the agency. Some heads are going to roll when Libby sings. I hope that
: in the very least Cheney gives up the roll list of the Energy Task
: Force he had secret meetings with when he was getting his instructions
: to invade Iraq.
:
: Eric, no one here is interested in your lunatic fantasies.
:
: Rand, why not just admit that you didn't know the Libby trial starts
: tomorrow and spare the ad hominem?
:
: No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
: You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
: it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
: nothing to "sing" about)..
:
: So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
: reason?
:
: I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
: charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
: fantasies are just that.
:
:No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
:when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,
:then Bush and more likely, Cheney, may have to take the stand. Plame is
:not the only CIA official involved in whether we knew if Iraq had WMD
r not. All it takes is proving that we knew there were no WMD and
:acted anyway and this whole thing could be as big or bigger than
:Watergate. The only saving grace would be term limits for the
:administration and the Dems only using it to tar the GOP running in
:2008.

And if Libby lied about the Greys being behind it all this could be
proof that there are extraterrestrial aliens living among us.

Feckless and outlandish speculation which you then treat as 'true' to
speculate further.

:You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

There's insanity here, but this time it isn't Rand who is displaying
it.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 17 Jan 2007 13:43:31 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
: No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
: You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
: it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
: nothing to "sing" about)..
:
: So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
: reason?
:
: I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
: charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
: fantasies are just that.
:
: No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
: when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,
:
: There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
: that, you moron.
:
:Okay, then what did Libby lie about?

It was all about the 'outing' of Valery Plame (which apparently wasn't
a crime in and of itself - or at least no charges levied there; this
makes Libby's 'lying' on the same level as Clinton's).

Read the indictment. It's in there. Example:

"On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of
Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant
herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter
within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an
agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the
defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that: During a conversation
with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told
Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s
wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false
in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that
reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked
for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether
this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without
qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the
CIA;"

:
: then Bush and more likely, Cheney, may have to take the stand.
:
: Cheney is already planned to take the stand, you moron. There's no
: reason for Bush to, since there's no evidence that he had any
: knowledge of this.
:
:Plausible deniability, right. Cheney would step down before implication
:Bush. Standard procedure, you imbecile.

No, you dumbass. Do you ever manage to touch base with our present
reality?

: You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.
:
: It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.
:
:You're deluded to say the least. Someone dared to not tow the
:administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.
:They got caught. Abuse of power and we're going to see it unfold.

As opposed to the Clinton case, which amounted to the same sort of
perjury to a Grand Jury.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 17 Jan 2007 20:43:10 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:
:
: No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
: when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,
:
: There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
: that, you moron.
:
: Okay, then what did Libby lie about?
:
: How would I know? I don't know if he lied about anything.
:
:But there are grounds for him being in court for lying. So someone in a
:legal capacity that has spoken to him has found instances where his
:stories were not straight.

Libby made the mistake of being too busy to go in and revise his
testimony (which is normally allowed). Yep, he made false statements
to a Grand Jury under oath, so he should be punished.

But then, Clinton should have been, too.

: What he's
: accused of lying about is who he talked to and when about lying Joe
: Wilson's wife.
:
:So Rand, is it Joe Wilson that you are calling a liar or his wife?

Joe Wilson. You don't read very well, do you?

: You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.
:
: It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.
:
: You're deluded to say the least.
:
: laughing
:
: Someone dared to not tow the
: administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.
:
: If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
: about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
: example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
: for his foolish trip explained, then yes.
:
:Rand, Joe Wilson is not the only person on earth that has found that
:there no WMD in Iraq when Bush and Co. said that there were.

In fact, Joe Wilson isn't ANY of the people on earth that have found
that there were no WMD in Iraq.

El Chimpko, if you want to blither on about this, you REALLY need to
at least get the basic facts in hand first.

:If Wilson is such a liar then why did Bush's lackies bother with
utting his wife as a CIA agent as punishment?

Note that nobody is being charged with any such thing.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007 18:17:45 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Okay, then what did Libby lie about?

How would I know? I don't know if he lied about anything.

But there are grounds for him being in court for lying. So someone in a
legal capacity that has spoken to him has found instances where his
stories were not straight.

What he's
accused of lying about is who he talked to and when about lying Joe
Wilson's wife.

So Rand, is it Joe Wilson that you are calling a liar or his wife?

The Senate Intelligence Committee called Joe Wilson a liar, and
documented it.

Oh, so you have a reference to that accusation? You know the one that
states that Joe Wilson is a liar?


Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.

If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
for his foolish trip explained, then yes.

Rand, Joe Wilson is not the only person on earth that has found that
there no WMD in Iraq when Bush and Co. said that there were.

If Wilson is such a liar then why did Bush's lackies bother with
outting his wife as a CIA agent as punishment?

They didn't, you moron.

Yes they did you imbecile! Why do you think Libby is on trial in the
first place?

On 23 Jan 2007 11:05:35 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

So Rand, is it Joe Wilson that you are calling a liar or his wife?

The Senate Intelligence Committee called Joe Wilson a liar, and
documented it.

Oh, so you have a reference to that accusation? You know the one that
states that Joe Wilson is a liar?

Go read the committee report. It doesn't directly accuse him of
lying--it just says that the things he claimed are untrue.

Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.

If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
for his foolish trip explained, then yes.

Rand, Joe Wilson is not the only person on earth that has found that
there no WMD in Iraq when Bush and Co. said that there were.

Joe Wilson didn't find that, you idiot.

No one, in fact found that, since it's not logically possible to
"find" the absence of something.

Joe Wilson found evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger,
and then came back and lied about it, saying that he hadn't. The
Senate Intelligence Committee proved that he was lying.

If Wilson is such a liar then why did Bush's lackies bother with
outting his wife as a CIA agent as punishment?

They didn't, you moron.

Yes they did you imbecile! Why do you think Libby is on trial in the
first place?

Because he lied to a grand jury, you moron. The only charge is
perjury.

Neither he, nor anyone else, has been charged with "outing his wife as
a CIA agent as punishment." There's no evidence that it happened, in
fact. We know now that the person who "outed" her was Richard
Armitage, a State Department official who was opposed to the war.

And it wasn't for "punishment." This has been explained to you, many
times before, but we realize you have Alzheimers, and are too stupid
to remember.