NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Monday, March 17, 2014 4:44:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:04:42 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

On Friday, March 14, 2014 4:04:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:



On Friday, March 14, 2014 3:46:54 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:



Are you suggesting that the cold-war era wasn't mutually perpetrated?



Are you suggesting that the Cold War could have been avoided if the US had allowed the USSR to invade or "communize" any country it wanted?


Our mutually perpetrated cold-war era (which started long before WW2 ended), messed everything up for Russia, us and for the world.


http://mentalfloss.com/article/28517...er-berlin-wall


I thought Peterson was out in left field, but you are even worse.

What part of 5+ trillions missing in action doesn't bother you?

What part of the Boeing 777 missing in action doesn't bother you?

Since when has our government and our MIC run Pentagon told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

What part of 5+ trillions missing in action doesn't bother you?

You need to first prove that 5 trillion is "missing" before you can expect anyone else to be bothered by its "disappearance."

What part of the Boeing 777 missing in action doesn't bother you?

You are scum, Guth. The people on the plane are missing. Consider their families before ever again using such a tragedy as a subject of your nauseating trollery.

wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

What part of 5+ trillions missing in action doesn't bother you?

You need to first prove that 5 trillion is "missing" before you can
expect anyone else to be bothered by its "disappearance."

What part of the Boeing 777 missing in action doesn't bother you?

You are scum, Guth. The people on the plane are missing. Consider their
families before ever again using such a tragedy as a subject of your nauseating trollery.

Bravo!
Perfectly put.

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:10:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:


What part of 5+ trillions missing in action doesn't bother you?


You need to first prove that 5 trillion is "missing" before you can expect anyone else to be bothered by its "disappearance."


What part of the Boeing 777 missing in action doesn't bother you?


You are scum, Guth. The people on the plane are missing. Consider their families before ever again using such a tragedy as a subject of your nauseating trollery.

Since yourself and Nazis can't be figured as being any different than oligarchs, Bilderbergs or Rothschilds, whereas obviously you and your fellow FUD-masters have had the helm. How's that ongoing denial and obfuscation policy working out thus far?

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:07:37 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:



What part of 5+ trillions missing in action doesn't bother you?



You need to first prove that 5 trillion is "missing" before you can

expect anyone else to be bothered by its "disappearance."



What part of the Boeing 777 missing in action doesn't bother you?



You are scum, Guth. The people on the plane are missing. Consider their

families before ever again using such a tragedy as a subject of your nauseating trollery.



Bravo!

Perfectly put.

Your SS Nazi loyalty is noted.

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:52:21 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You are making a logical error once again. While a government that owned/controlled all companies would be called socialist, it would NOT have to own/control even "most companies" to be called socialist.

Fine. If you want to define individual policies as socialist, every
country on Earth has some. That doesn't make them socialist nations,
however.

The US govt has sold off the last of its GM stock and the taxpayers lost "only" about $10 billion + interest. French govt ownership of auto companies seems to be a cultural tradition (15% of Renault, currently.)

France's high government expenditures relative to GDP should be another clue.

There is no connection between government expenditures and choice of
economy.

The money spent by governments has to come from somewhere. Would-be investors in France are choosing other economies (in other nations.)

wrote:
On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:52:21 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You are making a logical error once again. While a government that
owned/controlled all companies would be called socialist, it would
NOT have to own/control even "most companies" to be called socialist.

Fine. If you want to define individual policies as socialist, every
country on Earth has some. That doesn't make them socialist nations,
however.

The US govt has sold off the last of its GM stock and the taxpayers lost
"only" about $10 billion + interest. French govt ownership of auto
companies seems to be a cultural tradition (15% of Renault, currently.)

Renault was nationalised after the war to punish the owner for
collaborating with the Germans.


France's high government expenditures relative to GDP should be another clue.

There is no connection between government expenditures and choice of
economy.

The money spent by governments has to come from somewhere. Would-be
investors in France are choosing other economies (in other nations.)

On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:02:01 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The US govt has sold off the last of its GM stock and the taxpayers lost
"only" about $10 billion + interest. French govt ownership of auto
companies seems to be a cultural tradition (15% of Renault, currently.)

Renault was nationalised after the war to punish the owner for
collaborating with the Germans.

More likely he was punished for political incorrectness, for example firing union members prior to the war:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/bu...anted=all&_r=0

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R...dustrialist%29

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The money spent by governments has to come from somewhere. Would-be investors in France are choosing other economies (in other nations.)

There is no connection between government expenditures and choice of
economy.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:59:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The money spent by governments has to come from somewhere. Would-be investors in France are choosing other economies (in other nations.)

There is no connection between government expenditures and choice of
economy.

Government expenditures in absolute or relative terms? Both Cuba and France have high government expenditures as a percentage of their GDPs. Socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money. It just might take longer in some cases.