|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 8:26*am, Bill Ward wrote:"
If we snooze, we're gonna lose." peole like you were sleeping during the period of 2001-2008, so there is nothing new there. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 9:28*am, "
wrote: On Feb 10, 5:22*am, wrote: On Feb 9, 9:14*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 9, 5:42*pm, wrote: On Feb 9, 8:37*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 9, 4:52*pm, wrote:" Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called *conservatives. *We don't lie either." now thats funny, good joke. For a real laugh listen to a liberal trying to win an argument. na, i will stick to laughing at your defintion of a conservative, for it is truly a joke. *The federal goverment ran up bills during administrations that were run by people who i would call conservative, so of course im laughing. *The punch line is that you really think what you said is true. *So unless you are attempting to shift the political spectrum to the extreme right, your statement above is not even close to reality. *And if you are attempting to shift the spectrum, you would have to go so far to the right, one might conclude you are a reactionary. Your problem is that you want to fit everyone somewhere on a political spectrum that does not allow for, or even recognize, the concept of limited government powers. *Your spectrum places those who favor government ownership of industry on the "left" and then places those who favor strong government control of industry on what you call the "right." * Huh? *Nope, right-wingers want no gov't control of industry -- they want industry to be free to pollute, exploit their workers, cheat customers, sell tainted products, etc. Another strawman argument from a liberal. Conservatives aren't even "right-wingers" so what is your point? Then the less addle-brained among your ilk try to call those who fall in between those extremes "moderates" or the "center." Left, right or center, you are all nothing but collectivists. You merely argue about how to go about being collectivists. What you don't seem to be able to recognize is that when the government has too much control over business, factories and farms, seeks to raise taxes, increase spending and to control everything including health care, education, gun ownership, free speech, and even what we can eat in restaurants (thanks Michelle, but restaurant meals are already too small) it is the individual who suffers. Does that apply to things like abortion laws? * Discuss this on abortion of children with disabilities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101701311.html Or maybe this on sex selection abortion: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/wo...iht-india.html Laws banning gay marriage? Or maybe a shortage of women wouldn't potentially affect you? Now if you and your partner adopt a child, which one of you gets custody in a divorce? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote:
wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote: wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. *On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise, as it is not an either or situation. Maybe you need to consider cutting defense spending, see below. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...PbfDyBQCdZIL8w "Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract Spending The United States Department of Defense The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17 agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between 2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over 27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in 2001...." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 8:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote: On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote: wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. *On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise, as it is not an either or situation. *Maybe you need to consider cutting defense spending, see below. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...org/pdfs/dod_s.... "Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract Spending The United States Department of Defense The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17 agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between 2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over 27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in 2001...." We need defense spending, but should keep an eye on waste. We do not need the government to subsidize passenger rail, all such spending is a waste. Space travel and exploration has scientific benefits and possible defense benefits, so it should be funded, including a space station or base. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 10, 6:20*pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 8:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote: wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. *On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise, as it is not an either or situation. *Maybe you need to consider cutting defense spending, see below. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...org/pdfs/dod_s.... "Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract Spending The United States Department of Defense The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17 agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between 2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over 27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in 2001...." We need defense spending, but should keep an eye on waste. We do not need the government to subsidize passenger rail, all such spending is a waste. Space travel and exploration has scientific benefits and possible defense benefits, so it should be funded, including a space station or base.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - History has shown we need regulations to ensure good stewardship of our precious natural resources. Hiding behind a fake anti regulation statement, steps on the conservative concept of land stewardship, as business did not self correct with out regulation in place. As far as your comment about waste, you missed the boat, you seem to be focused on a very small portion of spending, while ignoring such things as no bid contracts awarded to haliburton. Im glad you support space travel, but arguing the concept of infrastructure investments ( 9 billion a year) vs funding for the next generation space vehicle while you ignore the $700 billion yearly for defense costs, is kind of a big fat joke. Defense spending grew at a ridiculous rate during the bush administration (see the link i provided for a taste of reality), but the cries from people like you were silent. No, you dont get a free pass to suddenly wake up to budgetary issues starting in 2008, and your desire to claim your special place on the political spectrum does not allow you to deny reality and rewrite history. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 11, 1:24*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote: On Feb 10, 6:20*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 8:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote: wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. *On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise, as it is not an either or situation. *Maybe you need to consider cutting defense spending, see below. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...org/pdfs/dod_s... "Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract Spending The United States Department of Defense The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17 agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between 2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over 27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in 2001...." We need defense spending, but should keep an eye on waste. We do not need the government to subsidize passenger rail, all such spending is a waste. Space travel and exploration has scientific benefits and possible defense benefits, so it should be funded, including a space station or base.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - History has shown we need regulations to ensure good stewardship of our precious natural resources. *Hiding behind a fake anti regulation statement, steps on the conservative concept of land stewardship, as business did not self correct with out regulation in place. Another strawman. As far as your comment about waste, you missed the boat, you seem to be focused on a very small portion of spending, $53 billion doesn't seem like a small amount of money to me? Does it to you? How about hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the "stimulus" package? Ethanol subsidies? Have you become so accustomed to this sort thing that it no longer registers on your brain? while ignoring such things as no bid contracts awarded to haliburton. *Im glad you support space travel, but arguing the concept of infrastructure investments ( 9 billion a year) vs funding for the next generation space vehicle while you ignore the $700 billion yearly for defense costs, Defense costs are necessary and called for by the US Constitution. Many aspects of national defense are (and should be) classified, so there is going to be some degree of secrecy. As with most things, developing new weaponry is a trial and error process, so there is bound to be some "waste." is kind of a big fat joke. *Defense spending grew at a ridiculous rate during the bush administration (see the link i provided for a taste of reality), but the cries from people like you were silent. * Again defense spending is necessary, while rail subsidies, ethanol subsidies, stimulus packages, etc., are not. No, you dont get a free pass to suddenly wake up to budgetary issues starting in 2008, I never asked for "free pass," but you have to admit that as bad the spending was before 2008, the Zero and the Dems took it to insane new levels in starting 2008. and your desire to claim your special place on the political spectrum does not allow you to deny reality and rewrite history. Your "political spectrum" only describes politicians and voters who are in favor of a large and ever-increasing role of government in every aspect of our lives. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 11, 2:59*am, wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:24*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 10, 6:20*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 8:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote: On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote: wsnell wrote: Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called conservatives. *We don't lie either. Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your assertion that you *don't* lie. (Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X, never do bad thing Y.") True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay. The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion, according to our lights. So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it. In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out so many exciting plans. * Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS. Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of miles. *On our schedule. Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend it at all. high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise, as it is not an either or situation. *Maybe you need to consider cutting defense spending, see below. http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...org/pdfs/dod_s... "Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract Spending The United States Department of Defense The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17 agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between 2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over 27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in 2001...." We need defense spending, but should keep an eye on waste. We do not need the government to subsidize passenger rail, all such spending is a waste. Space travel and exploration has scientific benefits and possible defense benefits, so it should be funded, including a space station or base.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - History has shown we need regulations to ensure good stewardship of our precious natural resources. *Hiding behind a fake anti regulation statement, steps on the conservative concept of land stewardship, as business did not self correct with out regulation in place. Another strawman. As far as your comment about waste, you missed the boat, you seem to be focused on a very small portion of spending, $53 billion doesn't seem like a small amount of money to me? Does it to you? How about hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the "stimulus" package? *Ethanol subsidies? Have you become so accustomed to this sort thing that it no longer registers on your brain? while ignoring such things as no bid contracts awarded to haliburton. *Im glad you support space travel, but arguing the concept of infrastructure investments ( 9 billion a year) vs funding for the next generation space vehicle while you ignore the $700 billion yearly for defense costs, Defense costs are necessary and called for by the US Constitution. Many aspects of national defense are (and should be) classified, so there is going to be some degree of secrecy. *As with most things, developing new weaponry is a trial and error process, so there is bound to be some "waste." is kind of a big fat joke. *Defense spending grew at a ridiculous rate during the bush administration (see the link i provided for a taste of reality), but the cries from people like you were silent. * Again defense spending is necessary, while rail subsidies, ethanol subsidies, stimulus packages, etc., are not. No, you dont get a free pass to suddenly wake up to budgetary issues starting in 2008, I never asked for "free pass," but you have to admit that as bad the spending was before 2008, the Zero and the Dems took it to insane new levels in starting 2008. and your desire to claim your special place on the political spectrum does not allow you to deny reality and rewrite history. Your "political spectrum" only describes politicians and voters who are in favor of a large and ever-increasing role of government in every aspect of our lives.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Your opinions of what is necessary, provides a rubber stamp approval for anything with a defense label, that is not conservative, thats a joke. Once again history has shown you to be wrong, our national highway system (would not have been constructed if we limited spending to your arbitrary limit. Spending on infrastructure is needed in our country, on the other hand you have got to admit there is room for some serious cutting in the $700billion dollars of defense spending (projects, im talking about cuts that go beyond what you call waste). And I know you think your fake political philosophy allows you to start the clock at 2008, but that does not work. Dude, you cannot just walk away from what happened to our budget during the time frame of 2001 to 2006, as you claim to be a budget hawk, and against subsidies, but you dont see $311 billion in 2006 as subsidising certain industries. So no, you dont get a free pass, try taking off those blinders and addressin reality. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 9, 2:04*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:56*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote: On Feb 8, 8:35*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 8, 6:16*am, Rich wrote:" They should never had wasted $150B on the worthless ISS and they shouldn't be wasting money pandering to the global warming kooks. Look UP, NASA not DOWN!" only an idiot like you wants to conduct science with blinders on. What science did the ISS accomplish? To ask that question tells us you do not know many things. Go research the engineering that had to be done to get the ISS up there and working. TMT Then there is the 232 page report from OMB that lists over 150 experiments that currently operating on the ISS. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
No pity for "broke" NASA
On Feb 9, 3:04*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:56*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote: On Feb 8, 8:35*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: On Feb 8, 6:16*am, Rich wrote:" They should never had wasted $150B on the worthless ISS and they shouldn't be wasting money pandering to the global warming kooks. Look UP, NASA not DOWN!" only an idiot like you wants to conduct science with blinders on. What science did the ISS accomplish? To ask that question tells us you do not know many things. Go research the engineering that had to be done to get the ISS up there and working. TMT The communist work model, dig a hole and fill it in. To what end (I ask, again) was it done? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breaking News: Scott "Doc" Horowitz, the Constellation head, the INVENTOR of the "stick" (a.k.a. Ares-I) and one of the father of the ESAS/VSE plan, is leaving NASA !!! | gaetanomarano | Policy | 2 | July 13th 07 06:03 AM |