Latest about NASA AKA My Disgust with the GOP

Page 1 of 9 [ 129 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

30 Jan 2010, 6:11 am

Let me start out by saying, as many may already know, I am pretty much apolitical at this point, with the exception of reading a little bit of news here and there.

I no longer vote, and while I love reading political history( and history in general), I pretty much think politics is a massive joke, and little more. The only time I even really watch the news is when I'm at McDonald's, eating my food. I confess it's quite entertaining to watch such stupidity. It's the ultimate "reality" TV: "intellectuals" making complete asses of themselves!

I am a free-market Capitalist, and I despise Communism beyond anything else.

I do happen to like a couple former US presidents-- interestingly enough, I like a few Republicans, and one or two Democrats. One former Republican happens to be a hero of mine (Ronaldus Magnus).

That said, some breaking news has come out on a couple of sites--including from Rush Limbaugh:

President Obama--in attempt to fund a bill I completely disapprove of--has decided to do something very smart, and defund a major government program. Not only has he decided to do this, but he apparently prefers to have other governments, and( here's the part I love) the private sector handle the venture of space exploration.

I don' know....after what happened with the Challenger and Columbia( I believe it was), that doesn't sound like too bad of an idea.

Now, in march Republicans who are--get this--complaining about this!

They don't want NASA defunded.

But wait....aren't Republicans supposedly for limiting government, and letting the private sector handle the things that they can obviously do more efficiently than the feds can?

And gee...I could've sworn my business idol--Sir Richard Branson--already has something about space exploration in the works known as Virgin Galactic!

After hearing this nauseating crap from Republicans, it must be said:

I hope they enjoy regaining their majority in Congress this November, cause I don't think it will last long.

If they were truly for the private sector and limited government( which I already knew they weren't), they'd be cheering this decision like crazy.

Instead, they're screaming their heads off. Look..I'm not saying President Obama is doing it for the right reasons( to pay for lousy legislation), but better he do it for the wrong reasons than not do it at all! Heh, ya'd think they'd wait 'til they did regain their majority b'fore shooting their mouths off like crazy.

And it's worth noting: they complain about revisionist history all the time. Well, while I'm more than aware of several instances of it, there are also several instances they happen to back as well.....even when it comes to stuff the Democratic Party did.


This sh!t is the reason I no longer even care who's in the White House; I can live a great life regardless, and I can succeed regardless. This may've turned me away from reading any news again for quite some time....



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

30 Jan 2010, 10:22 am

Oh lord. So the Constellation Program is being canceled. To be honest, I'm personally terribly disappointed although I know America has a deficit to sort out. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans don't want the NASA budget cut because George Bush started that program and the Republicans supported it.



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

30 Jan 2010, 10:35 am

Oh well, we can always hitch a ride with the Chinese, as they develop the moon and space. Looks like we're going to be 'the Portuguese of Space' after all...


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


Jimbeaux
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

30 Jan 2010, 11:51 am

Why would they cheer the defunding the space program when the money is simply going to be used for other government spending (in this case more bogus climate research)?



TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

30 Jan 2010, 1:37 pm

to be fair though, was there any other way a program was gonna be defunded and thrown to the private sector?

Come now--you think Americans actually want a government that believes in free-market Capitalism?

I have a saying these days: "in order to trust government to do the right thing, you must trust the people who elect government to do the right thing."

I know the bill he's defunding it in favor of is terrible legislation; but then again for the most part nothing I've heard that he's signed is good legislation; so I at least see it as something positive coming out of it....especially when space exploration is needed, and I trust private industry to handle it well.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jan 2010, 3:26 pm

TheDoctor82 wrote:
I am a free-market Capitalist...One former Republican happens to be a hero of mine (Ronaldus Magnus).

I'm always baffled as to why self-proclaimed small-government advocates still have this bizarre hero-worship of Reagan. If you're looking for a President who supported free markets and kept government spending at lower levels, you'd be better off admiring Clinton.

Is it just a complete failure to look past rhetoric/party alignment and see the actual track records they had?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Jan 2010, 4:14 pm

All the time and money my generation wasted learning English. Yet it seems we will all have to learn Chinese at this rate :( .


_________________
.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,127
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Jan 2010, 5:02 pm

I think you'll notice that most democrats won't constantly tow the line and agree with everyone on everything either - I just think there's much less coercion among republicans than democrats to walk in lockstep on the issues (there's a reason why they call them 'blue dogs').

Also you have this issue - republicans want as much free economy as feasible, does that mean anarcho-capitalism? No. Some might like the idea of letting the private sector pick up space travel because they may think that there will be competition to...say...commercially mine ores out of asteroids; that would have incentive. Would people have to worry about leaky o rings or parts in the rocket mechanism that may blow up any less if it was private sector? It seems like it actually costs less to build the thing right the first time because, if something you build does blow up and kill people - there's your company's livelihood, Uncle Sam doesn't have that problem.

It may be perhaps tempting to liken that issue to the idea of deregulating utilities such as nuclear power but, that's really a constant maintenance issue and that's a specific kind of issue where economy will naturally take health and safety in the wrong direction if left to its own devices - if people have their power - no one seems to care until you have a three mile island issue. Even the Perry plant on the coast of Lake Erie had some inspections and it was realized that not only was the cooling tower falling apart but the backup radiator mechanisms which were supposed to stop a full-scale meltdown if the primary wen't weren't working either. IMO its much less like deregulated power than it's like Boeing making Airplanes or Lockheed Martin making armored vehicles.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Jan 2010, 8:26 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think you'll notice that most democrats won't constantly tow the line and agree with everyone on everything either - I just think there's much less coercion among republicans than democrats to walk in lockstep on the issues (there's a reason why they call them 'blue dogs').

Also you have this issue - republicans want as much free economy as feasible, does that mean anarcho-capitalism? No. Some might like the idea of letting the private sector pick up space travel because they may think that there will be competition to...say...commercially mine ores out of asteroids; that would have incentive. Would people have to worry about leaky o rings or parts in the rocket mechanism that may blow up any less if it was private sector? It seems like it actually costs less to build the thing right the first time because, if something you build does blow up and kill people - there's your company's livelihood, Uncle Sam doesn't have that problem.

It may be perhaps tempting to liken that issue to the idea of deregulating utilities such as nuclear power but, that's really a constant maintenance issue and that's a specific kind of issue where economy will naturally take health and safety in the wrong direction if left to its own devices - if people have their power - no one seems to care until you have a three mile island issue. Even the Perry plant on the coast of Lake Erie had some inspections and it was realized that not only was the cooling tower falling apart but the backup radiator mechanisms which were supposed to stop a full-scale meltdown if the primary wen't weren't working either. IMO its much less like deregulated power than it's like Boeing making Airplanes or Lockheed Martin making armored vehicles.


If nothing else, privatization of space will see to the construction of a lot of inferior spacecraft ( manufactured in China) and an awful lot of dead damned fools, thereby advancing the evolution of a better gene pool for humanity.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,127
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Jan 2010, 8:32 pm

Sand wrote:
If nothing else, privatization of space will see to the construction of a lot of inferior spacecraft ( manufactured in China) and an awful lot of dead damned fools, thereby advancing the evolution of a better gene pool for humanity.

Lol, true. We see that with aircraft all the time.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jan 2010, 11:45 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Sand wrote:
If nothing else, privatization of space will see to the construction of a lot of inferior spacecraft ( manufactured in China) and an awful lot of dead damned fools, thereby advancing the evolution of a better gene pool for humanity.

Lol, true. We see that with aircraft all the time.

You'd be surprised at what the private sector turns out in aircraft design. A particular well-respected manufacturer of commercial jets (which shall remain nameless) had a detailed safety analysis done on one of their planes, determining the maximum exposure time for all of its components (meaning how long a particular piece is safe to use before it needs to be replaced, how long minor malfunctions can be ignored before they became a serious safety hazard, etc). With no input from the engineers, and in violation of all regulations, they simply doubled the exposure times for all the components and put that into practice as policy (meaning critical components are going without maintenance for twice as long as is safe). The issue has not yet been resolved. This is just one example; there are countless others.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

31 Jan 2010, 12:15 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
All the time and money my generation wasted learning English. Yet it seems we will all have to learn Chinese at this rate :( .


No we won't....that's just populist propaganda.

There's a lot more to it than you think.


Inferior spacecrafts? So you're telling me the Challenger and Columbia were handled perfectly to a T? Just because it has the seal of the Feds on it doesn't mean jack sh!t, dude. I simply said it would be better in the hands of the private sector..I never said every company working on it would handle it perfectly. For that to happen, most have to be true Capitalists, not Pseudo-Capitalists.

And no, Bill Clinton was no fan of free-market Capitalism. Y'know that health care bill being pushed thru Congress right now? Well...he tried that in the early '90s....and wound up with a GOP Majority. The speaker of the house--Newt Gingrich--had what he called the Contract with America, and Clinton--concerned about his poll numbers and knowing everyone still had Reagan on the mind, kinda had to go with it.

Reagan was by no means perfect by any stretch. He was a thoroughly flawed Capitalist, which I'm more than aware of. I didn't say why he's my hero, did I? Some of his domestic agenda is part of the reason, but also because of his international agenda, and that he knocked off the Soviet Union...take note, I said the Soviet Union, not Soviet Russia. Also, many things leading up to his term influenced my love of him too. Not to mention that he rose to these successes after being a washed-up actor in Hollywood. It's not simply about the agenda, good sir.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 Jan 2010, 12:25 am

TheDoctor82 wrote:
And no, Bill Clinton was no fan of free-market Capitalism.

WTF do you call NAFTA?

Quote:
Reagan was by no means perfect by any stretch. He was a thoroughly flawed Capitalist, which I'm more than aware of. I didn't say why he's my hero, did I? Some of his domestic agenda is part of the reason, but also because of his international agenda, and that he knocked off the Soviet Union...take note, I said the Soviet Union, not Soviet Russia.

Nonsense. People like to think America (and particularly Reagan) can take credit for defeating the Soviet Union, but in reality it collapsed from internal pressures such as a failed economic system, resistance to Soviet rule in Eastern Europe, and various power struggles. Reagan's "Star Wars" did nothing but waste a shitload of taxpayer money.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

31 Jan 2010, 12:30 am

Orwell wrote:
TheDoctor82 wrote:
And no, Bill Clinton was no fan of free-market Capitalism.

WTF do you call NAFTA?

Quote:
Reagan was by no means perfect by any stretch. He was a thoroughly flawed Capitalist, which I'm more than aware of. I didn't say why he's my hero, did I? Some of his domestic agenda is part of the reason, but also because of his international agenda, and that he knocked off the Soviet Union...take note, I said the Soviet Union, not Soviet Russia.

Nonsense. People like to think America (and particularly Reagan) can take credit for defeating the Soviet Union, but in reality it collapsed from internal pressures such as a failed economic system, resistance to Soviet rule in Eastern Europe, and various power struggles. Reagan's "Star Wars" did nothing but waste a shitload of taxpayer money.



Did I ever once mention the "Star Wars" program? No....I did not.

Of course the economic system failed....but Reagan built up the military to the point where the Soviets couldn't keep up due to their economic system. Also, sending over defective equipment to a nuclear power plant in a city called Chernobyl didn't hurt either....

And I read up on NAFTA; actually all the negotiations that eventually wound up forming the NAFTA agreement started in 1988, with--GUESS WHO! :D

And before you think I'm just s*cking off Republicans here or something, allow me to name for you the Republican presidents I like, and the Democrat ones:

Republicans

Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Millard Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln
Calvin Coolidge
Teddy Roosevelt( though not for political reasons)

Democrats

Harry Truman
Martin Van Buren
Grover Cleveland (sort of)



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 Jan 2010, 1:40 am

TheDoctor82 wrote:
Did I ever once mention the "Star Wars" program? No....I did not.

Of course the economic system failed....but Reagan built up the military to the point where the Soviets couldn't keep up due to their economic system.

Um... that's the Star Wars program you're referring to right there with the military buildup. And no, it was not the arms race that ultimately ruined the Soviet economy. I spent a solid year studying Russian and Soviet history in some depth, it's a bit of a special interest. For now I'll just assume you don't want a dissertation on the reasons the USSR collapsed.

Quote:
Also, sending over defective equipment to a nuclear power plant in a city called Chernobyl didn't hurt either....

I've never heard this claim. Evidence?

Quote:
And I read up on NAFTA; actually all the negotiations that eventually wound up forming the NAFTA agreement started in 1988, with--GUESS WHO! :D

NAFTA and the other free trade agreements of the Clinton era could never have passed if he didn't support them, and Clinton in fact has received much criticism from the left for his economic policies, which were generally very pro-market. You can't claim it was purely out of concern for poll numbers because he continued pro-market policies during his second term. Reagan talked about small government, but in practice his policies were overwhelmingly big government.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

31 Jan 2010, 1:53 am

Well, I would appreciate your sources for information as well.

And of course the Soviet economy collapsed; any economics structure set up like that is doomed to collapse. Right there, you're entering into one of my special interests: economics.

From what I know--and I'd have to find the original source in regards to the defective equipment- Reagan discovered that we were sending them equipment for nuclear reactors, as well as lots of classified information. He decided, rather than halt the process, send 'em something they likely wouldn't expect.

If you refer to his War on Drugs, Amnesty for Illegals, and the Payroll Tax Increase, I'm well aware of all three. In fact, the third one is why I've referred to Bob Dole as a schmuck: he was the one who sponsored it. Sandra Day O'Connor doesn't help that resume either.

I keep thinking about the AT&T monopoly being overturned, the FCC ruling on toys/animated shows being overturned, the knowledge I now have about the beginning negotiations for what would eventually be NAFTA, the overturning of the Fairness Doctrine, and two tax cuts: one in 1982, one in 1986.

Oh yeah, and a certain speech he made at the Berlin Wall...yeah, that was totally unimportant I'm sure.

I don't really believe Reagan was intentionally big government; naive as all hell, absolutely, but I don't think he was truly in favor of it.

And again...this was all accomplished by a guy from Hollywood who couldn't seem to get a better movie role then as a second banana to a chimpanzee.

Oh yeah....he also handed a group of hippies their asses when he was governor of California too, and pissed off a lot of people in discussing--I believe--the California Redwoods.