Obama sure lied to NASA

[Robert_Stephens]

Read dumbfucks...

NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society

Of course, benefits in science, engineering, medicine, transportation, etc aren't as important than giving money to Solyndra to employ 300 people while stealing $500B.

I thought the wingnut position was that if something cannot support itself and needs taxpayers to prop it up, it should be eliminated?

I don't think we should have made the loans to Solyndra.
I don't think we should give billions in subsidies to Big Oil either.
I don't think that not spending money on NASA forces us to give it to "welfare people" or whatever hyperbole and hysterics a couple of Conservatives have implied.

So if NASA provides breakthroughs in science & engineering, your logic would dictate that we give billions to other scientific endeavors, such as government run green technology R&D. Or is that fact that that tech is viewed as "Liberal" make self-contradiction okay?


If NASA provides breakthroughs in medicine, your logic would be that we should start a public health care option and make even more breakthroughs in medicine! Or is that fact that that is viewed as "Liberal", make your self-contradiction okay?

It seems to me that the basic Conservative philosophy is that anything done by the government can be done better, cheaper and more efficiently by private enterprise. Therefore the government should do virtually nothing but provide for national defense and those functions specifically outlined in the USC - which NASA obviously is not.

But since it is a Liberal Democrat president who is reducing all this big government spending, suddenly the whole basis of your philosophy and most of your complaints are abandoned so that you can criticize Obama. That seems pretty hypocritical to anyone who is not a Hard Right kinda guy.
BTW, Libs are self-contradictory too - just on different issues (notice how they have become hawks and the GOP sounds more like the ACLU since Obama showed some military savvy?).
But then, I'm an Indie, not a Lib or Conserv, so I'm less likely to contradict myself.

So, reducing your word volume somewhat, as a Indie, how do you feel then about the NASA cuts so far.

Robert

 

[IndependntLogic]

Read dumbfucks...

NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society

Of course, benefits in science, engineering, medicine, transportation, etc aren't as important than giving money to Solyndra to employ 300 people while stealing $500B.

I don't think we should have made the loans to Solyndra.
I don't think we should give billions in subsidies to Big Oil either.
I don't think that not spending money on NASA forces us to give it to "welfare people" or whatever hyperbole and hysterics a couple of Conservatives have implied.

So if NASA provides breakthroughs in science & engineering, your logic would dictate that we give billions to other scientific endeavors, such as government run green technology R&D. Or is that fact that that tech is viewed as "Liberal" make self-contradiction okay?


If NASA provides breakthroughs in medicine, your logic would be that we should start a public health care option and make even more breakthroughs in medicine! Or is that fact that that is viewed as "Liberal", make your self-contradiction okay?

It seems to me that the basic Conservative philosophy is that anything done by the government can be done better, cheaper and more efficiently by private enterprise. Therefore the government should do virtually nothing but provide for national defense and those functions specifically outlined in the USC - which NASA obviously is not.

But since it is a Liberal Democrat president who is reducing all this big government spending, suddenly the whole basis of your philosophy and most of your complaints are abandoned so that you can criticize Obama. That seems pretty hypocritical to anyone who is not a Hard Right kinda guy.
BTW, Libs are self-contradictory too - just on different issues (notice how they have become hawks and the GOP sounds more like the ACLU since Obama showed some military savvy?).
But then, I'm an Indie, not a Lib or Conserv, so I'm less likely to contradict myself.

So, reducing your word volume somewhat, as a Indie, how do you feel then about the NASA cuts so far.

Robert

I'm okay with them.
I think we should also cut our defense budget by HALF or more - and that we could be more secure in the process.
There are over 20 Federal agencies we could eliminate altogether but since they don't get the emotional rise out of audiences, candidates don't discuss them.
I would get rid of all but the core of the Dept of Education.
However, i would do the reverse with the EPA, instead getting rid of all the duplicative state agencies (which eventually suck money from the Fed anyway) and centralizing it.
I would stop giving money to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the crooked politicians of other countries - even (gasp!) Israel. I don't even trust ours, why should I trust theirs?
I would immediately stop all oil subsidies and green tech too! BUT if someone discovered, invented or produced something that could get us to stop contributing to the ME, I'd give them one helluva tax break! (e.g. if Chevy had invented the Leaf instead of the Volt). Hoever I would open more land leases and off-shore drilling.
I'd also quit invading places. Jus sayin'

Then, if and when we got our shit together and had the money for luxury items, I might look at partnering with private industry on space and sea exploration. 2/3 of our planet is covered with water and we don't know dick about a whole lot of it.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Omg,did he call me"hon"in one of the posts?

 

[Ed Spacer]

So if the cellphone prefix identifies geography,then hes in the st.louis area.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Bump for independent logics explanatory post.defense should be.more evolving technology,then peoples lives to eliminate threats.precise,efficient,no nation building.

 

[Amelia]

Yeah i got a PM from him explaining <snipped>

There are rules against disclosing personal information and against disclosing the contents of PM's.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Not trying to break rules,amelia. Its totally,totally weird.im leaving this thread go. Accept my apology,im creeped out.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yeah i got a PM from him explaining <snipped>

There are rules against disclosing personal information and against disclosing the contents of PM's.

This is true, But I still stand on anything in my box is mine and can be disclosed, even if it means getting banned again.

Just sayin.......................

 

[Ed Spacer]

I hear ya fullauto.i hear ya.

 

[nitroz]

no information will be given out because I only deal with people IRL.

Thats kinda an assured rule for my generation with the increased technology in our lives.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Bump for independent logics explanatory post.defense should be.more evolving technology,then peoples lives to eliminate threats.precise,efficient,no nation building.

Ok, that was a sound post. Let me ask you: it is rare a conservative would be against NASA and space and the technologies that spin off it and so on. Ok, then, what is your thinking on Obama and this new agey socialist giveaway silliness in sums far far beyond NASA's budget but billions of dollars more.

Balance it, if you would.

Robert

 

[IndependntLogic]

Bump for independent logics explanatory post.defense should be.more evolving technology,then peoples lives to eliminate threats.precise,efficient,no nation building.

Ok, that was a sound post. Let me ask you: it is rare a conservative would be against NASA and space and the technologies that spin off it and so on. Ok, then, what is your thinking on Obama and this new agey socialist giveaway silliness in sums far far beyond NASA's budget but billions of dollars more.

Balance it, if you would.

Robert

Interesting. Robert you ignore my direct answer to your challenge and now go with a strawman.

Tell you what. I answered you directly. No strawmen, no dodge, no changing the subject or deflecting. Let's see if a Conservative like you will do the same.

Why is it that Conservatives constantly exclaim "It's not covered in the Constitution!" or "Private inudstry should do it! They always do it better and more efficiently!" about any government program until it's one Obama cuts some funding from?
If you were an Independent, don't you think this would seem pretty hypocritical?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Read dumbfucks...

NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society

Of course, benefits in science, engineering, medicine, transportation, etc aren't as important than giving money to Solyndra to employ 300 people while stealing $500B.

I thought the wingnut position was that if something cannot support itself and needs taxpayers to prop it up, it should be eliminated?

I don't think we should have made the loans to Solyndra.
I don't think we should give billions in subsidies to Big Oil either.
I don't think that not spending money on NASA forces us to give it to "welfare people" or whatever hyperbole and hysterics a couple of Conservatives have implied.

So if NASA provides breakthroughs in science & engineering, your logic would dictate that we give billions to other scientific endeavors, such as government run green technology R&D. Or is that fact that that tech is viewed as "Liberal" make self-contradiction okay?


If NASA provides breakthroughs in medicine, your logic would be that we should start a public health care option and make even more breakthroughs in medicine! Or is that fact that that is viewed as "Liberal", make your self-contradiction okay?

It seems to me that the basic Conservative philosophy is that anything done by the government can be done better, cheaper and more efficiently by private enterprise. Therefore the government should do virtually nothing but provide for national defense and those functions specifically outlined in the USC - which NASA obviously is not.

But since it is a Liberal Democrat president who is reducing all this big government spending, suddenly the whole basis of your philosophy and most of your complaints are abandoned so that you can criticize Obama. That seems pretty hypocritical to anyone who is not a Hard Right kinda guy.
BTW, Libs are self-contradictory too - just on different issues (notice how they have become hawks and the GOP sounds more like the ACLU since Obama showed some military savvy?).
But then, I'm an Indie, not a Lib or Conserv, so I'm less likely to contradict myself.

Very good post. Your conjecture is sound and your mid stand, so to speak, is also fair. Then, may I ask, what is the answer if the balance of supporitng a very robust, public Government Agency: NASA, is such it DOES benefit into the private sector more than say, Obama's socialist giveaways at the expense of tax payers footing the bill? And, who get nothing in return but more debt and taxes.

Thanks,

Robert

 

[buckeye45_73]

So what you mean is Obama lied, NASA died

 

[IndependntLogic]

Read dumbfucks...

NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society

Of course, benefits in science, engineering, medicine, transportation, etc aren't as important than giving money to Solyndra to employ 300 people while stealing $500B.

I don't think we should have made the loans to Solyndra.
I don't think we should give billions in subsidies to Big Oil either.
I don't think that not spending money on NASA forces us to give it to "welfare people" or whatever hyperbole and hysterics a couple of Conservatives have implied.

So if NASA provides breakthroughs in science & engineering, your logic would dictate that we give billions to other scientific endeavors, such as government run green technology R&D. Or is that fact that that tech is viewed as "Liberal" make self-contradiction okay?


If NASA provides breakthroughs in medicine, your logic would be that we should start a public health care option and make even more breakthroughs in medicine! Or is that fact that that is viewed as "Liberal", make your self-contradiction okay?

It seems to me that the basic Conservative philosophy is that anything done by the government can be done better, cheaper and more efficiently by private enterprise. Therefore the government should do virtually nothing but provide for national defense and those functions specifically outlined in the USC - which NASA obviously is not.

But since it is a Liberal Democrat president who is reducing all this big government spending, suddenly the whole basis of your philosophy and most of your complaints are abandoned so that you can criticize Obama. That seems pretty hypocritical to anyone who is not a Hard Right kinda guy.
BTW, Libs are self-contradictory too - just on different issues (notice how they have become hawks and the GOP sounds more like the ACLU since Obama showed some military savvy?).
But then, I'm an Indie, not a Lib or Conserv, so I'm less likely to contradict myself.

Very good post. Your conjecture is sound and your mid stand, so to speak, is also fair. Then, may I ask, what is the answer if the balance of supporitng a very robust, public Government Agency: NASA, is such it DOES benefit into the private sector more than say, Obama's socialist giveaways at the expense of tax payers footing the bill? And, who get nothing in return but more debt and taxes.

Thanks,

Robert

I've already directly answered a couple of your questions. Your turn. While you're at it, you can tell me why so many ConservaRepubs support Big Oil subisidies if so inclined.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

As per your signature, and who might that have been who gave you that advice again?

Haha.

You post well and you will find by ignoring, it just is blank and you can offer your responses without the retro woo woo noise from mid 90s garbage. It works.

Your timely and erudite posts are quite sound and I am enjoying seeing them when you post.

Kudos.

Robert

 

[Robert_Stephens]

I've already directly answered a couple of your questions. Your turn. While you're at it, you can tell me why so many ConservaRepubs support Big Oil subisidies if so inclined.

Good query. I think first, for us true conservatives and constitutionalists, we do not subscribe to subsidies to anyone, unless they are some benefical start-up, some new tech company, etc etc. Thus, we do not think subsidies to big oil is morally acceptable in any venue. They have got theirs and they do not need little add on gifts.

Too, in our current fiscal situation (The National Debt Clock) we have no room for any subsidizing of anything, unless it provides work, R&D, Techs, new industry, med break throughs, ad infinitum. And in that veil, that is NASA.

For instance, I have a cardio defib, in my chest, upper left, and two wires that go from it into the ventricals of my heart. I picked up an unknown heart virus while scuba diving with the booster boats for Morton Thiokol as an invited artist back in '98. It is made directly and made possible by NASA technologies in the medical field, as an example. I have no effect from this and have my physical prowess in order and still dive, but that box is a life saver. That is a case in point where NASA techs, benefit the private sector. So, subsidy that sort of thing if at all.

So, it seems that many calling themselves Repubs are not really.

Hope that is clear and helpful.

Thank you,

Robert

 

[Ed Spacer]

Im the lonewolf. I support no subsidies,a.business needs to succeed on its own merit,like an individual. But, i also believe in the elimination of overregulation that is prohibiting the growth of a free capitalist market.
my balance?obamas communist redistributive is not only wasteful but intentional to destroy industry.
no waste,especially not the left.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Im the lonewolf. I support no subsidies,a.business needs to succeed on its own merit,like an individual. But,u also believe in the elimination of overregulation that is prohibiting the growth of a free capitalist market.
my balance?obamas communist redistributive is not only wasteful but intentional to destroy industry.
no waste,especially not the left.

you aint the only one. govenrment needs to get out of business and get smaller. i'm for getting rid of anything linking money from the government and business as well as churches (they use the tax exempt status to hammer white churches, while black ones mix politics and religion like there is no tommorrow)

 

[Ed Spacer]

I also take true conservatism to the point of globalist elimination especially the realm of overseeing establishment and influence.