I REALLY Hate This Presidential Election Cycle...

[SCOURGE]

I am having a a crisis of concious when it comes to who to vote for in the November election....

A little about me....I was raised in a Protestant Christian home. I am Old School GOP, but while I still believe a lot of the things that I was taught growing up, I have become more...left of center on a lot of issues.

Here are some examples...

I believe in States Rights...there is WAY to much government interfernce in our lives.

I believe that the wasteful programs like....NASA and the USPS should be gotten rid of.

I believe that the way to put more money in the coffers in by cutting taxes for everyone...

Things like that...

Things that I am Left of Center on tend to be social issues.

Here are some examples....

I have no problem with Gay Marriage

I believe that Abortion is wrong, and I will never encourage it, but I won't condemn someone for making the choice...

Things like that...

Having said all of this, I am thinking about voting Third Party... I checked out some of the Third Party candidates, and I may not vote at all (that would be a first for me)...Covince me that I should:

A) Vote
B) Make a case for a particular candidate: Whether it is one of the Big Two or not (provide links and reasons so I check check them out)...

Thanks all!...

[Thommy Melanson]

Whomever the next President will be, they'll most likely be appointing 2 Supreme Court judges if they serve two terms.

If McCain wins the Oval Office, bye bye Roe v. Wade, hello coat hangers.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Unfortunately, the old-school GOP no longer exists on a national level. None of the major candidates will stop spending and leave things to the states. If those are the most important issues for you, you should probably vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or write in Ron Paul.

If the social issues matter more to you, you should vote for Obama.

Essentially, voting for McCain is going to get you nowhere. He'll cut taxes for the rich, overspend on more wars, and call a halt to all social progress.

[Thommy Melanson]

Unfortunately, the old-school GOP no longer exists on a national level. None of the major candidates will stop spending and leave things to the states. If those are the most important issues for you, you should probably vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or write in Ron Paul.

If the social issues matter more to you, you should vote for Obama.

Essentially, voting for McCain is going to get you nowhere. He'll cut taxes for the rich, overspend on more wars, and call a halt to all social progress.

Yep.

A third Bush term.

[Black Roman]

am having a a crisis of concious when it comes to who to vote for in the November election....

A little about me....I was raised in a Protestant Christian home. I am Old School GOP, but while I still believe a lot of the things that I was taught growing up, I have become more...left of center on a lot of issues.

Here are some examples...

I believe in States Rights...there is WAY to much government interfernce in our lives.

I believe that the wasteful programs like....NASA and the USPS should be gotten rid of.

I believe that the way to put more money in the coffers in by cutting taxes for everyone...

Things like that...

Things that I am Left of Center on tend to be social issues.

Here are some examples....

I have no problem with Gay Marriage

I believe that Abortion is wrong, and I will never encourage it, but I won't condemn someone for making the choice...


I actually feel the same way about those issues.

[mike black]

I believe that the wasteful programs like...NASA...should be gotten rid of.

You hear that noise? That's me grinding my teeth.

[Thommy Melanson]

You hear that noise? That's me grinding my teeth.

Most people don't realize the innovations in medicine and technology that have been a direct result of the space program.

They think all it is is firing a rocket in the air with people inside, like its the coolest Six Flags ride ever.

[NickT]

You hear that noise? That's me grinding my teeth.
Oh come on Mike, what has NASA ever done for us?







:twisted:

[Black Roman]

This is gonna get good. :lol:

[Dreaded Anomaly]

You hear that noise? That's me grinding my teeth.

Governments shouldn't have monopolies. It's automatically corrupt.

[Artie Pink]

What's black and white and has a vagina?

[Thommy Melanson]

NASA Innovations in Medical Technology

Space-based technology and medical breakthroughs have been closely tied for more than 30 years. Countless medical technologies, including diagnostic equipment, imaging equipment, drug delivery techniques, vision and hearing improvement devices, and even advances in contact lenses have resulted from NASA-developed technology. Here are only a few of the major medical breakthroughs to come from NASA technology:

* Digital signal processing developed at NASA for use in the Apollo Lunar Landing Program to enhance pictures of the Moon is employed in advanced body imaging techniques such as CAT scans and MRIs.

* A laser system first used for NASA satellite-based atmospheric studies was reapplied to treat arteriosclerosis - laser angioplasty.

* Communications technology developed to connect Earth stations and orbiting satellites has enabled doctors to communicate with implanted pacemakers.

* The same solar cells used to convert sunlight into electricity on satellites can be positioned directly beneath the x-ray film during a mammography. The cells determine when the film has received sufficient radiation, at which point the x-ray is cut off. Reduction of mammography to single exposures has reduced x-ray hazard significantly.

* The Mark VII Microclimate Cooling Suit from Life Support Systems Inc. (LSSI) is based on a 1960s NASA program to provide a channeled cooling suit for astronauts. The suit is a helmet liner and vest that is cooled with battery-powered refrigeration. The suit is used by patients with multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, severe burns, and cancer - any disease that can make a patient prone to overheating.

* In order to improve existing charge-coupled device (CCD) technology for use on the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA contracted with Scientific Imaging Technologies to develop an advanced CCD. The NASA-developed technology was incorporated into a digital mammography system that provides clearer images. The SITe technology was then used in a breast biopsy system called a stereotactic needle biopsy, which has saved thousands of women time, pain, scarring, and radiation exposure involved in surgical biopsies.

* Alcon's advanced LASIK laser vision correction system uses a laser radar (LADAR) eye-tracking device to improve accuracy. The eye tracking technology stems from work using LADAR in strategic target tracking and weapons firing control.

[Thommy Melanson]

What's black and white and has a vagina?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/halleberry/halle_berry1_300_400.jpg

[Black Roman]

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/halleberry/halle_berry1_300_400.jpg

Goddamn it, you beat me to it!

[Ray G.]

Hmm....you might find a home with the Libertarians, depending on which libertarian gets nominated. Bob Barr sounds like he might be your speed. Mike Gravel...less so.

[Thommy Melanson]

Goddamn it, you beat me to it!

To add salt to the wound: I'm on 56K! :lol:

[Black Roman]

To add salt to the wound: I'm on 56K! :lol:

:frustrat:

[mike black]

Oh come on Mike, what has NASA ever done for us?

:twisted:

http://blogs.redding.com/redding/mbeauchamp/archives/Tang.gif

[mike black]

Governments shouldn't have monopolies. It's automatically corrupt.

I suspect I am being trolled right now.

[Thommy Melanson]

http://blogs.redding.com/redding/mbeauchamp/archives/Tang.gif

http://hmandm.com/images377/you_suck.gif

[mike black]

:frustrat:

You got beat by 1997!

[NickT]

I suspect I am being trolled right now.
Not like we ever really landed on the moon anyway.

[Magnum V.I.]

Not like we ever really landed on the moon anyway.

I want to put a lot of men on Mars! Start a Martian War Colony!

[Dreaded Anomaly]

I suspect I am being trolled right now.

I don't believe that we should dismantle NASA, but I don't agree with the amount of control the government has over space exploration and development.

[Black Roman]

Not like we ever really landed on the moon anyway.

Yeah!


:D

[mike black]

I don't believe that we should dismantle NASA, but I don't agree with the amount of control the government has over space exploration and development.

You mean money? :mistrust:

[PimpSlapStick!]

I am having a a crisis of concious when it comes to who to vote for in the November election....

A little about me....I was raised in a Protestant Christian home. I am Old School GOP, but while I still believe a lot of the things that I was taught growing up, I have become more...left of center on a lot of issues.

Here are some examples...

I believe in States Rights...there is WAY to much government interfernce in our lives.

I believe that the wasteful programs like....NASA and the USPS should be gotten rid of.

I believe that the way to put more money in the coffers in by cutting taxes for everyone...

Things like that...

Things that I am Left of Center on tend to be social issues.

Here are some examples....

I have no problem with Gay Marriage

I believe that Abortion is wrong, and I will never encourage it, but I won't condemn someone for making the choice...

Things like that...

Having said all of this, I am thinking about voting Third Party... I checked out some of the Third Party candidates, and I may not vote at all (that would be a first for me)...Covince me that I should:

A) Vote
B) Make a case for a particular candidate: Whether it is one of the Big Two or not (provide links and reasons so I check check them out)...

Thanks all!...


Mutha Fucka are you outta yo' mind you trying to fuck with my money.

:mad:

[Thommy Melanson]

Mutha Fucka are you outta yo' mind you trying to fuck with my money.

:mad:

United Slapped by Pimp Stick?

[PimpSlapStick!]

United Slapped by Pimp Stick?


That's one hill we ain't iceskating up.

8-)

[Amos Moses]

McCain just said it's more important to cut taxes than to balance the budget.

So there's that.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

McCain just said it's more important to cut taxes than to balance the budget.

So there's that.

It seems as though the "importance" of these things is directly proportional to how much McCain would want to do them anyway. :sherlock:

[Thommy Melanson]

McCain just said it's more important to cut taxes than to balance the budget.

So there's that.

The Chicago Tribune quoted McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff."

And from a Wall Street Journal interview on Nov. 26, 2005: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Oh, and let's not forget, this Bush Economic Stimulus Package - the $600-$1200 we're all getting - is a $150 Billion loan from China.

Bush's idea of stimulating the economy is to put us another $150 Billion in debt. :nonono2:

[lonesomefool]

There are far more useless, wastful Goverment programs than NASA and the USPS. See the Department of Education.

[SCOURGE]

Whomever the next President will be, they'll most likely be appointing 2 Supreme Court judges if they serve two terms.

If McCain wins the Oval Office, bye bye Roe v. Wade, hello coat hangers.

Who are the Two Supremes? John Paul Stevens (i assume) and Who? Ginsberg?

[SCOURGE]

Hmm....you might find a home with the Libertarians, depending on which libertarian gets nominated. Bob Barr sounds like he might be your speed. Mike Gravel...less so.


Why? What makes you say that? Help me out here....

[SCOURGE]

There are far more useless, wastful Goverment programs than NASA and the USPS. See the Department of Education.


No, It is just more proof that the Education system in America needs to be run on a state and local level--not a national one....

[SCOURGE]

I am also a huge supporter of the Line-Item Veto...

[DrMachine]

It's silly to think that today's republican party will give us smaller government interference. At this point the Dems and Republicans really only differ in a few points, and even then it is dependent on how you choose to interpret what they are selling you.

Just vote Nader.

[Drkemerld73]

If McCain wins the Oval Office, bye bye Roe v. Wade, hello coat hangers.

I'm sorry, but I just don't ever see that ever happening.

There might be more restrictions depending upon the case, but it won't be gotten rid of.

[lonesomefool]

No, It is just more proof that the Education system in America needs to be run on a state and local level--not a national one....

Which is what I'm saying. The USPS and NASA are far from the most useless, wasteful Government programs. There are a boatload more that could or should be cut before those two.

[lonesomefool]

It's silly to think that today's republican party will give us smaller government interference. At this point the Dems and Republicans really only differ in a few points, and even then it is dependent on how you choose to interpret what they are selling you.

Just vote Nader.

I see what your saying, and can agree with parts of it, but as much as I may want to support a third party, I honestly think this election I cant do it. While Democrats and Republicans may not be totally different, I think the country would be in far better hands with a Democrat rather than a Republican at this stage.

[Drkemerld73]

I see what your saying, and can agree with parts of it, but as much as I may want to support a third party, I honestly think this election I cant do it. While Democrats and Republicans may not be totally different, I think the country would be in far better hands with a Democrat rather than a Republican at this stage.

Heh.

Our best bet is to have the Executive Branch controled by one party, and the Legistative by the other, that way they can keep tabs on each other and also be forced to reach a compromise on certain issues.

It has been unhealthy to have one party dominate each of the branches for too long a time.

If the Democrats get more of a majority and the WH... Just be careful with what you're wishing for. :D

[SCOURGE]

Which is what I'm saying. The USPS and NASA are far from the most useless, wasteful Government programs. There are a boatload more that could or should be cut before those two.

The USPS is a costant loss-leader for the government...the money that is wasted on maintaining such as wasteful system is outrageous. The money could be better spent on....helping to build better schools, funding healthcare for kids that don't have it, or many other things.

As far as NASA goes, I think that there was a time and a place for the Space Program, but they waste more time and money on trying to figure out how to get the hoopty POS shuttle up and actual space exploring...and don't get me started of the International SPace Station...

[Khrutch]

You have:

1. Older than dirt guy. (McCain)
2. Corporate sell-out girl. (Hillary)
3. Racist elitist guy. (Obama)

I'd go for #1.

[Drkemerld73]

As far as NASA goes, I think that there was a time and a place for the Space Program, but they waste more time and money on trying to figure out how to get the hoopty POS shuttle up and actual space exploring...and don't get me started of the International SPace Station...

What would be your plan for all of the weather satellites and everything that help us monitor things?

Private industry? :mistrust:

[artimoff]

I am also a huge supporter of the Line-Item Veto...

It's unconstitutional. It gives the President powers that only Congress should have.

[SCOURGE]

You have:

1. Older than dirt guy. (McCain)
2. Corporate sell-out girl. (Hillary)
3. Racist elitist guy. (Obama)

I'd go for #1.

Here is a question: Does it matter who these candidates running mates turn out to be? For example, if McCain picks....Mitt Romney, does that help or hurt him?

Or if Obama picks...John Edwards?

Hilary picks...Nancy Pelosi?

Will it change or effect who you vote for?

[lonesomefool]

You have:

1. Older than dirt guy. (McCain)
2. Corporate sell-out girl. (Hillary)
3. Racist elitist guy. (Obama)

I'd go for #1.

Christ..... :surrend:

Just once, I would love to see you back up your points with facts/links/something.

[GelfXIII]

Dont fuck with my space program :-x

[SCOURGE]

It's unconstitutional. It gives the President powers that only Congress should have.


I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it that way...I see it as another check and balance system that should be put in place.

[lonesomefool]

Heh.

Our best bet is to have the Executive Branch controled by one party, and the Legistative by the other, that way they can keep tabs on each other and also be forced to reach a compromise on certain issues.

It has been unhealthy to have one party dominate each of the branches for too long a time.

If the Democrats get more of a majority and the WH... Just be careful with what you're wishing for. :D

At this point I would even take the Democrats having the majority of power. They already tried to divide the power, and the Government didnt get a damn thing done. The only thing they actually worked out a deal on what those stupid stimulus package checks.

[SCOURGE]

Dont fuck with my space program :-x

Why? What is so great about it?

[Drkemerld73]

I am also a huge supporter of the Line-Item Veto...


If you're a huge fan of it, you are not allowed to complain if the President of the party that you don't support uses is. ;)

Everyone is always for it for their guy, but never when the other person's guy wants to get a hold of it.

[GelfXIII]

Here is a question: Does it matter who these candidates running mates turn out to be? For example, if McCain picks....Mitt Romney, does that help or hurt him?

Or if Obama picks...John Edwards?

Hilary picks...Nancy Pelosi?

Will it change or effect who you vote for?

Nope. Not voting for the VP. Voting for the top of the ticket.


unless it's someone I really detest, like Lieberman or something.

[SCOURGE]

No, I don't care what party is in office, I think that it is a necessary thing...and if there is a challenge that needs to be made, then that is what the judicial branch is for...

[GelfXIII]

Why? What is so great about it?

Hope for the future? A significant source of technological advancement and scientific knowledge for it's own sake rather than on a profit based motive?

Do these things not seem worthwhile to any rational person?

[lonesomefool]

Here is a question: Does it matter who these candidates running mates turn out to be? For example, if McCain picks....Mitt Romney, does that help or hurt him?

Or if Obama picks...John Edwards?

Hilary picks...Nancy Pelosi?

Will it change or effect who you vote for?

McCain picking Romney would lessen my opinion of him. Romney is the biggest joke of a candidate I have seen in years, the guy said there was NOTHING wrong with America today. So, to him, there is nothing wrong with young men and women getting killed so the rich can get richer. There is nothing wrong with all the poverty, homelessness, nothing wrong with a shitty economy that only serves to get the rich richer and the poor, poorer.

Edwards would only increase my opinion of Obama. I'm not sure he would be the best pick, but I have always liked Edwards so that would only make it a slam dunk for me.

Pelosi has done a horrible job and would only serve to lessen my opinion of Hillary even more.

[Drkemerld73]

At this point I would even take the Democrats having the majority of power. They already tried to divide the power, and the Government didnt get a damn thing done. The only thing they actually worked out a deal on what those stupid stimulus package checks.

That's what everybody is looking forward too though. The Democrats taking it all.

I'm just saying, the people who are rooting for it better be very cautious, because it will happen (That the Democratic Party will fall into the same issues that got the Republican majority in trouble). It always happens.

Well Bush and co. are a particular brand of, "I'm never going to compromise", and the Democrats seem to be more about show than actually doing anything since they got it.

Everyone is just huffing and puffing right now trying to make their side look "right".

[SCOURGE]

Nope. Not voting for the VP. Voting for the top of the ticket.


unless it's someone I really detest, like Lieberman or something.

But (I am going to use MCCain here), the VP is "One Heart Beat Away" from getting a promtion....should the VP's beliefs on the issues be an important factor in who you vote for? I think so...

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Here is a question: Does it matter who these candidates running mates turn out to be? For example, if McCain picks....Mitt Romney, does that help or hurt him?

Or if Obama picks...John Edwards?

Hilary picks...Nancy Pelosi?

Will it change or effect who you vote for?

If Hillary picks Nancy Pelosi, they'll tear each other to shreds in a month. Those two are not exactly the best of friends.


I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it that way...I see it as another check and balance system that should be put in place.

The line-item veto is the exact opposite of checks and balances. Right now, there has to be a certain level of cooperation in Congress to get bills passed. The line-item veto makes that all meaningless, because the President will only veto what his party didn't want to concede in the first place.

[SCOURGE]

Hope for the future? A significant source of technological advancement and scientific knowledge for it's own sake rather than on a profit based motive?

Do these things not seem worthwhile to any rational person?

Not when there are better ways for that money to be spent down here...

[dEnny!]

I believe that Abortion is wrong, and I will never encourage it, but I won't condemn someone for making the choice...

I think you mean, "I won't prevent or make it illegal for someone to make that choice."

[Drkemerld73]

Hope for the future? A significant source of technological advancement and scientific knowledge for it's own sake rather than on a profit based motive?

Do these things not seem worthwhile to any rational person?

I'm with you on that.

I believe that we as a species should seek to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the universe and our place in it.

It takes us from this tiny little water world and gives us so much more.

:D

[SCOURGE]

I think you mean, "I won't prevent or make it illegal for someone to make that choice."

No, I would like to see it only used in the case of rape or incest...but the way things are at the moment that isn't I chose not to condemn.

[lonesomefool]

Not when there are better ways for that money to be spent down here...

The Iraq War is far more useless source that wastes more money than NASA. Hell, if we would just say "fuck it" and leave the Middle East and let those people figure it out/blow themselves up we would all probably be better off. Not the most humane solution, but NASA can still be very valuable, us being in the Middle East cannot.

[Brian Defferding]

Scourge, you sound like someone who would vote for Ron Paul. He's closest to your political stance. Also, look into libertarian (Big L and small l) candidates running for office in your district to vote for come November.

[SCOURGE]

The Iraq War is far more useless source that wastes more money than NASA. Hell, if we would just say "fuck it" and leave the Middle East and let those people figure it out/blow themselves up we would all probably be better off. Not the most humane solution, but NASA can still be very valuable, us being in the Middle East cannot.


I feel very sad for you, if you really believe that...I would like to see us stop being the world's police force, but it isn't going to happen. Every time something new happens, the world expects us to come riding to the rescue and the bitches that we aren't "doing enough" to help those less fortunate when we have so much...

[lonesomefool]

I feel very sad for you, if you really believe that...I would like to see us stop being the world's police force, but it isn't going to happen. Every time something new happens, the world expects us to come riding to the rescue and the bitches that we aren't "doing enough" to help those less fortunate when we have so much...

Oh, I know it isnt going to happen, but I firmly believe that the US should not be involved in World affairs. Especially in a region like the Middle East. I agree that people would bitch, but we have got a lot of problems here in America, many which the so called "patriots" in this country wont admit to. Until we work on fixing these problems, I see no reason to sink money into a region that doesnt want us there and doesnt want peace. If they arent willing to work with us, why should we work with them?

[killingyouguy]

BLAH! Wrong thread. OOPS.

[TheKraken]

Our best bet is to have the Executive Branch controled by one party, and the Legistative by the other, that way they can keep tabs on each other and also be forced to reach a compromise on certain issues.


This is being proven wrong every day. Bush uses signing statements to override most bills he doesn't like. There's no compromise at all. I would have agreed with you prior to this administration, but I don't see any checks & balances any more.

[Colby]

This is being proven wrong every day. Bush uses signing statements to override most bills he doesn't like. There's no compromise at all. I would have agreed with you prior to this administration, but I don't see any checks & balances any more.

Eh, grass is always greener. I remember in the shutdown in '95, everyone wanted one-party rule to avert something like that. In 2005, everyone wanted divided government to avoid things like Schiavo and to watch Bush on Iraq.

Fact is, neither one is appreciably better. It's about getting the right PEOPLE in there, regardless of the party breakdowns...

[Drkemerld73]

This is being proven wrong every day. Bush uses signing statements to override most bills he doesn't like. There's no compromise at all. I would have agreed with you prior to this administration, but I don't see any checks & balances any more.

Like I said earlier:
Well Bush and co. are a particular brand of, "I'm never going to compromise".

He really is special, he really is.

One would hope that the next administration and every one after that will not take such aggressive actions should they not like what Congress passes.

I'm not going to say that there are no "check & balances any more", we have to see what the next administration is going to bring and keep our eyes on them.

[Brother Power the Gong]

Like I said earlier:

He really is special, he really is.

One would hope that the next administration and every one after that will not take such aggressive actions should they not like what Congress passes.

I'm not going to say that there are no "check & balances any more", we have to see what the next administration is going to bring and keep our eyes on them.

I am hoping that no matter who wins the White House, he or she rolls back some the new superpowers the Bushies have given the office of president.

[SCOURGE]

I am hoping that no matter who wins the White House, he or she rolls back some the new superpowers the Bushies have given the office of president.


Like what?

[Amos Moses]

I really don't see how any "National Security" voters can still go GOP. After Bush's fuckups in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's willing slavery to Saudi Oil, and complete ignorance of Chinese espionage, there's no reason to believe the Republicans will keep us safe. I have little faith McCain would deviate from any other these catastrophic paths, yet at the same time I have little faith in the Democrats to use this against him. But yeah, if you think McCain is going to keep us safe, I'd say you're crazy.

[Brother Power the Gong]

Like what?
Loosely:
The unprecedented (in numbers) use of signing statements.
warrantless surveillance.
politicalization of the justice department.
General disdain for the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments (esp. in terror cases).

[McAfee]

Not when there are better ways for that money to be spent down here...

I'll hazard a guess that you have Thommy on ignore. :lol:

[Drkemerld73]

Like what?

I have to ask... How long have you been paying attention to what's been going on with this President during these past 7 years?

[SCOURGE]

I'll hazard a guess that you have Thommy on ignore. :lol:

Nah...Thommy is a good (if lead astray) guy...

[SCOURGE]

I have to ask... How long have you been paying attention to what's been going on with this President during these past 7 years?


Yep. Voted him in twice...and will I don't agree with him all the time, I continue to like and support him because he is doing his job. He is doing what he honestly believes is best for the country. That is what the POTUS is supposed to do. Now, history will tell if he was right or not ...

[Drkemerld73]

Yep. Voted him in twice...and will I don't agree with him all the time, I continue to like and support him because he is doing his job. He is doing what he honestly believes is best for the country. That is what the POTUS is supposed to do. Now, history will tell if he was right or not ...

Oh... Ok.

You confused me when you asked Savage Gong about the "superpowers" that Bush and Co. seemed to have granted themselves with. You seemed not to know, but if you have been paying attention, what do you think about those issues that Savage Gong had mentioned?

Is it as you said above and believe that this overextension of authority is Ok? Were you not aware of them? Or something else?

Just curious.

[Brother Power the Gong]

Yep. Voted him in twice...and will I don't agree with him all the time, I continue to like and support him because he is doing his job. He is doing what he honestly believes is best for the country. That is what the POTUS is supposed to do. Now, history will tell if he was right or not ...

Yeah, I dunno, every president has done his job in the general sense, and I'm sure they all have believed they were doing what they thought was best for the country. But that's a pretty weak metric with which to gauge a president, imo.

[SCOURGE]

Oh... Ok.

You confused me when you asked Savage Gong about the "superpowers" that Bush and Co. seemed to have granted themselves with. You seemed not to know, but if you have been paying attention, what do you think about those issues that Savage Gong had mentioned?

Is it as you said above and believe that this overextension of authority is Ok? Were you not aware of them? Or something else?

Just curious.

I am going to catch hell for saying this but...

I think that as long as this "overextension of authority" is only tempoary (for as long as the WOT is raging) and is done away with afterwords, I don't see a real problem with it. I equate it to when Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Was it right? Eh. Was it necessary? He thought so, and it wasn't a perment suspension.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Yeah, I dunno, every president has done his job in the general sense, and I'm sure they all have believed they were doing what they thought was best for the country. But that's a pretty weak metric with which to gauge a president, imo.

I hate to use a cliche, but it's very relevant:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To extend the metaphor, the Bush administration is driving down that road in a Hummer.

[Brother Power the Gong]

I am going to catch hell for saying this but...

I think that as long as this "overextension of authority" is only tempoary (for as long as the WOT is raging) and is done away with afterwords, I don't see a real problem with it. I equate it to when Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Was it right? Eh. Was it necessary? He thought so, and it wasn't a perment suspension.

Equating the American Civil War to our fight with Islamic extremists is really off-base. Maybe our fight with the Barbary pirates, but our Civil War … Come on …

I hate to use a cliche, but it's very relevant:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To extend the metaphor, the Bush administration is driving down that road in a Hummer.
Well done.

[Fake Pat]

I am going to catch hell for saying this but...

I think that as long as this "overextension of authority" is only tempoary (for as long as the WOT is raging) and is done away with afterwords, I don't see a real problem with it. I equate it to when Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Was it right? Eh. Was it necessary? He thought so, and it wasn't a perment suspension.

Good thing the "WOT" won't go on forever.

Yup, one day we'll have killed everyone that hates us. That makes perfect sense.

[Drkemerld73]

I am going to catch hell for saying this but...

I think that as long as this "overextension of authority" is only tempoary (for as long as the WOT is raging) and is done away with afterwords, I don't see a real problem with it. I equate it to when Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Was it right? Eh. Was it necessary? He thought so, and it wasn't a perment suspension.

Well, you are correct in that it is part of the natural cycle when an administration embroils us in some type of war. And then, traditionally, these extra powers have been rolled back in the years afterwards due to one reason or another. At least one hopes. I'm sure some remain in some fashion.

But still, it makes a lot of citizens extremely nervous, because we just don't know what will happen.

And as far as this administration is concerned, they have been the most secretive as administrations go, and they have ignored a good portion of what this country was founded upon all for the sake of starting a war that can never be fully won.

And at what cost?

[SCOURGE]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Washington is doing, but it is a necessary evil at this point...

[Fake Pat]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Washington is doing, but it is a necessary evil at this point...

No, it isn't. At all.

[Drkemerld73]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Washington is doing, but it is a necessary evil at this point...

For you personally...

Where would you draw the line at things happening here?

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Washington is doing, but it is a necessary evil at this point...

What is it necessary for? What good has been accomplished? What evil has been prevented?

[Brother Power the Gong]

Well, you are correct in that it is part of the natural cycle when an administration embroils us in some type of war. And then, traditionally, these extra powers have been rolled back in the years afterwards due to one reason or another. At least one hopes. I'm sure some remain in some fashion.

But still, it makes a lot of citizens extremely nervous, because we just don't know what will happen.

And as far as this administration is concerned, they have been the most secretive as administrations go, and they have ignored a good portion of what this country was founded upon all for the sake of starting a war that can never be fully won.

And at what cost?
The problem with so many of these rollbacks is that the tools were in place before 9/11: Agents in both the CIA and FBI had books on these guys. We knew there were designs on hijacking planes and hitting high profile targets. But there was no inter-agency communication, and the NSA and the AG – as well as the president – willfully ignored warning after warning.

Sure, some streamlining was necessary, but what they've done with their security measures and the DHS bureaucratic boondoggle was just stoopid or wrongheaded.

[SCOURGE]

For you personally...

Where would you draw the line at things happening here?

That is a good question....hmmmm...I will have to think about that.

[Drkemerld73]

The problem with so many of these rollbacks is that the tools were in place before 9/11: Agents in both the CIA and FBI had books on these guys. We knew there were designs on hijacking planes and hitting high profile targets. But there was no inter-agency communication, and the NSA and the AG – as well as the president – willfully ignored warning after warning.

Sure, some streamlining was necessary, but what they've done with their security measures and the DHS bureaucratic boondoggle was just stoopid or wrongheaded.

You are right, there did need to be more streamlining, and of course a stop to the nonsense of inter-agency hostility.

They just needed to update the process a little bit more without throwing it all out. What Bush and Co. wasn't a rollback as much as making new rules as they went along, if I understand you correctly.

I just meant, that after times of war, there is a natural rollback of the "super-powers" as it were, many administrations tend to make for themselves. It's the natural order, where the Legistlative and Judiciary say "No-no. Bad. We're taking this away from you" and correct those over extensions of the Administrative branch

[Brother Power the Gong]

You are right, there did need to be more streamlining, and of course a stop to the nonsense of inter-agency hostility.

They just needed to update the process a little bit more without throwing it all out. What Bush and Co. wasn't a rollback as much as making new rules as they went along, if I understand you correctly.

I just meant, that after times of war, there is a natural rollback of the "super-powers" as it were, many administrations tend to make for themselves. It's the natural order, where the Legistlative and Judiciary say "No-no. Bad. We're taking this away from you" and correct those over extensions of the Administrative branch

Yeah, a rollback of freedoms and an expanse of executive authority. Sorry for any confusion. No Pulitzer for me on this one.

[Drkemerld73]

Yeah, a rollback of freedoms and an expanse of executive authority. Sorry for any confusion. No Pulitzer for me on this one.

Ok. Gotcha. :thumb:

You with your rollbacks of freedoms and me with my rollbacks of Executive authority, both interlocked in delicate cycle.

[Brother Power the Gong]

Ok. Gotcha. :thumb:

You with your rollbacks of freedoms and me with my rollbacks of Executive authority, both interlocked in delicate cycle.

Seen.

[Drkemerld73]

That is a good question....hmmmm...I will have to think about that.

Think long and hard about it and the ramifications as well.

Remember that even if you don't think something might affect you, it might have a huge impact on a great many others.

Things like that sneak up on you, and you might find that it will be too late in some cases.

I'd be interested to hear where you would draw the line in the sand.

[GelfXIII]

Not when there are better ways for that money to be spent down here...

NASA's budget is 1/4 of 1% of the GNP. It's not taking any money out of the education budget, health care, housing, defense, homeland security, environmental protection, transportation, energy etc that would be noticeable in any significant way, and yet it contributes to all of those and more.


That's money well spent, I would say.

[lonesomefool]

NASA's budget is 1/4 of 1% of the GNP. It's not taking any money out of the education budget, health care, housing, defense, homeland security, environmental protection, transportation, energy etc that would be noticeable in any significant way, and yet it contributes to all of those and more.


That's money well spent, I would say.

Stop it with all those facts and stats.....

;-)

[lonesomefool]

Yep. Voted him in twice...and will I don't agree with him all the time, I continue to like and support him because he is doing his job. He is doing what he honestly believes is best for the country. That is what the POTUS is supposed to do. Now, history will tell if he was right or not ...

History doesnt need to tell us what he has done is right or wrong, all you have to do is take a look around and read the paper.

[Brian Defferding]

NASA's budget is 1/4 of 1% of the GNP. It's not taking any money out of the education budget, health care, housing, defense, homeland security, environmental protection, transportation, energy etc that would be noticeable in any significant way, and yet it contributes to all of those and more.


That's money well spent, I would say.

True, but personally I believe that advances in space travel and technology doesn't need a tax-and-spend program unless it's used for national defense purposes. For non-defense purposes, all one needs is a slew of bold rich investors willing to burn a few of their millions and billions to start intergalactic commerce and a satellite network. The excitement and interest in space pioneering is there.

[SCOURGE]

Here are some more things that I support...

I am a big believer in Immigration Reform....I would like to see the money that is wasted on the USPS and NASA go to things like....hiring more border guards, INS workers, and the like.

I would also be in favor of using that money (or other monies that could be freed up by shriking the Federal Government) for things like...improving the roads, building better schools, building more homeless shelters, and adding money to the police and fire departments arounf the country....

[SCOURGE]

As far as where I draw the line...I can only say this: While I am not happy with some of the curtailing of freedoms, President Bush hasn't come close to by I Object! line yet...

[Drkemerld73]

History doesnt need to tell us what he has done is right or wrong, all you have to do is take a look around and read the paper.

That is true, but in the end, history will decide the pros and cons of him and his administration's decisions and how it will affect future generations.

[Fake Pat]

As far as where I draw the line...I can only say this: While I am not happy with some of the curtailing of freedoms, President Bush hasn't come close to by I Object! line yet...

Then honestly, what the fuck would it take for you to object?

[lonesomefool]

Here are some more things that I support...

I am a big believer in Immigration Reform....I would like to see the money that is wasted on the USPS and NASA go to things like....hiring more border guards, INS workers, and the like.

I would also be in favor of using that money (or other monies that could be freed up by shriking the Federal Government) for things like...improving the roads, building better schools, building more homeless shelters, and adding money to the police and fire departments arounf the country....

sigh....NASA and the USPS are not worthless. We waste far more money on far more stupid shit than on NASA and the USPS. I agree with all of your improvements and I generally agree on Immigration reform, but as there are for more programs that we can cut and far more thinks we can end (Iraq) that would save us far more money to put towards those things.

[Brother Power the Gong]

As far as where I draw the line...I can only say this: While I am not happy with some of the curtailing of freedoms, President Bush hasn't come close to by I Object! line yet...

Yeah, but he's done shit for immigration reform and state money for infrastructure (roads and cops) has gone down year in and year out.

[lonesomefool]

That is true, but in the end, history will decide the pros and cons of him and his administration's decisions and how it will affect future generations.

True, but I dont think we have to wait 10, 20, 30 years to see that the man and his group of neo-cons have done a horrible job, perhaps one of the worst in history.

[Brother Power the Gong]

True, but I dont think we have to wait 10, 20, 30 years to see that the man and his group of neo-cons have done a horrible job, perhaps one of the worst in history.

The spin will be that all of their "progress" was reversed after they left office after two successful terms. The war was winnable and the economy was turning around, and the next guy fumbled. And in 20-30 years, the same strain of morons who big up clowns like McCarthy and Coolidge/Hoover will parrot it.

[Drkemerld73]

True, but I dont think we have to wait 10, 20, 30 years to see that the man and his group of neo-cons have done a horrible job, perhaps one of the worst in history.

Well, no. I'm not disagreeing with you here. :)

It's just we have no idea how much of an impact this will have for the future, and I would find that interesting to see if it makes things totally messed up for the world 100 years from now and they look back and go "Oh yeah... President Bush and Iraq...."

[GelfXIII]

Then honestly, what the fuck would it take for you to object?

Amen to that.

[lonesomefool]

Well, no. I'm not disagreeing with you here. :)

It's just we have no idea how much of an impact this will have for the future, and I would find that interesting to see if it makes things totally messed up for the world 100 years from now and they look back and go "Oh yeah... President Bush and Iraq...."

If I ever have children, which probably wont since I will never have the money to truly give them a shot in life for them to be better than their old man, I want them to come to me when I'm on my death bead and say "hey, Dad, about that whole Bush thing...." :lol:

[Drkemerld73]

As far as where I draw the line...I can only say this: While I am not happy with some of the curtailing of freedoms, President Bush hasn't come close to by I Object! line yet...

That's pretty vague. :D

What would it take for you to object?

You must have some measure of what is important to you that you would feel at a minimum uncomfortable and start to question certain policies...

[Drkemerld73]

If I ever have children, which probably wont since I will never have the money to truly give them a shot in life for them to be better than their old man, I want them to come to me when I'm on my death bead and say "hey, Dad, about that whole Bush thing...." :lol:

Oh yeah... Ever since 9/11 I just cannot wait until my neice or my kids (if I have any) come up to me and ask me what it was like and everything.

I'm gonna tell the stories as best as I can and help them to understand the complexities and what we were dealing with.

I'll be very interested in what the history and political science classes will teach about Bush and Co.

[SCOURGE]

sigh....NASA and the USPS are not worthless. We waste far more money on far more stupid shit than on NASA and the USPS. I agree with all of your improvements and I generally agree on Immigration reform, but as there are for more programs that we can cut and far more thinks we can end (Iraq) that would save us far more money to put towards those things.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these are the only two programs that should be gotten rid of, they are just examples.

Programs/Departments That I Would Like To See Cut:

USPS
NASA
D of Education--This should be handled on a state and local level.
Social Security Administration--The system is bankrupt and it was one of FDR's worst ideas.
Affirmative Action--Is this really neccesary today?
CIA/FBI/HLS---I want to see all of the policing organizations combined in to ONE single entity...there is to much repetition....

I will come up with more later

[Fake Pat]

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these are the only two programs that should be gotten rid of, they are just examples.

Programs/Departments That I Would Like To See Cut:

USPS
NASA
D of Education--This should be handled on a state and local level.
Social Security Administration--The system is bankrupt and it was one of FDR's worst ideas.
Affirmative Action--Is this really neccesary today?
CIA/FBI/HLS---I want to see all of the policing organizations combined in to ONE single entity...there is to much repetition....

I will come up with more later

I have no idea what planet it is you have been living on.

It sure as shit isn't Earth.

[lonesomefool]

I have no idea what planet it is you have been living on.

It sure as shit isn't Earth.

Well, I wouldnt cry to see Affirmative Action go away.

[Drkemerld73]

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these are the only two programs that should be gotten rid of, they are just examples.

Programs/Departments That I Would Like To See Cut:

CIA/FBI/HLS---I want to see all of the policing organizations combined in to ONE single entity...there is to much repetition....

I will come up with more later

Whoa there...

Whoa...

No way. No how.

We need separate intelligence agencies.

Otherwise you are asking for one giant police force answerable to a few people, and that is far from a good idea.

[Brian Defferding]

Whoa there...

Whoa...

No way. No how.

We need separate intelligence agencies.

Otherwise you are asking for one giant police force answerable to a few people, and that is far from a good idea.

Actually, the Department of Homeland Security can be cut out. This is a fairly new bureau created under Bush that does mostly the same functions that other departments already do.

[Drkemerld73]

Actually, the Department of Homeland Security can be cut out. This is a fairly new bureau created under Bush that does mostly the same functions that other departments already do.

I have no problem with that, since they don't really seem to be doing much and they are already taking away from what we have in place.

But to put everyone in one giant police force.

Nuh uh...

I'm am far from comfortable with that idea.

[Brian Defferding]

I have no problem with that, since they don't really seem to be doing much and they are already taking away from what we have in place.

But to put everyone in one giant police force.

Nuh uh...

:D

A case could be made of elminating the FBI.



I'm not going to make that case, but I'm just saying :D

However, the problem with the FBI more branches from the states rights vs. federal authority issue, i.e. the drug war. States can legalize marijuana for patients, or even legalize a little bit for residents all they like, but they can still be prosecuted, raided and arrested by the FBI.

[Drkemerld73]

A case could be made of elminating the FBI.



I'm not going to make that case, but I'm just saying :D

However, the problem with the FBI more branches from the states rights vs. federal authority issue, i.e. the drug war. States can legalize marijuana for patients, or even legalize a little bit for residents all they like, but they can still be prosecuted, raided and arrested by the FBI.

A case could be made for eliminating anything. ;)

And please don't make that case. We need Mulder, Scully, and Cooper on our frontlines dammit!

What plagues us is that we need a hell of a lot more inter-departmental cooperation and to try to eliminate this rivalry which gets no one anywhere. Political politics at it's worst.

And I agree, everyone should get on the same page, but at the same time be able to police each other should the need arise.

[SCOURGE]

A case could be made for eliminating anything. ;)

And please don't make that case. We need Mulder, Scully, and Cooper on our frontlines dammit!

What plagues us is that we need a hell of a lot more inter-departmental cooperation and to try to eliminate this rivalry which gets no one anywhere. Political politics at it's worst.

And I agree, everyone should get on the same page, but at the same time be able to police each other should the need arise.

That is why one Federal Police force is necessary, having DHLS/CIA/FBI/USSS as seperate entities causes territorial disputes...if there is only one it elminiates that problem...

[Drkemerld73]

That is why one Federal Police force is necessary, having DHLS/CIA/FBI/USSS as seperate entities causes territorial disputes...if there is only one it elminiates that problem...

I just completely disagree with having one giant national police force that isn't monitored by anyone else.

That is a very dangerous road to go down.

It you want less territorial disputes, make the laws compatable. Take the "politics" out of it. Do anything to ease the rivalry.

Just don't make one national police force.

[GelfXIII]

I'll tell you one thing I believe should be Federalized which is now a state issue, and that's driver's licenses. There should be one test for driving, and it should be much much harder. It's way too easy to get a license in some states, and rules from state to state differ so much. That's one thing I definitely think should be consolidated under Dept. of Transportation.

[Fake Pat]

I just completely disagree with having one giant national police force that isn't monitored by anyone else.

That is a very dangerous road to go down.

It you want less territorial disputes, make the laws compatable. Take the "politics" out of it. Do anything to ease the rivalry.

Just don't make one national police force.

Yeah, I'm with you. Brian made a good point about marijuana laws, but I think the better answer is to change the laws, not the system of enforcement.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these are the only two programs that should be gotten rid of, they are just examples.

Programs/Departments That I Would Like To See Cut:

USPS
NASA
D of Education--This should be handled on a state and local level.
Social Security Administration--The system is bankrupt and it was one of FDR's worst ideas.
Affirmative Action--Is this really neccesary today?
CIA/FBI/HLS---I want to see all of the policing organizations combined in to ONE single entity...there is to much repetition....

I will come up with more later

I don't think you understand the distinction between the CIA and the FBI. There are areas where they overlap, but for the most part their responsibilities are different. I agree that HLS should die with the Bush Administration, but if anything we need to clarify the differences between the CIA and the FBI, not lump them together.

I can't agree with your seemingly arbitrary pronouncement that Social Security was one of FDR's "worst ideas"; it's done more good than harm over the years. Its problems right now are because of the baby boomers and the White House "borrowing" from it, which should never have been allowed in the first place.

We need a federal Department of Education now more than ever. It's a shitty department right now because it's poorly administered and because of No Child Left Behind. There are decisions that should be left to the local level, but we need a basic, unified national curriculum or we're going to fall further behind the rest of the developed world.

[Brian Defferding]

We need a federal Department of Education now more than ever. It's a shitty department right now because it's poorly administered and because of No Child Left Behind. There are decisions that should be left to the local level, but we need a basic, unified national curriculum or we're going to fall further behind the rest of the developed world.

Personally, I don't want education run by politicians, which is what happens with an increase in power and money to the Department of Education.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Personally, I don't want education run by politicians, which is what happens with an increase in power and money to the Department of Education.

The Department of Education should be run by teachers.

I also never advocated an increase in power or money. It needs to be much more streamlined than it is now.

[SCOURGE]

I don't think you understand the distinction between the CIA and the FBI. There are areas where they overlap, but for the most part their responsibilities are different. I agree that HLS should die with the Bush Administration, but if anything we need to clarify the differences between the CIA and the FBI, not lump them together.

I can't agree with your seemingly arbitrary pronouncement that Social Security was one of FDR's "worst ideas"; it's done more good than harm over the years. Its problems right now are because of the baby boomers and the White House "borrowing" from it, which should never have been allowed in the first place.

We need a federal Department of Education now more than ever. It's a shitty department right now because it's poorly administered and because of No Child Left Behind. There are decisions that should be left to the local level, but we need a basic, unified national curriculum or we're going to fall further behind the rest of the developed world.


No, I do understand the difference between the (CIA--Outside U.S./FBI--Inside U.S.) two, but I don't care. They should be working for the good of the nation, and its security--not having pissing contests over territory.

The problem with Social Security is that to many people depend on it to live off of in their old age. It was never intended to be used in that way. It was supposed to be a supplement to your already existing retirement savings---think of it as a bonus check for being old....now for many people it is the sole income source, and that is bad. The creation of the SSA by FDR eventually lead to LBJ's "Great Society"--what a joke, btw---and wonderful burdens on the government and the taxpayers with the creation of the (wait for it)--massive welfare system....yes, we are much better off...

[Brother Power the Gong]

I don't think you understand the distinction between the CIA and the FBI. There are areas where they overlap, but for the most part their responsibilities are different. I agree that HLS should die with the Bush Administration, but if anything we need to clarify the differences between the CIA and the FBI, not lump them together.

I can't agree with your seemingly arbitrary pronouncement that Social Security was one of FDR's "worst ideas"; it's done more good than harm over the years. Its problems right now are because of the baby boomers and the White House "borrowing" from it, which should never have been allowed in the first place.

We need a federal Department of Education now more than ever. It's a shitty department right now because it's poorly administered and because of No Child Left Behind. There are decisions that should be left to the local level, but we need a basic, unified national curriculum or we're going to fall further behind the rest of the developed world.

QFT

[Colby]

No, I do understand the difference between the (CIA--Outside U.S./FBI--Inside U.S.) two, but I don't care. They should be working for the good of the nation, and its security--not having pissing contests over territory.

The problem with Social Security is that to many people depend on it to live off of in their old age. It was never intended to be used in that way. It was supposed to be a supplement to your already existing retirement savings---think of it as a bonus check for being old....now for many people it is the sole income source, and that is bad. The creation of the SSA by FDR eventually lead to LBJ's "Great Society"--what a joke, btw---and wonderful burdens on the government and the taxpayers with the creation of the (wait for it)--massive welfare system....yes, we are much better off...

You're right, we are.

Also, Johnson's Great Society (while actually successful in several respects) and the "massive welfare system" were hardly the natural outgrowths of Social Security. Contemporary politicians may try to link them, but only because the New Deal is so completely accepted.

(Though you're not wrong- Social Security WAS intended to be a much more compact program than it has become, if only because people live so much longer. But ending it altogether would do nothing to fix that problem.)

[SCOURGE]

You're right, we are.

Also, Johnson's Great Society (while actually successful in several respects) and the "massive welfare system" were hardly the natural outgrowths of Social Security. Contemporary politicians may try to link them, but only because the New Deal is so completely accepted.

(Though you're not wrong- Social Security WAS intended to be a much more compact program than it has become, if only because people live so much longer. But ending it altogether would do nothing to fix that problem.)

What is considered the "Baby Boom Generation"? I always hate trying to figure out the years...

[Amos Moses]

What is considered the "Baby Boom Generation"? I always hate trying to figure out the years...

45-65 I believe.

[SCOURGE]

You're right, we are.

Also, Johnson's Great Society (while actually successful in several respects) and the "massive welfare system" were hardly the natural outgrowths of Social Security. Contemporary politicians may try to link them, but only because the New Deal is so completely accepted.

(Though you're not wrong- Social Security WAS intended to be a much more compact program than it has become, if only because people live so much longer. But ending it altogether would do nothing to fix that problem.)

Actually, Colby that was sarcasm on my part...we are in no way better off with the welfare state...:no:

[SCOURGE]

45-65 I believe.

Ok, then I say we keep SS around until the last "Baby Boomer" dies, and then dismantle the system...

[Brother Power the Gong]

Ok, then I say we keep SS around until the last "Baby Boomer" dies, and then dismantle the system...

Nope. Because I have been paying into it for 20 years. You can cut after I die, unless my children have something to say about it.

[SCOURGE]

Nope. Because I have been paying into it for 20 years. You can cut after I die, unless my children have something to say about it.

It maybe a non-issue...they keep saying that there will be no money for us when it is time to retire, anyway....

[Brad N.]

It maybe a non-issue...they keep saying that there will be no money for us when it is time to retire, anyway....

"they" being the Republicans who desperately want to turn our funds over to their pals on Wall Street in their bullshit privatization scheme. No one who knows what they're talking about has ever said that. S.S. is fine.

[SCOURGE]

Really?

http://newsbusters.org/node/5166

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

I like this election cycle because it's brought up important issues that have been irrelevant to the presidential race up to now. I was torn for a while between Hillary and Obama. Then I decided on Hillary because I thought she was more shrewd and better prepared for the job. Obama seemed to give more generic answers or always agree with Hillary. I thought he was coasting on his popularity. Then I watched Barack Obama's speech about Rev. Wright and racial politics just the other day and that changed my mind. He sincerely said things that I'd always been thinking in terms of opportunistic politicians using race to keep Americans divided for the betterment of their own interests. I also liked how he didn't try to simplify everything for the audience.

[mike black]

As far as NASA goes, I think that there was a time and a place for the Space Program, but they waste more time and money on trying to figure out how to get the hoopty POS shuttle up and actual space exploring...and don't get me started of the International SPace Station...

Wow. You don't actually know anything about NASA, do you?

[SCOURGE]

Wow. You don't actually know anything about NASA, do you?

What is wrong with what I said? It seems like everytime I watch the news and they start talking about one of NASA's launches they have to reschedule because bad weather (look at some fucking Doppler Radar you idiots), something broke (hire some mechanics, maybe?), or some other excuse...

[NickT]

I say we go all out into the Space program, just in case this planet wears out :)

[SCOURGE]

hmmmm...maybe you are right...nah. LOL!

[Dreaded Anomaly]

What is wrong with what I said? It seems like everytime I watch the news and they start talking about one of NASA's launches they have to reschedule because bad weather (look at some fucking Doppler Radar you idiots), something broke (hire some mechanics, maybe?), or some other excuse...

Reliance on the information the media brings to you no longer makes you well-informed.

[Amos Moses]

What is wrong with what I said? It seems like everytime I watch the news and they start talking about one of NASA's launches they have to reschedule because bad weather (look at some fucking Doppler Radar you idiots), something broke (hire some mechanics, maybe?), or some other excuse...

We don't spend nearly as much on the Space Program as we used to. 60 Minutes had a good piece on the future of the Space Program as well as how much we spend now compared to how much we spent during the 60s.

[Colby]

Actually, Colby that was sarcasm on my part...we are in no way better off with the welfare state...:no:

Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic, but you were also being wrong. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, first of all, if you think this even COMPARES to a true welfare state, you really need to re-examine socio-economic and governmental theory...

[SCOURGE]

Reliance on the information the media brings to you no longer makes you well-informed.

I didn't say that it was my sole source, it is just the one that I notice the most....

[Colby]

Really?

http://newsbusters.org/node/5166

We have no idea what the economic landscape will look like by 2040, and this is hardly the first time they've written SS's obituary. Besides that, there's about 15 super-easy solutions that don't come anywhere close to privatization...

[SCOURGE]

Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic, but you were also being wrong. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, first of all, if you think this even COMPARES to a true welfare state, you really need to re-examine socio-economic and governmental theory...

Are we say France? No, but the Left in this country would like to see us dependent on the government from birth to death...

[SCOURGE]

We have no idea what the economic landscape will look like by 2040, and this is hardly the first time they've written SS's obituary. Besides that, there's about 15 super-easy solutions that don't come anywhere close to privatization...

Like?

[Amos Moses]

Are we say France? No, but the Left in this country would like to see us dependent on the government from birth to death...

This "left" you talk about barely exists. How many senators can you name support a broad Socialist State? Governors? Congrssmen?

I'm sorry, but this notion that "The left" is going to sweep into power, raise your taxes and create a huge welfare state is an outright lie used by Republicans and right wingers to scare up votes. There is no large liberal movement, there's just the far right (GOP) and the center-right/moderates (Democrats).

[SCOURGE]

This "left" you talk about barely exists. How many senators can you name support a broad Socialist State? Governors? Congrssmen?

I'm sorry, but this notion that "The left" is going to sweep into power, raise your taxes and create a huge welfare state is an outright lie used by Republicans and right wingers to scare up votes. There is no large liberal movement, there's just the far right (GOP) and the center-right/moderates (Democrats).

Hilrod for one...

[Dreaded Anomaly]

This "left" you talk about barely exists. How many senators can you name support a broad Socialist State? Governors? Congrssmen?

I'm sorry, but this notion that "The left" is going to sweep into power, raise your taxes and create a huge welfare state is an outright lie used by Republicans and right wingers to scare up votes. There is no large liberal movement, there's just the far right (GOP) and the center-right/moderates (Democrats).

Exactly. The "left" in American politics would be the center, at the most, anywhere else in the world.

There's only one Senator who actually identifies himself as a Socialist, to quantify things.

[Colby]

Are we say France? No, but the Left in this country would like to see us dependent on the government from birth to death...

As a proud, active, and loud member of the left in this country, I can completely and unequivocally tell you that that's bullshit.

And even if it wasn't, what the left "wants" is not at all indicative of how the country is (just look at the last 8 years.)

[Amos Moses]

Hilrod for one...

Hillary's only "Socialist" position is universal healthcare. You just heard her scream about nuking Iran if it attacks Israel or an Arab country. Hardly a far left position. Hillary's not this far left lunatic Rush paints her out to be, she's clearly moderate to conservative on most issues.

[Colby]

Like?

Raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, lifting the wages cap, putting back the money the executive branch has taken out of the fund. Pick one.

[Colby]

Hilrod for one...

Hillary has supported broader free trade policies, voted to weaken bankruptcy protections, and even her Universal Health Care plan focuses on private health care providers.

One of the most amusing things about this campaign is the perception that Hillary is a screaming socialist.

[SCOURGE]

True, but the two candidates that are waiting on election results in PA tonight are certianly going to further that type of agenda (aspecially Hilrod)...Obama may not come right out and say it like she will, but if he wins, he will have stand up to enormous pressure to push that kind of agenda.

Unless, he wants to be a one-term wonder, he will push that type of agenda...

[Ryan F]

Raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, lifting the wages cap, putting back the money the executive branch has taken out of the fund. Pick one.

Yep.

Now, if we had put the money into individual accounts in the stock market, social security really would be in trouble right now. Anyone have a retirement account that invests heavily in the market? Been watching it for the past few months?

[SCOURGE]

Hillary's only "Socialist" position is universal healthcare. You just heard her scream about nuking Iran if it attacks Israel or an Arab country. Hardly a far left position. Hillary's not this far left lunatic Rush paints her out to be, she's clearly moderate to conservative on most issues.

Wow...are you cold? That is a hell no a snow drift you are living in...Hilrod snowed you bad...

[SCOURGE]

Raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, lifting the wages cap, putting back the money the executive branch has taken out of the fund. Pick one.

They already raised the retirement age once (back in the 80's, I believe)....that isn't really getting it done. Cutting benefits? That is SO not going to happen. Raising the Wage Cap might work, but again, I don't think that is going to get it done either. Putting the money back....yeah, not so much. Good try though. The only way to do that would to be by gutting the rest of the government programs and such.

[Colby]

They already raised the retirement age once (back in the 80's, I believe)....that isn't really getting it done.

It was until the Executive branch "borrowed" from the SS fund. It's starting to become clear what they were really getting at...


Cutting benefits? That is SO not going to happen.

Agreed, this is probably the most politically fraught option, but it WOULD work.


Raising the Wage Cap might work, but again, I don't think that is going to get it done either.

Why not? It'd be millions of new dollars flooding into the fund year after year, all from people who aren't paying the share their fair share, but reaping just as many benefits as those who do.


Putting the money back....yeah, not so much. Good try though. The only way to do that would to be by gutting the rest of the government programs and such.

While I appreciate the condescension, again, this would make Social Security solvent. Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but it wouldn't really affect many programs, since most of the borrowing came from Bush's tax cuts...

[Colby]

True, but the two candidates that are waiting on election results in PA tonight are certianly going to further that type of agenda (aspecially Hilrod)

Based on what? Neither one has supported socialism-esque policies in the past, and they were certainly politically protected enough to do so. Neither one is advocating those programs now, either, and they're in a primary where they NEED to move LEFT to win. So how have you read their minds and the future enough to tell that they'll act in a way completely contrary to their careers up to this point?


...Obama may not come right out and say it like she will, but if he wins, he will have stand up to enormous pressure to push that kind of agenda.

Unless, he wants to be a one-term wonder, he will push that type of agenda...

So you believe that there's such a large public outcry for leftist/socialist/whatever policies, that a President would be forced to pursue such an agenda in order to get re-elected? That leads me to a question:

If the public does feel that way, why hasn't such a program been passed yet? Indeed, why have so many social programs been dismantled over the last 3 decades?

[Colby]

Wow...are you cold? That is a hell no a snow drift you are living in...Hilrod snowed you bad...

Probably not. Right now, Hillary is trying to convince liberal/democratic/leftist voters- like Leroy- that she's one of them. So she's NOT trying to convince anyone that she's a centrist right now, simply because it's NOT in her best interest to do so.

[GelfXIII]

What is wrong with what I said? It seems like everytime I watch the news and they start talking about one of NASA's launches they have to reschedule because bad weather (look at some fucking Doppler Radar you idiots), something broke (hire some mechanics, maybe?), or some other excuse...

Wow. I dont eve n know where to start with a comment like that? Have you ever watched an actual press conference from NASA TV? No? Just relying on the 45 seconds (if we're lucky) that gets translated onto the news when a launch is scrubbed? Launching people into space is one of the most difficult things that humans do. It's not easy, it's never gong to be easy or cheap or safe. The Russians aren't any better at it than we are, they just accept more risk, and have a much less robust space ship. The fact that we're going back to a capsule style craft is a source of disappointment to me, but they're going in that direction mostly because the people dont want to shell out the money needed to continue the shuttle program. Regardless we will be gong back to the moon and on to Mars and we'll be doing it 30 years later than we could have if we hadn't dropped the ball.

So get rid of NASA? Hell no. Multiply it's budget by a factor of 10 I say (and it STILL wouldn't be more than a drop in the bucket compared to what it was relative to the GNP during the Apollo days). Quite honestly, I'd rather see us spending money on space (and btw we haven't even discussed the 1/2 of NASA's budget which isn't even Manned spaceflight related: Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer anyone? The 3 instruments responsible for multiplying our knowledge of the universe around us more than has ever been done before. The EOS (Earth Observing Satellites) by which we know more about our planet and the fragile eco-system we inhabit than has been learned in all human history combined.) than on any number of other programs.


... dont get me started...:Oops:

[mike black]

What is wrong with what I said? It seems like everytime I watch the news and they start talking about one of NASA's launches they have to reschedule because bad weather (look at some fucking Doppler Radar you idiots), something broke (hire some mechanics, maybe?), or some other excuse...

I love how you choose to call people who were able to fire a giant metal pipe out of the atmosphere, land on the moon with a computer as powerful as a wrist watch, and return "idiots".

I can't begin to describe how ill informed your statement is. I really can't.

But if you want to understand why NASA is probably one of the most important government programs we have, you'll want to read through this (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=123739&highlight=space+program) thread, which will give you all the information as to just how important it's been to the US in the last 49 years.

[mike black]

Wow. I dont eve n know where to start with a comment like that? Have you ever watched an actual press conference from NASA TV? No? Just relying on the 45 seconds (if we're lucky) that gets translated onto the news when a launch is scrubbed? Launching people into space is one of the most difficult things that humans do. It's not easy, it's never gong to be easy or cheap or safe. The Russians aren't any better at it than we are, they just accept more risk, and have a much less robust space ship. The fact that we're going back to a capsule style craft is a source of disappointment to me, but they're going in that direction mostly because the people dont want to shell out the money needed to continue the shuttle program. Regardless we will be gong back to the moon and on to Mars and we'll be doing it 30 years later than we could have if we hadn't dropped the ball.

You're actually the person to ask this, Gelf, as I'm sure you're in the know.

Are they fully scrapping the shuttles because it'd be too tough to retrofit them for (well, lack of a better word,) shuttle runs to the eventual moon base? I knew they were retiring them, but wasn't aware of why they weren't going to fit into VSE's calling for a permanent presence on the moon.

[GelfXIII]

You're actually the person to ask this, Gelf, as I'm sure you're in the know.

Are they fully scrapping the shuttles because it'd be too tough to retrofit them for (well, lack of a better word,) shuttle runs to the eventual moon base? I knew they were retiring them, but wasn't aware of why they weren't going to fit into VSE's calling for a permanent presence on the moon.

Well, a lot of that came out of the findings of the CAIB (Columbia Accident Investigation Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIB) which determined that the Shuttle is inherently flawed, because of the design of the ET/Orbiter itself. The amount of built in risk was deemed untenable. So, rather than invent a whole new system, or spend a lot of money redesigning the launch systems and orbiter, the decision was made to update and adapt tried and proven technology, ie. Apollo era capsules combined with advances in propulsion and IT from the shuttle program. It's not an unintelligent way to go, but it's also an engineer's solution, and doesn't take in the intangible of how uninspiring it is to be taking a symbolic step backwards.

...not sure I answered your question, did I?

[artimoff]

So get rid of NASA? Hell no.





I a libertarian minded republican, NASA is one of the only programs I suport. It's given us so much.

[Drkemerld73]

Well, a lot of that came out of the findings of the CAIB (Columbia Accident Investigation Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIB) which determined that the Shuttle is inherently flawed, because of the design of the ET/Orbiter itself. The amount of built in risk was deemed untenable. So, rather than invent a whole new system, or spend a lot of money redesigning the launch systems and orbiter, the decision was made to update and adapt tried and proven technology, ie. Apollo era capsules combined with advances in propulsion and IT from the shuttle program. It's not an unintelligent way to go, but it's also an engineer's solution, and doesn't take in the intangible of how uninspiring it is to be taking a symbolic step backwards.

...not sure I answered your question, did I?

Huh...

Interesting. I didn't know they were going back to using Apollo era capsules...

So they are planning on using those to replace the shuttles?

[mike black]

Well, a lot of that came out of the findings of the CAIB (Columbia Accident Investigation Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIB) which determined that the Shuttle is inherently flawed, because of the design of the ET/Orbiter itself. The amount of built in risk was deemed untenable. So, rather than invent a whole new system, or spend a lot of money redesigning the launch systems and orbiter, the decision was made to update and adapt tried and proven technology, ie. Apollo era capsules combined with advances in propulsion and IT from the shuttle program. It's not an unintelligent way to go, but it's also an engineer's solution, and doesn't take in the intangible of how uninspiring it is to be taking a symbolic step backwards.

...not sure I answered your question, did I?

Nah, that was perfect. I've got to agree, my first response when seeing Ares was "fuck, we're back to capsules?"

[mike black]

Huh...

Interesting. I didn't know they were going back to using Apollo era capsules...

So they are planning on using those to replace the shuttles?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg/800px-Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg

Saturn V (the "moon rocket"), Space Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, and Ares IV rockets.

From what I understand, Ares I is what they're going to use to put people up on the moon, while Ares V is going to be used for lobbing unmanned cargo and equipment up, and Ares IV is a combination of the two (essentially, Ares I second stage sitting on top of the Ares V first stage and SRB's.)

They've only just recently started talking about Ares IV, though.

[Drkemerld73]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg/800px-Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg

Saturn V (the "moon rocket"), Space Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, and Ares IV rockets.

From what I understand, Ares I is what they're going to use to put people up on the moon, while Ares V is going to be used for lobbing unmanned cargo and equipment up, and Ares IV is a combination of the two (essentially, Ares I second stage sitting on top of the Ares V first stage and SRB's.)

They've only just recently started talking about Ares IV, though.

Cool. Thanks for the breakdown Mike!

I really appreciate the info since I have always loved the space program.

If they are doing that for the moon stuff, what are they planning to use for getting to the space station and so on in our orbit? Do they have new designs for a "space plane" for lack of a better word? I heard talk long ago...

[mike black]

Cool. Thanks for the breakdown Mike!

I really appreciate the info since I have always loved the space program.

If they are doing that for the moon stuff, what are they planning to use for getting to the space station and so on in our orbit? Do they have new designs for a "space plane" for lack of a better word? I heard talk long ago...

Nah, looks like they want to use Ares I as the new shuttle.

[Drkemerld73]

Nah, looks like they want to use Ares I as the new shuttle.

Interesting.

Thanks!

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Cool. Thanks for the breakdown Mike!

I really appreciate the info since I have always loved the space program.

If they are doing that for the moon stuff, what are they planning to use for getting to the space station and so on in our orbit? Do they have new designs for a "space plane" for lack of a better word? I heard talk long ago...

"Space planes" are being pursued by the private sector. I think it would behoove NASA to look into them as well, but they don't appear to agree.

[Drkemerld73]

"Space planes" are being pursued by the private sector. I think it would behoove NASA to look into them as well, but they don't appear to agree.

Yeah, I was aware that the private sector has been looking at that possibility, but wasn't sure if NASA still was.

I need to try and catch up on that kind of thing. I feel as though I've neglected my inner child when it's come to stuff like this. :(

[PimpSlapStick!]

You have:

1. Older than dirt guy. (McCain)
2. Corporate sell-out girl. (Hillary)
3. Racist elitist guy. (Obama)

I'd go for #1.


WTF is racist about Obama?

Plus ya boy McCain is the biggest sellout there is, he traded his own 'Independent Straight-Talk' for being Bush's bitch and who was the ass-hole who was against making MLK day a national holiday just to pander to his "Heartland white constituants"

Get the fuck outta here

[Amos Moses]

WTF is racist about Obama?

Plus ya boy McCain is the biggest sellout there is, he traded his own 'Independent Straight-Talk' for being Bush's bitch and who was the ass-hole who was against making MLK day a national holiday just to pander to his "Heartland white constituants"

Get the fuck outta here

Do not argue with Khrutch. It sustains him.

[Jason California]

NASA Innovations in Medical Technology

Space-based technology and medical breakthroughs have been closely tied for more than 30 years. Countless medical technologies, including diagnostic equipment, imaging equipment, drug delivery techniques, vision and hearing improvement devices, and even advances in contact lenses have resulted from NASA-developed technology. Here are only a few of the major medical breakthroughs to come from NASA technology:

* Digital signal processing developed at NASA for use in the Apollo Lunar Landing Program to enhance pictures of the Moon is employed in advanced body imaging techniques such as CAT scans and MRIs.

* A laser system first used for NASA satellite-based atmospheric studies was reapplied to treat arteriosclerosis - laser angioplasty.

* Communications technology developed to connect Earth stations and orbiting satellites has enabled doctors to communicate with implanted pacemakers.

* The same solar cells used to convert sunlight into electricity on satellites can be positioned directly beneath the x-ray film during a mammography. The cells determine when the film has received sufficient radiation, at which point the x-ray is cut off. Reduction of mammography to single exposures has reduced x-ray hazard significantly.

* The Mark VII Microclimate Cooling Suit from Life Support Systems Inc. (LSSI) is based on a 1960s NASA program to provide a channeled cooling suit for astronauts. The suit is a helmet liner and vest that is cooled with battery-powered refrigeration. The suit is used by patients with multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, severe burns, and cancer - any disease that can make a patient prone to overheating.

* In order to improve existing charge-coupled device (CCD) technology for use on the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA contracted with Scientific Imaging Technologies to develop an advanced CCD. The NASA-developed technology was incorporated into a digital mammography system that provides clearer images. The SITe technology was then used in a breast biopsy system called a stereotactic needle biopsy, which has saved thousands of women time, pain, scarring, and radiation exposure involved in surgical biopsies.

* Alcon's advanced LASIK laser vision correction system uses a laser radar (LADAR) eye-tracking device to improve accuracy. The eye tracking technology stems from work using LADAR in strategic target tracking and weapons firing control.

You forgot Tang.

[artimoff]

Some one in Denmark wondered why there's even a contest.


We have a lawyer who's married to a lawyer, another lawyer married to a lawyer, & a war hero who's married to a busty blonde who owns a beer outlet.

where's the contest?

[mike black]

WTF is racist about Obama?

Plus ya boy McCain is the biggest sellout there is, he traded his own 'Independent Straight-Talk' for being Bush's bitch and who was the ass-hole who was against making MLK day a national holiday just to pander to his "Heartland white constituants"

Get the fuck outta here

Don't bother, man. Khrutch is one of those trolls who never breaks the rules.

[WinstonWolf]

How exactly are NASA and the Postal Service useless? NASA most especially, is definetely something we need.

[WinstonWolf]

Oh no, someone brought the racial card into the game didn't they?

[mike black]

Oh no, someone brought the racial card into the game didn't they?

God you hurt my head.

[WinstonWolf]

WTF is racist about Obama?

Plus ya boy McCain is the biggest sellout there is, he traded his own 'Independent Straight-Talk' for being Bush's bitch and who was the ass-hole who was against making MLK day a national holiday just to pander to his "Heartland white constituants"

Get the fuck outta here


How exactly is McCain a sellout for backing Bush? Some people do back Bush there just in a very small minority. MOST MEN can't get enough Bush, just not anyone in the Bush family.