Yevetha
Commodore
He said nothing like that.
The future of the Republican Party.
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Your ninja edits were lame so I chose to ignore them.
Ignorant bigotry aside, you're woefully misinformed about #4. They're not opposed to manned space exploration, they're opposed to manned space exploration in systems that don't work and won't ever work. They're also opposed to spending billions on something that won't ever work at a time where YOU PEOPLE are screaming about government spending.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't bitch about the government wasting money and then bitch because it's not wasting money on stuff you want it to waste money on.
The Obama Administration funded an extra shuttle mission.
It funded it so the ISS could be functional.
The ISS is funded another decade.
The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is the one that killed the shuttle. By the time Obama was elected it was too late for him to do anything about it.
The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is the one who signed off on an insanely expensive project that had no hope of getting off the ground.
Open a God damned book.
Knight Templar
Commodore
The Bush Admin. plan for a new manned capsule was not insanely expensive. In fact, IIRC some of the elements of the Bush plan are still being funded.
I'm not talking about the Obama Admin. in particular, I'm talking about the Democratic Party in general. Like William Proxmire who in the 1970s & 80s hunted down and killed NASA appropriations at every opportunity. Like former VP and presidential nominee Walter Mondale who was an advocate of killing the U.S. space program entirely.
Republicans are not innocent in all this of course. Nixon in particular. Which in my opinion was a greater sin than Watergate. But in general, from what I've observed out of members of Congress, Republicans have considerably more enthusiasm for manned space exploration. Newt Gingrich in fact was always a major proponent of manned space exploration and is pictured meeting with Dr. Robert Zubrin in "The Case for Mars".
So, you blame today's Democrats for what a Democrat did 40 years ago but you give Republicans a pass?
Newt's latest suggestion for going to Mars by the end of his second term is nothing but pandering to retards. There is no way to get to Mars in 8 years. It's absurd. It's like him saying he'll bring gas down to 2.50. He can't do it. He's not a wizard. He might as well have suggested under his administration he'll map every centimeter of the galaxy and make diet soda taste good.
Newt's latest suggestion for going to Mars by the end of his second term is nothing but pandering to retards. There is no way to get to Mars in 8 years. It's absurd. It's like him saying he'll bring gas down to 2.50. He can't do it. He's not a wizard. He might as well have suggested under his administration he'll map every centimeter of the galaxy and make diet soda taste good.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Dr. Robert Zubrin disagrees. In fact, Zubrin makes it clear in "The Case for Mars" that ANY plan to reach Mars in MORE THAN 10 years is doomed to fail for political reasons.
Ten years or less. Or not at all.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Let's see.
The Republican I named was Richard Nixon who left office 38 years ago.
The two Democrats I mentioned left office 31 years ago (Mondale) and 23 years ago (Proxmire).
So I'm reaching further back to criticize a Republican than I am Democrats.
Knight Templar
Commodore
The manned Mars program has been thoroughly cost estimated at about 75 billion dollars over 10 years (that is 7.5 billion a year. only half of NASAs annual projected spending.
Not that estimate INCLUDES 50% in cost overruns (consistent with the Apollo program overrun percentage).
Those costs include development, testing, and the first two manned missions themselves.
and isn't 7.5 million only something like 10% of what the Education or the Agriculture Dept. spends each year? By any measure, a manned Mars program is easily affordable by the United States alone.
But you're blaming the Democrats.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Well yes.
I really believe that if you polled Democratic and Republican office holders you would find significantly more support for a manned space program among Republicans than Democrats.
I believe the Democrats as a group are more interested in giving money to poor people.
I'm pretty conservative on many issues, and I think we should do both if we can. Help the poor and indigent as well as adequately fund an ambitious manned space program. With a $700 billion defense budget that could stand to be a smidge bit smaller without any detrimental impact on our fighting men and women and the effectiveness of their equipment, I think we could funnel quite a bit of additional funds into NASA as well as the social safety net if we had the collective willpower as a government to do so.
And you'd be pulling stuff out of your ass.
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 passed 304-118 on September 29, 2010. 74.2% of the Democrats in the House at the time voted for it. 68.3% of the Republicans did.
This bill increased NASA's funding.
It was signed by President Obama.
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 passed 304-118 on September 29, 2010. 74.2% of the Democrats in the House at the time voted for it. 68.3% of the Republicans did.
This bill increased NASA's funding.
It was signed by President Obama.
I'll say it. Poor people AND outer space should be vital national priorities in the new century. I don't want to live in a rich superpower that lets its destitute suffer needlessly while pouring money we can't afford into tax breaks for major corporations and aid to ungrateful nations that hate our very guts and want to see us fail.
I'm such a dirty commie bastard. 
Ah, yes. The famous Comrade Debbie line of cakes. I have heard of these scrumptious, revolutionary delights.
The cake is a lie.
Knight Templar
Commodore
A measely 5.9% means nothing. I would wager good money that the reason the Democrats voted for it was because President Obama supported it and not through any real support for the space program.
