Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-02-04 17:02:12
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6815|Global Command
You are so fucked.

People retired now can mostly sit back and laugh at the debacle that is unfolding before our eyes. This isn't a Great Depression Part Deux, this is the end of America as we know it.

Think about the 720 billion dollars given to AIG, and compare it to the 20 billion NASA requested as part of a mission to put man back on the Moon.

Which funds would benefit the average person more, the 20 billion to NASA, or the 720 billion to AIG?

The original Moon program spawned many technologies that all of us use everyday. The future Moon program would do the same.

Think of all the seven year old boys and girls who look to the shuttle launches and see a future in science, who now see a diminished future.



Just one aspect. It's as if Obama is saying, " don't dream that dream anymore, it's dead. "

Some states are doomed to bankruptcy. Schools will have their budgets slashed, among other horrors. Public safety will revert to a " you are on your own " type of situation as police budgets are passed.



Know that the politicians care far more about their own personal temporary well being than they do about the long term survival of The United States as a nation. The bankers are in full and 100% control of our nation. Your children, should you be allowed to have any given the death grip the Cult Of Global Warming has over " science ", will be paying interest on the debt that is occurring to these banker thugs for as long as they live, unless there is revolt and reconstitution.

You will have substandard health care, no social security, no financial future and you will be no different in status than the dirt farmers living in tin huts in Tijuanna if they get their way.


But they will have theirs. You and yours will starve, or live in tyranny.

Never mind the current re-crashing of the stock market, this is just the bankers realizing they have been caught playing stocks with TARP money, so they pulled back.  On the horizon is default, no jobs, no ability to subsidize the poor, chaos and anarchy, death and turmoil.
A merging of nations and tyranny.


His point his, " you have no voice, this is the way it will be. "

2010-02-04 17:06:38
Dauntless
Admin
+2,249|7028|London

say, this kinda sounds like scaremongering...
https://imgur.com/kXTNQ8D.png
2010-02-04 17:11:58
androoz
Banned
+137|5499|United States
ATG, calm down lol.

Everything ends up being fine.
2010-02-04 17:12:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
Wow, ATG has no idea how the world works? Idealist without a brain celebrating a history that never existed. What a shame.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 17:13:58
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Why do we need to go back to the moon?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-02-04 17:20:20
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Why do we need to go back to the moon?
We don't. He's talking about all the stuff that is now in daily use because of the space missions of the 60s. Widespread use of aluminum and titanium, temper-pedic beds etc


Here's a tip ATG. The space program is a black hole of resources into which we've poured hundreds of billions into with no noticeable benefit. AIG bailout was a single occurance and the money is going to be paid back with interest, eventually.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 17:29:54
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6284

AussieReaper wrote:

Why do we need to go back to the moon?
Because, in the words of the late, great Carl Sagan: "all species become either spacefaring or extinct."
2010-02-04 17:36:57
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6953

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's a tip ATG. The space program is a black hole of resources into which we've poured hundreds of billions into with no noticeable benefit. AIG bailout was a single occurance and the money is going to be paid back with interest, eventually.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, I believe in the opposite of what you've just noted.  Innovation will carry us through.  If not the US, some other nation will carry the torch.
2010-02-04 17:42:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's a tip ATG. The space program is a black hole of resources into which we've poured hundreds of billions into with no noticeable benefit. AIG bailout was a single occurance and the money is going to be paid back with interest, eventually.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, I believe in the opposite of what you've just noted.  Innovation will carry us through.  If not the US, some other nation will carry the torch.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, there are many other ways to get research done than tossing money into a pit like NASA. This isn't going to kill the space program, it will just make it more efficient by privatizing it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 17:54:06
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6953

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's a tip ATG. The space program is a black hole of resources into which we've poured hundreds of billions into with no noticeable benefit. AIG bailout was a single occurance and the money is going to be paid back with interest, eventually.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, I believe in the opposite of what you've just noted.  Innovation will carry us through.  If not the US, some other nation will carry the torch.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, there are many other ways to get research done than tossing money into a pit like NASA. This isn't going to kill the space program, it will just make it more efficient by privatizing it.
I'm quite happy the way NASA is run right now, what with the contracts we have with NASA right now, thank you very much.  Privatization will curtail innovation, as the owners would focus more on what is more profitable for themselves, versus, a more open medium for creative thought.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-02-04 17:54:31)

2010-02-04 17:55:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:


Speaking from my engineering perspective, I believe in the opposite of what you've just noted.  Innovation will carry us through.  If not the US, some other nation will carry the torch.
Speaking from my engineering perspective, there are many other ways to get research done than tossing money into a pit like NASA. This isn't going to kill the space program, it will just make it more efficient by privatizing it.
I'm quite happy the way NASA is run right now, what with the contracts we have with NASA right now, thank you very much.  Privatization will curtail innovation, as the owners would focus more on what is more profitable for themselves, versus, a more open medium for creative thought.
So get a job at a research university.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 17:56:26
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6953

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Speaking from my engineering perspective, there are many other ways to get research done than tossing money into a pit like NASA. This isn't going to kill the space program, it will just make it more efficient by privatizing it.
I'm quite happy the way NASA is run right now, what with the contracts we have with NASA right now, thank you very much.  Privatization will curtail innovation, as the owners would focus more on what is more profitable for themselves, versus, a more open medium for creative thought.
So get a job at a research university.
Find me a university with NASA's budget.
2010-02-04 17:58:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:


I'm quite happy the way NASA is run right now, what with the contracts we have with NASA right now, thank you very much.  Privatization will curtail innovation, as the owners would focus more on what is more profitable for themselves, versus, a more open medium for creative thought.
So get a job at a research university.
Find me a university with NASA's budget.
Please show me a list of the innovations that have come directly from NASA and then also show the economic impact that those innovations have had. GPS doesn't count because that was a wholly military endeavor.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 18:03:14
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6953

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

So get a job at a research university.
Find me a university with NASA's budget.
Please show me a list of the innovations that have come directly from NASA and then also show the economic impact that those innovations have had. GPS doesn't count because that was a wholly military endeavor.
Obviously, not directly from NASA.  Rather, innovation based on the needs of NASA.  Foremost comes to mind is miniaturization, micro and nano of late.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-02-04 18:04:05)

2010-02-04 18:04:31
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

HollisHurlbut wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Why do we need to go back to the moon?
Because, in the words of the late, great Carl Sagan: "all species become either spacefaring or extinct."
Then we should aim for Mars.

Or Alpha Centauri.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-02-04 18:06:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:


Find me a university with NASA's budget.
Please show me a list of the innovations that have come directly from NASA and then also show the economic impact that those innovations have had. GPS doesn't count because that was a wholly military endeavor.
Obviously, not directly from NASA.  Rather, innovation based on the needs of NASA.
Oh right, and that will change under a privatized program when they're trying to figure out how to get to Mars The current technology is obviously not good enough to get there or we would've done so. So, by this logic, they'll have to innovate now won't they?

What this will do is cut down on the extreme waste inherent in any government programs. Results will be expected. Perhaps you don't like the pressure of working towards an actual goal or result?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-04 19:10:44
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6754
Wait, so ATG is complaining about the deficit and the slashing of NASA's budget in the same post?

And also you call global warming a cult and a hoax, when NASA is one of the most credible and prestigious backers of the theory.

ATG, quit drinking, you'll live longer.
2010-02-04 19:44:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
As a side note, Howard Dean's suggestion in that video is what most of the First World calls common sense.

We have a mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism in it.  That's not a bad thing.
2010-02-04 19:57:33
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6284

AussieReaper wrote:

Then we should aim for Mars.

Or Alpha Centauri.
Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  If we simply aim for Mars I'd give it 90% odds (unless we find something really interesting) it'd be just like when we went to the Moon: a one-off stunt and then we never go back.  If it came down to a choice between getting an actual foothold on the Moon and doing a trip to Mars just for the cock-stroke of being able to say "been there, done that" then mark me down for the Moon.

Besides, dealing with the problems of living on the Moon would be an excellent testbed for technologies that would help us get to Mars anyway.
2010-02-04 20:02:01
Brasso
member
+1,549|6916

doom and gloom oh noes
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
2010-02-04 20:15:31
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

HollisHurlbut wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Then we should aim for Mars.

Or Alpha Centauri.
Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  If we simply aim for Mars I'd give it 90% odds (unless we find something really interesting) it'd be just like when we went to the Moon: a one-off stunt and then we never go back.  If it came down to a choice between getting an actual foothold on the Moon and doing a trip to Mars just for the cock-stroke of being able to say "been there, done that" then mark me down for the Moon.

Besides, dealing with the problems of living on the Moon would be an excellent testbed for technologies that would help us get to Mars anyway.
But we know enough about the moon. We've been there before. Sending man back is useless.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-02-04 20:21:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Hi-tech projects do have a trickle down effect, and boost national competitiveness, more so than giving handouts to single mums.
I'd be going for fusion and clean noocular research myself.
Fuck Israel
2010-02-04 20:25:42
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6979

AussieReaper wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Then we should aim for Mars.

Or Alpha Centauri.
Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  If we simply aim for Mars I'd give it 90% odds (unless we find something really interesting) it'd be just like when we went to the Moon: a one-off stunt and then we never go back.  If it came down to a choice between getting an actual foothold on the Moon and doing a trip to Mars just for the cock-stroke of being able to say "been there, done that" then mark me down for the Moon.

Besides, dealing with the problems of living on the Moon would be an excellent testbed for technologies that would help us get to Mars anyway.
But we know enough about the moon. We've been there before. Sending man back is useless.
It's not so much about learning about the moon. What we need to do is learn how to live with the harms of space on a long sustained terrestrial situation.
x
2010-02-04 20:26:37
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Superior Mind wrote:

It's not so much about learning about the moon. What we need to do is learn how to live with the harms of space on a long sustained terrestrial situation.
Surely that would be best researched on, say.... I dunno..... a planet rather then a moon?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-02-04 20:29:18
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6979

AussieReaper wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

It's not so much about learning about the moon. What we need to do is learn how to live with the harms of space on a long sustained terrestrial situation.
Surely that would be best researched on, say.... I dunno..... a planet rather then a moon?
If we fuck up on Mars it's another several months/years before we can get another mission or rescue mission out. The moon is two weeks away. We can do research more cost effectively.
x

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard