Doesn't anyone here see the delicious irony in funding education for science and technology by making drastic cuts in an arena where those kids educated in science and technology might have been able to get a job had those drastic funding cuts not been made?

 

You know a lot of people who apply to work at NASA and are successful offered a position, do you? Your post implies that if we closed NASA outright all scientists and people educated in technology would be unemployed. Surely this isn't the case.

Do you know how many people NASA hired between the end of the Apollo program and the start of Shuttle operations? This was the last time NASA faced cuts as draconian as those proposed by Obama.

Obama completely lost it for me a ten days ago or so with his plan to gut NASA's exploration initiative in favor of space and science education.

 

ORLY? That's not cool. It takes a pretty blind eye to ignore the cost-benefit returns in recent years from unmanned exploration. I don't see any sign of him cutting that aspect of the program, though.

 

It's interesting to see criticism from the left over this. That position may play well with a certain aspect of the base, but it may cost him scientists and engineers.

 

Now if he were to parlay that into a broader initiative to promote private enterprise and development in space exploration, THAT might work.

ORLY? That's not cool. It takes a pretty blind eye to ignore the cost-benefit returns in recent years from unmanned exploration. I don't see any sign of him cutting that aspect of the program, though.

 

I disagree on the cost-benefits returns from unmanned exploration. Spaceflight, manned or unmanned, remains a fairly poor monetary investment compared to investing in science on the ground. They payoff is too uncertain and too far in the future. Moreover, NASA has already picked the low-lying fruit that do have large tangible benefits: The Earth observation satellites. Most of the Earth observation satellites are now under the purview of Commerce, not NASA. (GPS is of course DoD, and has been from the onset). What is the dollar benefit from Hubble? From the Mars rovers? From setting foot on the Moon? While NASA does have some tangible benefits, for the most part they do not compare favorably to Earth-based investments in technology.

 

It is in the arena of intangible benefits that space exploration excels. We may not know the true financial benefit from Hubble, the Mars rovers, or Apollo for hundreds of years. We certainly can see the intangible benefit right now.

 

As far as cutting the unmanned program, spending on that has ridden the coattails of the human spaceflight program. When human spaceflight was very well funded, so was the unmanned program. When Congress cut human spaceflight at the knees, the unmanned program shortly followed the same dismal path.

LOL. Mrs Soros, I mean Hillary is getting her stinky, hairy butt kicked.

LOL. Mrs Soros, I mean Hillary is getting her stinky, hairy butt kicked.

 

Yeah, but I doubt that the SFN results will be the same as that for the general population

Interestingly, polls this week in Iowa and New Hampshire support the trend we are seeing here at SFN with Obama leading Clinton, and showing signs of continued forward momentum.

Interestingly, polls this week in Iowa and New Hampshire support the trend we are seeing here at SFN with Obama leading Clinton, and showing signs of continued forward momentum.

 

here's the raw data: http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

here's the raw data: http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

 

It also says that Clinton has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama nationally. I've been afraid that we may end up with two totally worthless candidates to choose from for our next president. I don't understand how Clinton can get away with lying about not running for president (and apparently countless other lies)? Do people not know, or not care?

It also says that Clinton has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama nationally. I've been afraid that we may end up with two totally worthless candidates to choose from for our next president. I don't understand how Clinton can get away with lying about not running for president (and apparently countless other lies)? Do people not know, or not care?

 

I guess they figure if she had done anything truly horrible, it would be covered by the mainstream media. Why isn't the media talking about clinton gate, anyway?

I've been afraid that we may end up with two totally worthless candidates to choose from for our next president.

Given the candidate list here in this thread and the candidate list in the corresponding Republican thread, I would say that this fear is already a done deal.

I disagree on the cost-benefits returns from unmanned exploration.

 

It is in the arena of intangible benefits that space exploration excels. We may not know the true financial benefit from Hubble, the Mars rovers, or Apollo for hundreds of years. We certainly can see the intangible benefit right now.

 

That's the cost-benefit I was referring to -- the intangible benefits of inspiration and imagination. I don't know of any current financial benefit to unmanned exploration, though I suppose it's always possible.

I guess they figure if she had done anything truly horrible, it would be covered by the mainstream media. Why isn't the media talking about clinton gate, anyway?

 

 

That's the spirit! Anything that comes out of the mainstream media is always reliable and trustworthy, open minded, and unbiased

 

=================================================

 

Personally, I don't know why people seem to like Obama so much over here. The only reason I voted for him was because he seems a little bit more sincere about his motivations, that and I don't want to start a Bush-Clinton dynasty.

It also says that Clinton has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama nationally. I've been afraid that we may end up with two totally worthless candidates to choose from for our next president. I don't understand how Clinton can get away with lying about not running for president (and apparently countless other lies)? Do people not know, or not care?

 

Sorry, what lies, exactly?

Sorry, what lies, exactly?

 

That she had no intention of running for president? Seems at least purposefully misleading people to think that she wouldn't run for president, and I'm pretty sure she was busy making plans to run when she said that.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/hillary/

I don't understand how Clinton can get away with lying about not running for president (and apparently countless other lies)? Do people not know, or not care?

Sorry, what lies, exactly?

That she had no intention of running for president? Seems at least purposefully misleading people to think that she wouldn't run for president, and I'm pretty sure she was busy making plans to run when she said that.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/hillary/

 

So... if I tell you I have no plans to get married four years from now, but then I do get married in four years, I'm a liar according to your logic. That's so extreme it's ludicrous. It's fine if you don't agree with her policies or approach to certain key election issues, but come on already...

 

Maybe she "gets away with it" because, when one calls her a liar for that, it's a nonsense charge with no merit.

 

 

 

Do you perhaps have better examples of lies? You said there are "countless others," so surely it won't be hard for you to provide evidence in support of your assertion.

So... if I tell you I have no plans to get married four years from now, but then I do get married in four years, I'm a liar according to your logic. That's so extreme it's ludicrous. It's fine if you don't agree with her policies or approach to certain key election issues, but come on already...

 

Maybe she "gets away with it" because, when one calls her a liar for that, it's a nonsense charge with no merit.

 

It would be if you were busy making plans to get married when you said that. Also, what she said was "I don't have any intentions or plans for running". I am fairly confident that at the very least she wanted to give the impression that she would not be running without actually saying so, which would be intentional deceit. It's not like she hadn't thought of that question or asked as sneaky question like this one. She could have easily said "currently" or "maybe" or "I don't know" if she wanted to convey uncertainty rather than that she wouldn't run. As a politician she should be well aware of that.

 

As I said, I do and did think she already had plans when she said that, but I won't argue that since I can't prove it. Also, most people agree that you can lie without saying things that are untrue, like in the Dihydrogen Monoxide website, or Satan from the bible.

 

Do you perhaps have better examples of lies? You said there are "countless others," so surely it won't be hard for you to provide evidence in support of your assertion.

 

Actually, I said "apparently countless others". There's a book if you want to read it. Though I am of the opinion that the average politician is a professional liar, so I'm kind of biased.

*whistles innocently*

I think our country and planet are in need of someone who can bring people together. Someone who can form a consensus and work with those who disagree. I think Obama demostrates that ability better than all the rest. I like him because I think he's what we need right now to move forward, not backward. That's just me though.

 

Well how'z about that.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/barack-obama-44.html

Obama completely lost it for me a ten days ago or so with his plan to gut NASA's exploration initiative in favor of space and science education.

 

Some articles and comments at

Daily Kos

 

Fortunately, Obama did a complete 180 on human spaceflight back in August. At the time, the polling in Florida indicated that Obama's anti-human spaceflight stance was a major impediment to his winning Florida -- and a major impediment to the victory of Florida Democratic House and Senate races. You can read about his change in stance here. He later came out with a rather detailed space policy (danged if I can find it though). That he did so at all is rather amazing since NASA represents just 0.6% of the federal budget.