Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the let's-just-howl-at-each-other-instead dept.

Moon 318

MarkWhittington writes "Mitt Romney has infamously suggested that the idea of lunar colonies is 'zany' and has ridiculed Newt Gingrich's idea of building a lunar base by 2020. However Romney has been endorsed by a group of aerospace heavyweights, including Apollo moonwalker Gene Cernan and former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, many of whom have previously supported the idea of lunar bases."

cancel ×

318 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I feel bad for Mitt Romney (3, Funny)

Haven (34895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854179)

Then I remember he signed up for the circus.

Re:I feel bad for Mitt Romney (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854893)

Are you a black people?

http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/ [blackpeoplemeet.com]

It's just more Romney pandering. (3, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854187)

This guy will literally say anything to get elected.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854233)

It's not [nationalgeographic.com] a new idea. George W. Bush of all people was probably the first president to suggest with a straight face a manned moon station.

it will not happen not because it is a wacky idea, but because there's too much money to be made on earth from terrestrial wars and bank-sanctioned Ponzi-schemes.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854319)

George W. Bush of all people was probably the first president to suggest with a straight face a manned moon station.

In Texas, a "Manned Moon Station" is 4 oz whole milk, 2 oz of Bourbon and a jigger of grain alcohol, served over shaved ice. With a tiny American flag.

The former President thought he was ordering an aperitif.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (2, Informative)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854401)

A moon base may not be all that wacky an idea, but building it within 8 years is ridiculous. Ambitious schedules for the Constellation program would barely have had manned launches by then, and we've let that project rot for two years now. I don't think we could have a base finished by 2020 even if we were spending 5x NASA's current budget on the project. We'd have to be spending completely ridiculous sums to even have a chance at making it happen that fast.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854509)

NASA 2010 budget - $18,724,000,000 [wikipedia.org]
DoD 2010 spending - $680,000,000,000 [wikipedia.org]

There's room for a lot more spending on space if we change our priorities.
DoD spending was actually over budget in 2010.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854631)

Lets not forget that other "priorities" are measured in TRILLIONS.

At any rate if we were to go to the Moon again it would have to be quick or risk being canned by the next group of assholes that make it into office. It only takes about a week after elections for the big wigs to bring up the valid point that there are no MP3s or DVDs on the moon.

We'd all be better off if we just gave up on the US government and just went there without them. Ass Clowns.

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854835)

I don't see a republican president moving money from the bottom row to the top row. More likely it will be more money pumped into the military to fund gulf war v3.0.0

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (2)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854295)

In other words he is a politician?

Re:It's just more Romney pandering. (3, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854727)

This guy will literally say anything to get elected.

Seeing as how the next primary is in Florida, it seems like being for a lunar base and other NASA projects would more likely be pandering.

Newsflash... (4, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854189)

Newsflash! Many people don't base their endorsements on a single issue! News at 11! Despite Romney opposing lunar bases, these folks think the space policy will be better under Romney. I don't know if I agree, but I certainly don't think it's ideologically inconsistent for a group to support a candidate despite disagreeing on one thing.

Re:Newsflashac... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854723)

Or maybe... they accept the idea that we (as a country) would be better off postponing something like that until we can afford it, despite how badly they would like to see it done. It's like deciding between saving/investing your money and going out drinking. One makes you happy now and the other makes you happy later.

Deficits deficits deficits (5, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854193)

Funny how "Deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) once the Republicans want to do something.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854247)

Now, just to be clear on this: Small deficits don't matter. Working under a small deficit means more liquidity, a stronger economy, and therefore more growth, which means you'll be able to pay off more debt later, so you can afford a bigger deficit now, meaning more liquidity...

Once you start dealing with a deficit that's bigger than what you can reasonably expect to grow, you're in deep trouble. We've been operating with far too large a deficit for far too long, made worse by the recession.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (5, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854263)

Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854311)

True, but the last several comments I've seen bring up deficits have all been followed by various rants about balancing the budget perfectly, and how all debt is terrible, and China's going to own us, et cetera. I'm hoping to help avoid the same misinformation.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (5, Insightful)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854485)

Balancing the budget most years really would be a good idea. Trying to maintain liquidity using fiscal policy doesn't really make sense; there are better ways to do that. It's true that balancing the budget every year is foolhardy, but we should probably be balanced or running a slight surplus something like five years of every seven (in harmony with the business cycle). The only deficit spending that really helps is what automatically happens in response to crises: more people come within the scope of government assistance programs and people pay less taxes because of lower income. The deficit spending that comes as a political reaction to crises is really too late to make much of a difference in the short term and is detrimental in the long run.

The basic problem is that Congresscritters have little incentive to think about what makes sense in the long run.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (2)

cdecoro (882384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854443)

...they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars.

No, that's not quite correct; they had not (yet) ballooned the deficit (I assume you mean debt) by "trillions" of dollars (defined as two trillion or more). He said that to Paul O'Neil in December 2002:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm [ontheissues.org]

In the last year of the Clinton administration (FY 2000) the debt was 5.6 trillion. At the end of the last fiscal year before that statement, (FY 2003, ending October 1, 2002) the debt was 6.7 trillion, which is an increase of just over a single trillion. By the end of FY 2004, it was 7.3 trillion, which is closer to "trillions" increased from the beginning of the Bush administration, but not quite there (an increase of 1.7 trillion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt [wikipedia.org]

If you did mean deficit, then the statement is even less true. The largest deficit under the Bush administration was for FY 2008 (because of the bailouts) at about 1.1 trillion.

However, from FY 2008 through the present (that is, the increase under Obama), the debt has gone up ~5.2 trillion dollars. That counts as "trillions." It also counts as almost a trillion dollars more than the increase in debt for the entire Bush presidency.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np [treasurydirect.gov]

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (5, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854481)

That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...

hey, this is slashdot. no accounting is allowed (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854785)

we all know those silly 'bean counters' contribute nothing to society. other than pointing out there were trillions of dollars hiding on some balance sheet that the government lied about. but hey. do accountants ever make cool apps for cellphones? dont think so.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854817)

That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...

Not really true. It may not have been part of discretionary budget, and it may have been allocated separate from the budget, but it was still part of federal spending, and still part of the deficit - the government has take in or borrow everything it spends, whether it's part of the budget or not. In fact, since 2009, congress hasn't passed a budget AT ALL, but they are still spending money, and still borrowing, and it's all part of the treasury department accounting.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854499)

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit? One is cumulative, the other is one-year.

For the record, I voted for Bush Jr. but regretted it when he turned in the 500B deficit. I voted for Obama but regretted it when he started turning in his 1.5T deficits. I just can't win...

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854743)

Now, just to be clear on this trois: When Dick Cheney said that he was helping to spend the money, drive the country into deeper debt, and by no means was an Economist or an Optimist. FTFYFT

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854781)

Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".

The deficit was never over $1 trillion until the 2009 budget.

In other words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854515)

The parent poster is 100% correct, and you don't have the balls to admit it.

Re:Deficits deficits deficits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854877)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast , and it is working, sadly
Q.E.D.

Romney is a liar (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854205)

His biggest challenge right now is Newt Gingrich. And so he ridicules Newt as a way to take whatever votes he can. Newt has been thinking about space and technology for decades, whereas Mitt only knows talking points. It is a common tactic in politics to attack your opponent on his weakness and his strengths. Mitts attacks have nothing to do with the merits of lunar colonies, only beating Newt and winning Florida. Romney is a liar who says whatever is necessary to win.

Re:Romney is a liar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854771)

NEWT is a liar who says whatever is necessary to win.

FTFYFT

Oh poor Newts. "Will true love ever come [his] way?" "I believe in miracles!" [for those without TVs...it's a Swiffer commercial depicting a lonely, depressed, dirty, 'Oh woe is me' cowgirl that has not yet found her true love despite several attempts...but she finds it in the working end of a mop...YBTJ]

Funding (5, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854211)

Will we be raising taxes to pay for all of this cool space stuff, or just putting it on the credit card as usual?

Re:Funding (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854239)

Oh that's easy, we just won't fund Medicare or fulfill our obligations to the Social Security system.

Re:Funding (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854779)

You're correct, we won't. Spending on a moonbsase would be an order of magnitude lower than funding Social Security.

Whether we build a moonbsase or not really has almost no bearing on the deficit. Yes, Social Security expenditures dwarf NASA spending by that much.

Re:Funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854825)

We'll pay for it from revenues paid to the US from the prison companies that lock up then kill people that "are busted" with more than 100 doses of drugs...prescription or not:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Marijuana/comments/osvsv/no_joke_newt_gingrich_supports_the_death_penalty/

and: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/12/former-marijuana-user-newt-gingrich-proposed-the-death-penalty-for-trafficking-marijuana-in-1996

Not exactly Wikepedia quality...but this is /.

Start Newt
      If drugs found on a particular persons >= 100 doses
                    DEATH PENALTY
      Else Life in Prison.
End Newt

Re:Funding (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854279)

Certainly we can borrow more money, President Obama will fund it as long as it's an entitlement program. The next economic stimulus will be free ponies for everyone!!

Re:Funding (2)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854325)

No they'll just print or borrow it. No need to directly go after tax payers for funding when a more stealthy approach is available. Then they can blame the "greedy" companies for the rise in prices.

Re:Funding (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854507)

Then they can blame the "greedy" companies for the rise in prices.

It's like blaming high oil prices on oil companies. It is purely a coincidence that six of the top ten all time best profits recorded by a company in a year just happen to be Exxon. And it is entirely another coincidence that these six record busting years occurred in the last 6 years.

It's totally a coincidence that Corporate America have had 2 of their best years in history in the last couple of years. That they have more cash on hand than when... well ever. But yeah, the system is totally working. Power to the rich, they deserve it. I mean who cares if the economy goes in the shitter, as long as some people are getting richer then the system is working.

I despise Newt... (2)

kytreb (2508498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854219)

...on pretty much every point: professionally, politically, personally. But I got to say, I liked the lunar base idea. It not any zanier than what JFK set out to do in the 60's. At least it would give this country a tangible goal to aspire to. It would put a new generation of kids into science programs.

Not like Obama's "Sputnik Moment" where our goal was basically to stop buying Middle Eastern oil from last year's SOTU. A bit of a dud, that was.

Re:I despise Newt... (3, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854245)

A lunar base would be great, but don't kid yourself into thinking Newt thought of it. Notice he only said this in Florida, where NASA is located...

Re:I despise Newt... (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854351)

NASA's most well known location is in Florida, but they're also in California (JPL, ARC), Alabama (MSFC), Australia (CDSCC), Virginia (LaRC), and Texas (JSC). Oh, and their headquarters is, of course, in Washington DC. You'd think it would come up in other places where NASA is huge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_facilities [wikipedia.org]

Re:I despise Newt... (2)

swonkdog (70409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854651)

True, but I think the issue came up in central Florida because the 'space coast' is primarily a final assembly and launch site. As such it saw far more job losses (both at the local contract corps. and KSC itself) than the other NASA locations that have large administrative, research or testing mandates. Not that those tasks aren't performed in Florida, they are simply on a much smaller scale than elsewhere.

Maybe this will come up again in Alabama, but MSFC has a much smaller per capita affected community than Florida and the remaining sites still seem to be fairly busy with basic and applied research, satellite and rover operations, ISS ops, etc.

Re:I despise Newt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854693)

One of these is not like the others.

Re:I despise Newt... (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854397)

We actually had competition in space back then. The only reason why we collaborate with Russia now is because they're cheaper.

What we need to revive global interest in space is an Armageddon-like threat which motivates all nations on Earth to work together to save the planet from a large asteroid.

it would work wonders for bringing us together as a planet. But while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony. One with a big, spotted cock.

*Cricket cricket* (5, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854237)

Frankly, Obama has done a bang up job and the Republican field is piss poor and is down to a bunch of former losers. The president's job is limited, and that was done on purpose to prevent any man from having too much power. For the most part, it doesn't matter what any candidates aspirations are, because if it goes against the other political bodies it will never happen.

My dad says "Anyone but Obama", but he can't ever seem to remember a good reason why. I can think of several reasons to not vote for both Republican front-runners although honestly the ones that stick out in my mind the most have less to do with their policies and plans and more to do with the kind of people they are.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854273)

But can you think of a reason to vote Obama back in again?

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854333)

Killed Bin Laden is a good start.

After having a president that said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMVdh8vdJfs [youtube.com]

Re:*Cricket cricket* (0)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854681)

Giulianni:9/11 Obama:killing bin Laden

Ok, we get it. He was the guy sitting at the desk when he got the info and gave the order. Good for him. I would assume every most Presidents except for Ron Paul would have made a similar decision.

So instead of bin Laden watching dirty videos he is dead. Let's base 4 years of a Presidency based on that?

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854805)

Killed Bin Laden is a good start.

Uh, killing? Bin Laden was on our side once, and what you are parroting is fake, unlike Donald Rumsfeld [quoracdn.net] shaking Saddam's hand. I wonder why its to hard to find the hi-res versions of that pic which were prevalent only a few years ago.

Where's the original photo? Timothy's membership of the JIDF serves to hide it.JIDF [thejidf.org]

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854851)

Killed Bin Laden is a good start.

And Al Awlaki, too. An American citizen. Never indicted, charged, or tried for any crime. But marked for death and killed by a drone in Yemen. Give Obama another 4 years and he'll probably be droning his enemies right here in the states.

Not that Newt Romney wouldn't do the same thing - but to vote for somebody because they can send drones to kill anybody they decide is dangerous seems like the very definition of voting against your own self-interest.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (2, Interesting)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854341)

Yeah he does his job and he has 4 years more experience doing it than these guys do. No sexual scandals. No kick-backs to friends he has in big business. He actually tries to improve things and I agree with him a lot of the time.

Romney's a villain in my eyes. He's a bad example; a person I'd be scared if children looked up to. First, he has a ton of kids. Imagine if we all did that, we'd be overpopulated like china in no time. There'd be so much competition that finding a decent job would be near impossible and quality of life would plummit. Next, he's super rich but pays less taxes than I do (% wise). Ok fine, that's the fault of the system, but what does he do with all that extra money? He donates it. Ok fine, I'm not a fan of donations because I like to see where my money is going, but where does it go? Mostly to the Morman church. The richest church in the United States by capita. So thats like donating to rich uncle pennybags in other words, because they're just going to use that money to build more churches and buy more land to bribe people to join their religion. I'll pretend Mormanism stands equal to all other religions in terms of legitimacy...

Gingrich... bleh

Damn those Mormans! (2)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854457)

Morman church

So you know so little about Romney's church that you can't even spell its common name right, but you know for certain it's evil? Where have I seen that kind of thinking before...

Re:Damn those Mormans! (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854529)

As an individual who's never been a member of the Mormon church, yes, I'll admit it that in the 5 times in my life I had to spell it as opposed to just simply say it, I never realized I was spelling it wrong

I never said it was evil though. Bacteria in a petri dish are self destructive but I don't find them to be evil

Re:*Cricket cricket* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854473)

Nice troll very subtle.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854861)

No kick-backs to friends he has in big business.

You obviously haven't been paying attention.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (3, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854863)

> No kick-backs to friends he has in big business.

Except for Solyndra execs taking the fifth when asked about their ties to the White House.
Except for George Kaiser, a Democratic fundraiser and Solyndra investor.
Except for the Keystone pipeline being killed when it just "by accident" benefits Warren Buffett's holding in railroads that transport oil and coal in Canada and the midwest.
Except for the raid on Gibson Guitar for using Indian rosewood and ignoring Martin Guitar's use of same. Just a coincidence that Gibson is owned by a Republican and Martin is owned by a Democrat.
Except for the peculiar way the Feds rammed General Motors through the pseudo-bankruptcy that stiffed the bond holders and the share holders but kept the contracts intact to the benefit of the unions.
Except for the fact that the "green jobs" stimulus funds went to companies owned by Democrats.

I could go on but the fact is Obama, a politician out of Chicago, is crooked. Quelle Surprise!

P.s. Don't forget that Eric Holder's Justice Department broke numerous statutes when they ran the Fast And Furious program that resulted in 1000's of firearms going into Mexico and some later returned to kill American Border Guards.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (5, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854349)

But can you think of a reason to vote Obama back in again?

Yeah... although I'd prefer Ron Paul, I *can* think of reasons to vote Obama back in again:

Due in some degree to Obama himself: Medical care for 40 million or so people who otherwise wouldn't have it; gays being allowed to serve openly in the military; the pro-consumer pushback against the credit card companies; the end of the Iraq war; the limited engagement with Libya instead of spending our soldiers lives for no reason (again!); he signed the closure order for Guantanamo; and good odds that in his second term, when he doesn't have to concern himself with re-election, that he will turn his attention to some of his other campaign promises.

Due to other factors: Romney is an out-of-touch rich idiot; Newt is a scumbag; Paul isn't going to be supported by the republicans because they prefer an idiot or a scumbag to an actual conservative who would try to obey the constitution. Which, I guess, is why I'm seriously thinking about voting for Obama. Again. The republicans have done an *outstanding* job of shooting themselves in the foot this time around.

Is Obama perfect? Hell, no. Is he better than Romney or Gingrich? Yes, in fact, so much so that it's a slam dunk to vote for him, if those are the choices. On the other hand, on the (very) off chance that the republicans wake up and put Paul up against Obama, I'd vote for Paul simply because he says he'd bring our soldiers home and close all those foreign bases. And as president, he'd actually have the power to do it (and very little else on his agenda, so I don't worry about that other stuff much.) But let's face it: the repubs are going to put up one of the clowns, not Paul, and consequently, they're going to lose *really* badly.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854403)

National deficits that have already put us into an impossible situation.
Gitmo still open.
Still in Afghanistan. Tried to keep us in Iraq.
Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.
Votes to lower funding for Social Security payroll taxes, making the system more insolvent than it was when he took office.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854573)

The payroll tax reduction was fancy math. The total funding for Social Security was not affected, as the missing 2% was reimbursed by the general budget. You can argue that gov't IOUs don't mean much, but if you're doing that, then we're so screwed already the 2% didn't affect anything anyway.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854583)

And if we had been under Republican leadership for the past for years, all of the above PLUS SOME would still have happened, and none of the positives in the grandparent post would have come to pass.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854669)

Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.

Senate Vote [govtrack.us]

HR Vote [govtrack.us]

Although it doesn't look like it would have many any difference in the bill passing I wish he would have at least tried to veto it.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854875)

It was actually the Obama administration that insisted the indefinite detention provision apply to US Citizen be included in the bill in the first place [thegatewaypundit.com] .

Re:*Cricket cricket* (2)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854557)

Medical insurance is NOT medical care. If you think it is, try going to the pharmacy and picking up your medication without paying the co-pay.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854361)

But can you think of a reason to vote Obama back in again?

Not if you take third parties seriously, no (and I still do; go Gary Johnson!). But unless Ron Paul wins his party's nomination (and he won't), it is likely that Obama will be way better than the Republican nominee.

Think about how absurd it was that anyone voted for Bush in 2004. Yet a majority of people had no even-nearly-as-good choice. The Republicans simply aren't going to have a serious nominee for president in the 2012 election, just like the Democrats in 2004. They're not even trying to win. I'll believe otherwise, if the delegates go to Paul. But that is not going to happen. That party has already given up.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854895)

Not if you take third parties seriously, no (and I still do; go Gary Johnson!). But unless Ron Paul wins his party's nomination (and he won't), it is likely that Obama will be way better than the Republican nominee.

That's true, since anybody other than Paul would continue most of Obama's policies anyway. But with Obama still in office, we can keep our numbers up in the opposition. If a Republican got in, too many people would stop paying attention and we might not have the numbers and the funding to keep the congress blocking all the power grabs. You'd have to explain to people WHY a policy or law change is bad and CONVINCE them to oppose it. So, yea, keep Obama in, that will make it easier: "Hey, Obama wants this - Call your congressman and senator to tell them to oppose it!!"

Re:*Cricket cricket* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854369)

The Welfare Nation will vote for him, regardless how many lies he says. The unsourced quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The US is on the precipice of this collapse and we're already seeing this dictatorship when Obama signed theNDAA [wikipedia.org] into law on New Year's Eve. Happy New Year fellow American slaves!

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854395)

Welfare: Check
Dictatorship: Check
Collapse of US: Check
Slaves: Check


I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter

Re:*Cricket cricket* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854483)

I think you meant zine.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854393)

The Republican Party.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854437)

The Republican Party.

Yeah, it's a sad day when the Republicans seem determined to put up a candidate who will make Obama look like the least worst choice.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854345)

Obama has done a bang up job AT WHAT?

Rescinding every "I just said what you want to hear" promise that got him elected?

Has he done anything to justify that Nobel that the corrupt-as-fuck-politically-motivated Nobel commission gave him?

I could list more W accomplishments than you could for Obama, and believe me, I'm no fan.

The guy is a corrupt Chicago pile of dogshit who never deserved that office, and needs to go.

It's a shame that the American two-party system is utterly incapable of fixing the problem.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (2, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854407)

As a Republican, I think Obama's been a terrific president.

- Kept Guantanamo open, with no sign it's closing.
- Has made nice noises about getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're really not completely leaving any time soon.
- Has set the stage nicely for war with Iran if we want it.
- Has bailed out banks and big businesses, saving them from insolvency and the consequences of their own bad decisions and cheerfully used TAXPAYER dollars to do it.
- Has pretty much laid the legal basis for the detention of any US citizen without warrant, trial, or lawyer.
- Far from being transparent, he's conducted repeated secret strategy meetings and closed off giant chunks of the government to public scrutiny
- He's packed Washington with more lobbyists than ever, and in fact I believe he actually might have a representative from Goldman Sachs actually sleeping in bed with him and Michelle.
- He's made all sorts of platitudes toward the eco-nuts, but has prevented anything actually happening in terms of Green policies, including failing to hold anyone responsible for the massive BP disaster.

That's pretty much all the important stuff for us Republicans. I'm not sure why you Democrats think he's working for you, hell, he's great for us.

This cricket has been detained by ICE (2)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854527)

Obama's been an awesome failure as a Democratic president, that's for sure. In recent months I've heard his presidency described as George W. Bush's third term, and I can't disagree.

When it comes to voting for Republicans, though, I'd definitely vote for the incumbent black Republican to get a second term if my two choices were Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney.

Which is why I'll be 'throwing away' my vote on a third party again. Remember, it's only throwing away your vote until enough people do it. Then we can be free.

Re:*Cricket cricket* (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854667)

You forgot the part about arbitrarily executing American Citizens with no judicial oversight.

The show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854249)

Just goes to show the disconnect between politicians and their endorsers. Demonstrates what all slashdotters know -- that it's all just a bullshit show with money and favors switching hands.

When you're rich and connected, the "issues" don't matter. Just part of the show for the common man.

I was actually looking at the moon through my scope the other evening. I didn't see a moon base, but I did see what appeared to be a disk, a black flap, and a scorpion.

Apollo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854267)

Nobody laughed at Kennedy when he stated the US would put a man on the moon in ten years (and the US had not yet sent a human into orbit). He was met with applause.

It's sad that "big" ideas like a moon base are now ridiculed.

Re:Apollo (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854271)

Kennedy didn't make that speech during a Democratic primary either. He was the President, and announced it during a joint session of congress.

Re:Apollo (1)

The Man (684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854335)

Nobody laughed at Kennedy when he stated the US would put a man on the moon in ten years (and the US had not yet sent a human into orbit). He was met with applause.

It's sad that "big" ideas like a moon base are now ridiculed.

Considering that most people had probably resigned themselves to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, a ridiculously expensive, minimally valuable moon race probably sounded pretty damned good as an alternative way to beat the Russkies.

The moon isn't going anywhere. There's plenty of time for us to put things right at home before going back there, and in the meantime if there's really any great profit to be had there, private enterprise will be all too happy to go claim it. Times have changed; our biggest problems today are internal and of our own making, not some external enemies. A mad dash from nothing to a useless lunar base makes very little sense right now, even if it were technically feasible.

Put another way, if you feel so strongly about it, go finance your own expedition. In all seriousness, I'm looking forward to seeing stuff like this happen. Once someone has a foothold away from Earth, we'll have a new frontier to expand, on which existing governments will be largely powerless. It will be a wonderful new opportunity for those of us who are highly dissatisfied with the way this planet is being governed to set out and try something different. Most human generations have had that opportunity; only in the last century or so has the entire planet been claimed by effective governments. Forget the 1960s and think instead about what might make sense in the future.

Re:Apollo (2)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854375)

> Once someone has a foothold away from Earth, we'll have a new frontier to expand, on which existing governments will be largely powerless

Existing governments are already largely powerless, in that their decisions are being made by large multi-national corporate interests. Don't think for a second that those multinationals would have a bit of trouble dictating what happens on the Moon or anywhere else.

Re:Apollo (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854661)

The moon isn't going anywhere.

Oh yeah? It might beg to differ as it's receding from the Earth at a rate of 22mm per year.

yeah there was this thing called the Cold War (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854807)

the true effect of propaganda can be seen in the thousands of people on sites like slashdot who think that we entered the space race to fulfill some kind of technological utopian adventurous spirit of the human existential quandry alone in the universe.

we went to the moon to beat the soviet union, i.e., the commies. that was the only reason congress agreed to fund it. the only reason the soviets had a space program was because their leaders thought it was the only way to compete militarily with the US (stick nukes on rockets).

the entire space program was based around theoretical war with an enemy state.

now, communism is no longer the enemy - its our special friend that produces shiny gadgets we write code for, in huge factories we'd rather not think about, unless we work at Goldman Sachs and our job is to think about how much money they are making.

Lunar base-- great idea. Gingrich's version- not. (4, Funny)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854281)

Having a long term plan for an extraterrestrial base is a great idea. Trying to foist one on an American public tired of heavy deficit spending when our credit rating is already going south is not. Trying to build it in less than eight years when we have no plan and no existing budget is, well, loony.

You know, a one-way Moon shot would actually be inexpensive and quickly achievable. With that in mind: Newt Gingrich for President of the United States of the Moon (population: 1) 2016!!

/. - Please Don't Do This. (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854297)

The election is still MANY MONTHS away. Don't play the election cycle game.

Re:/. - Please Don't Do This. (1)

axlr8or (889713) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854355)

Don't worry bout me. I haven't voted since Clinton proved that caring doesn't matter. I was a firearms advocate. When the democrats made the tentative assault weapons ban I went straight to the polls to vote in republicans to have it repealed. After they were voted into office Clinton's speech went something like this, "I don't care what you got voted in for, it's not going to happen." So, after that, I hated democrats AND republicans. Since then it has expounded to recognized any politician as a liar. Period. no more investing my time in the political process again. If the people speak their voice and it doesn't happen, its out of control. They sell lies, and anyone who votes is buyin.

Re:/. - Please Don't Do This. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854363)

So you're a one issue voter. You people really don't matter much in the big scheme of things, to either party. They will simply use your focus on one issue to get their way, and then ignore you, as you found out.

Re:/. - Please Don't Do This. (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854497)

After they were voted into office Clinton's speech went something like this, "I don't care what you got voted in for, it's not going to happen."

So you are mad at the Republicans because a Democratic president prevented them from doing what they said they were going to do?

You just keep on not voting, that's just fine with me.

Re:/. - Please Don't Do This. (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854359)

but people need to vent their anger to other completely uninformed individuals to have already come to the same conclusion.

Re:/. - Please Don't Do This. (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854429)

dammit, I meant:

but people need to vent their anger to other completely uninformed individuals who have already come to the same conclusion.

Jon Stewart Got It Right (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854379)

"After doing the global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi, Newt realized the earth was sick and decided to leave it for a younger planet."

Please fix the summary (2)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854445)

The summary reads:

Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters

While what the article says is:

While laying out four principles that his space policy would follow, Romney declined to state what his space policy or goals would be. He reiterated his desire for a committee to experts from across NASA, the military, the commercial sector, and academic to determine what that policy might be. He did not reiterate his opposition to a moon colony, however.

So what about this summary instead:

Romney holds space plans for later; enjoys support from space heavyweights

Romney is the selected candidate. (5, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854479)

Romney has won a single primary. He isn't even in the lead of delegates, but the media keep trying to shove him down our throats as if no one else is in the race.

Disagree with their politics or not, Newt, Paul and Santorum are still in this race.

LK

Oh Lord, what have thou become? (X_X) (1)

Kikuchi (1709032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854525)

Hey, here's a Slashdot Poll idea:
What got this story on slashdot? The word:
* Rommney, Gingrich
* Lunar base
* 2020
* NASA
* aerospace heavyweights
* Moonwalker

This isn't hypocracy (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854537)

They simply KNOW what's a reasonable timescale & what's not! I don't know if anyone remembers, but remember the shuttle program? They were actually SHUTTLES; vehicles designed to SHUTTLE people en-masse to the giant space stations we were supposed to have by now before funding was cut, & simply to build them took OVER A DECADE to get from idea to reality, & by the time they finished they had no giant space stations to shuttle people to so they gutted the seats & called it a cargo hold. So, let's review: we take over 10 years for a project that WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO A LUNER BASE, & in the end instead of a shuttle we get a freight train that kept breaking down. To top it off, the funding came through because of the space race / national security more than anything else.

So just to be perfectly clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854545)

So just to be perfectly clear: the US intends to claim the moon as its sovereign territory now? Have you told the Russians? How about the Indians? They had probes flying over it very recently. If the Chinese knew, they might try and target the moon with some of their long march rockets. They might also cut off the "SinoATM(tm)". That might destabilize the US economy especially if other people start using the Yuan. Then printing more money won't do squat, and all that 'lunar bases' money will disappear like green cheese.

Re:So just to be perfectly clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854845)

"The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men! Will you be among them?"

Politics aside, I want a lunar base (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854663)

I'm bored with the space station... de-orbit it for all I care. I want a lunar base. I don't even need people on it. You can have it fully staffed with robots for all I care. But make them capable of doing if only by remote control everything a human being could do on the moon.

NASA old guard wants Constellation back (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854735)

Didn't those guys attack Obama's efforts to cancel Constellation that was started under George W. Bush? Didn't Romney just attack Obama for trying to cancel much of Constellation?

Newt Gingrich mentioned the need to do things very differently at NASA. Newt Gingrich mentioned the need to be able to launch 4 to 5 times per day. Newt Gingrich mentioned the lack of failure of the missile guys in his speech, and that DARPA was the only part of government that took risks. Newt Gingrich even mentioned the Atlas V rocket.

So basically...
Obama - Augustine report recommendations
Romney - Constellation is back!
Gingrich - Pay SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. a lot of money to build a moon base. Maybe Elon can talk Gingrich into financing his retirement on Mars.
Ron Paul - death to the manned space program

Geeez..... (1)

jmd (14060) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854747)

My guess is China will draw a line in the sand and say *No more money for you until you pay back what you already owe.*

Is it just me or do I see a pattern of serious mental illness developing amongst politicians??

I'm against a lunar base (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854761)

Sure, they'll try to sell people on its scientific and exploratory merits; but it's all a sham meant to hide their real mission of storing spent nuclear waste on the far side of the moon. Then all it'd take is one catastrophic accident and - BAM! - the moon's sent out into deep space, and poor Barbara Bain and Martin Landau are never seen again.

Lets Get This Straight........ (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854767)

Republicans who support Newt Gingrich don't want to pay taxes even to maintain their crumbling roads, but Gingrich wants to build colonies on the moon and make it into a 51st state?

Grape Kool Aid is nice I hear (2)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854811)

The fix is in. Romney is the "desired" candidate of the elites in the GOP and especially the media and the Democrats. But, they'll eat him for frickin' lunch in November. All the media love being shown to him to him? That's a trap. You can bet your sweet bippy that come election time, they'll turn on him and endorse Democrats. About the space program? "Oh, please, Mr Putin!! Can we ride one of your rockets into space? Our president SHUT DOWN OUR MANNED SPACE PROGRAM, so we need a ride. Won't you please help a poor third-world nation out?" Yeah, Newt's a cad that's been married seventy times. I was married twice myself. Your point, while you cite Bill Clinton as being a good president? I wish the liberal culture of Slashdot could separate their hatred for any conservative candidate with the real issues. The USA DOESN'T HAVE A MANNED SPACE PROGRAM ANY MORE. It *needs* to be resurrected. I'd vote for him on that basis alone, never mind mind he left two harpy bitch gold digger wives. Good riddance. There goes my stellar Slashdot positive karma rating. You people you should be more intellectually consistent... the whole point of this site is about technology and science. Well, here's a guy who wants to promote that. And you oppose him. Bye bye karma. Oh, well...

Needs to be a law... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854841)

They need to make a law that jails or at least bankrupts any elected official who goes against a campaign promise.. for too many years they promise the world depending who they are in front of, then when elected do whatever the hell they want anyway. Like right now, that the GOP is working in Florida they are toning down the anti-immigration they use in other states... 'The People' are so stupid...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>