Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Romney-Ryan Release Space Policy Paper

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the to-the-stars dept.

NASA 378

RocketAcademy writes "The Romney-Ryan campaign has released a white paper on space policy, which observers find to be long on criticisms of the Obama Administration but short on specific recommendations. The policy promises 'a robust role for commercial space,' but it's clearly a supporting role: 'NASA will set the goals and lead the way in human space exploration.' When it comes to space, both parties put government ahead of private enterprise. Some see a parallel with the policies which are driving space companies out of California. Newt Gingrich, one of the few politicians who thinks seriously about space, says the policy is a step in the right direction but not enough."

cancel ×

378 comments

The Short Version (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443317)

47% of space travel should be privatized.

Re:The Short Version (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443337)

47% of space is lazy...

Re:The Short Version (1, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443439)

47% of space doesn't pay any taxes

Re:The Short Version (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41443501)

47% of space is distributed along its Y-Axis.

Re:The Short Version (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443919)

Do you care to discuss this point using reason and logic, or it this just flamebait?

Honest question, it is worth discussing.

Intellectual honesty, or coward? Just asking,

Re:The Short Version (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443951)

Do you care to discuss this point using reason and logic, or it this just flamebait?

Honest question, it is worth discussing.

Intellectual honesty, or coward? Just asking,

I'd point out something about anonymous coward and finger pointing, but don't expect you have the grace to say, "Touché"

Sometimes it's just about having a little light hearted fun, after all this is a political thread. I don't expect anything in here to influence a vote, one way or the other.

Re:The Short Version (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443999)

So I take it that is a no? Note I was not calling you a coward, just asking the fair question. *Very* few around here are really willing to engage in honest discussion - you realize this no? It would be nice to find one.

Hey, I tried... your call ackthpt.

Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and if (-1, Troll)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41443331)

Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and if you have a pre-existing condition that the ER does not handle they have no idea.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443387)

Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (4, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41443391)

Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.

And who pays for this "free" clinic?

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443455)

Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.

And who pays for this "free" clinic?

Magic. Magic pays for everything. It's the new fiscal accounting model.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (4, Funny)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41443845)

Wow, Magic Johnson must pay a LOT of taxes to cover for medicare alone!

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443965)

Wow, Magic Johnson must pay a LOT of taxes to cover for medicare alone!

I think his on-going HIV treatments are sufficient medical expense deductions he doesn't end up with much owed at the end of the year.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443961)

Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.

And who pays for this "free" clinic?

Magic. Magic pays for everything. It's the new fiscal accounting model.

Ahhh!

So that's what's covering Obama's multi-trillion-dollar deficits!

That must be why the Dems refuse to pass a budget - we'd see they're using handwaving and pure FUCK-US-OVER magic!

But boy, they got to stay in power by buying votes with bigger welfare checks!

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443663)

Simple, Ryan has this one covered...

You just have to rob a bank to steal the money to pay for your health care. If you get away, you can now afford it. And if you get caught, no worries, the government will now pay for all of your health care, food, and lodgings anyway.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41443767)

s/bank/taxpayer/g...

Fixed that for you ;^)

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443823)

And you don't think taxpayers pay for prisons?

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

strangeattraction (1058568) | about 2 years ago | (#41443865)

I guess you have not been incarcerated in a California prison:) http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/05/04/32295/california-officials-attorneys-inmates-sumbit-plan/ [scpr.org]

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443983)

At least they are still alive, and not lying face down in a gutter. And of course those inadequate facilities are probably still costing taxpayers about 10x what providing basic insurance would...

Always amazing the stupid decisions people (politicians and voters) will make with emotion or spite over reason. Reminds me of the CA death penalty. 13 people have been executed since it was reinstated in 1978, at a cost of about $4B. And the process takes so long that over *80* death row inmates have died of other causes. So $200M a year has been wasted just to wait around for 90% of the inmates to die on their own, same as in life without parole.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443539)

Ha ha! Take that eldery, homeless, children, and handicapped! Anonymous Coward has, in two of the most devastatingly effective sentences ever written, has demonstrated both his/her boundless understanding of economics and the nearly infinite well of compassion he/she holds for his/her fellow man! Your apparent lack of immediate value to our economy is your death sentence. Best you die now and decrease the surplus population!

Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41443605)

Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.

Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (2)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#41443687)

Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.

Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.

Who pays to clear the bodies away?

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

IrquiM (471313) | about 2 years ago | (#41443799)

Kebab restaurants!

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41443907)

Someone rich enough who doesn't want their view sullied or the the local owner of that strip of road in front of his house/business who paid to have it built in front. S/he is responsible for cleaning it off of his property, or keeping the unkempt masses off of his/her properly so they don't die there.

That, or the body just sits there and rots/is eaten by scavengers. Pure 'personal responsibility' also allows for the problem to simply not be solved and piles of bodies can just lie around. Because that works so well.

P.S. Yes, I'm serious that's probably about the argument ayn rand types would make, no, I don't think that's even remotely sensible.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443773)

Anywhoodlidoodle, don't worry sir(or ma'am), you need not fear paying for check-ups, immunizations, and whatnot. You can simply wait and pay tons more for what could have been easily preventable emergency care. Just like Rand would have wanted.

Actually, ol' Ayn would have preferred they die in the street, assuming it's not a street she frequents.

I like the Margaret Sanger approach myself - actively kill the undesirables (blacks) even before they're born.

I suppose health care is distantly relevant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443545)

...because we shouldn't be putting rockets in the air while people are dying of preventable diseases on the ground.

To answer your statement of "Find a Free Clinic" who do you think pays for those?

I personally am only comfortable with financing NASA (whose efforts advance the whole country) because we have decent health care coverage in place.

To answer the underlying argument which you haven't addressed: You have a basic choice, you can let people die outside the emergency rooms for failing to carry a health care card, or you can save them.

If you choose the "save them" path then those of us who can pay for it, will end up paying for it. Period.

Then it's a question of "Which is more efficient?" On the one hand we pay for 30 million ER visits (many people go more than once, some never, for the last 20 years of life, 1 is a good average). On the other we pay for preventative care for 30 million people, and 10 million ER visits. You pick. Ask any hospital worker which one is cheaper.

and if you a pre-existing condition = death camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443599)

and if you a pre-existing condition = go to a Nazi like death camp as you can't get insurance.

And the only plan that will cover you will be jail / prison care

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 2 years ago | (#41443627)

Pretty good troll. Got a lot of responses already I see.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443739)

If you develop multiple sclerosis down the road your words will haunt you.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (2, Funny)

huckamania (533052) | about 2 years ago | (#41443613)

Do you really think that parents that take their kids to the ER for a fever and/or ear infection are going to suddenly stop taking their kids to the ER and go to their regular doctor? Do you really think that the homeless, who account for a large percentage of ER costs, are going to find a doctor who will take them that doesn't work in an ER?

Mitt's plan is to let the States work this out for themselves. In some states that can be Robamacare and in others it can be insurance and tort reform. Tort reform would save the system more money then any of the current proposals.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443717)

Bullshit, insurance overhead is your number one problem.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443945)

Really? I call bullshit. Support that with facts please AC.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 2 years ago | (#41443953)

Do you really think that parents that take their kids to the ER for a fever and/or ear infection are going to suddenly stop taking their kids to the ER and go to their regular doctor?

Well yeah, they'll have insurance. These people aren't hopeless morons, and they love their children and what whats best for them. Indigent homeless are trickier, but you see a lot of working homeless families lining up around the block to get their non-emergent medical needs addressed. Under a

In some states that can be Robamacare and in others it can be insurance and tort reform. Tort reform would save the system more money then any of the current proposals.

You forgot to call the President "hopey changey," or make a reference to the "democrat party." Minus two points.

Tort reform is a bit of a red herring. Orrin Hatch's Tort Reform proposals in '09 would have saved about $54 billion [washingtonpost.com] , which isn't chump change, but it would only reduce total national health spending by 0.5%. So we could claim that money on the table, but the limitations in Hatch's proposal specifically were extremely low, to the extent that they reduced pain and suffering awards to a slap on the wrist and would probably cause incidents of malpractice to increase.

State-by-state solutions are doomed in the US because of regulatory arbitrage. Employers and tax units in states with expensive programs can simply move their paper addresses to states with lower tax liability. Insurance companies can shop around for states that offer them the most favorable regulation (the ones with the least customer protections), and employers can play states off each other to obtain favorable tax treatment. States simply can't design their own programs when the employers within it can simply evade the costs of the system by filing paperwork, while enjoying all the benefits of the system by dumping their employees into the state public program. A state-by-state healthcare system in the US would end up looking a lot like the consumer credit card system in the US, which is to say, we'd all have whatever rights the North Dakota and Delaware legislature had agreed to, because they were the highest bidder for the health insurance company's business.

"States' Rights" has been keeping 60's-style state capitalism alive for decades, by giving employers a huge stick with which they can extract free services from a state government, guised under the threat of "killing jobs." An employer simply threatens to move unless they can stay tax-free, dumping the costs of roads, schools, police, and health care on everyone else.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443975)

"Mitt's plan is to let the States work this out for themselves. "

Mitts plan is he has no plan then...just let the states get into more debt by paying for this stuff.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 2 years ago | (#41443977)

You see one of these stories every few months. [cbsnews.com] Behold, these people are homeless and seek out non-emergent care for their children. Wouldn't you rather these people be paying for this through insurance premiums, rather than having to rely on charity? No other country in the developed world has this.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443781)

Not really, Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. The guy is pro-healthcare, he's proud of what he did in Mass. Don't be deceived by his rhetoric to the tea party.

Re:Romney-Ryan is a Health Care flip floper (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41443941)

Re:Romney-Ryan is a Health Care flip floper and with him you may end up with a mini med plan that does cover any thing.

Re:Romney-Ryan no Insurance your doctor is ER and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41444025)

"Not really, Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. "

His plan is 90% the same as Obama, but without explanation for how it will be funded. "better" needs explanation which he hasn't yet provided.

Long on this, short on that (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443335)

Seems I've been hearing that for the last month or so.

I keep expecting Mitt and Paul to get elected, then slip out of their disguises as Kang and Kodos.

I for one ... ah, bugger it.

Re:Long on this, short on that (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41443459)

"As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball" is something I would be utterly unsurprised to hear coming out of Romney's mouth.

No flip-flop jokes please (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41443341)

Even us die-hard Obamatrons are tired of them!

Re:No flip-flop jokes please (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443467)

Even us die-hard Obamatrons are tired of them!

This is the Etch-a-Sketch crowd, haven't you been keeping up?

I'm waiting for the Lego candidate, myself.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443363)

No space. There are poor people. Give all money to them. kthxbye.

But he said space was stupid before.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443371)

And that's what we call politics. The only ones that haven't flip-flopped are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think the real elections should be about those two competitors.

Re:But he said space was stupid before.... (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41443397)

And that's what we call politics. The only ones that haven't flip-flopped are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think the real elections should be about those two competitors.

I don't.

Re:But he said space was stupid before.... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41444015)

The only ones that haven't flip-flopped are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

That's correct. They skipped the "flip" part and just flopped.

What NASA needs. (3, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41443377)

What NASA needs is a specific goal (moon in this decade), and the money to achieve it, free of political constraints. None of this "No ATK, no $$$" garbage.

Re:What NASA needs. (2)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41443401)

I agree, I feel like we should make a our goal creating a base on the moon from which to launch further expeditions to Mars, perhaps even construct the ships out there, so that we can make them larger, and more habitable.

It's all sci-fi sounding I agree, but It could be a step in the right direction... anything would be a step in the right direction.

Re:What NASA needs. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443623)

I agree, I feel like we should make a our goal creating a base on the moon from which to launch further expeditions to Mars, perhaps even construct the ships out there, so that we can make them larger, and more habitable.

It's all sci-fi sounding I agree, but It could be a step in the right direction... anything would be a step in the right direction.

The latest step appears to be, "Let's watch and see what China and India do."

Re:What NASA needs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443763)

...which leaves some people watching, and some people doing.

Re:What NASA needs. (4, Insightful)

murdocj (543661) | about 2 years ago | (#41443873)

yeah... because since the 60s, all NASA has done is launch probes to all of the planets, orbiters to a bunch of them, rovers on Mars, interstellar probes at the boundary of the solar system, ion drives, missions to asteroids... gee I sure wish we were still trying to put a couple of guys into low earth orbit.

Re:What NASA needs. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41444013)

yeah... because since the 60s, all NASA has done is launch probes to all of the planets, orbiters to a bunch of them, rovers on Mars, interstellar probes at the boundary of the solar system, ion drives, missions to asteroids... gee I sure wish we were still trying to put a couple of guys into low earth orbit.

The James Webb Space Telescope (with it's awesome infra-red capabilities!) is a definite posibility of getting axed. Lots of other astronomy projects are threatened by the budget axe, too. Some great work being done from the ground, but there's getting to be a lot less support for keeping it going.

Re:What NASA needs. (2, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41443803)

No. South pole of the moon is a potential fuel base. Build the ships on earth, assemble in orbit, fuel from the moon. Skip mars mission and fetch the nearest earth crossing small to medium nickle-iron asteroid to L5. People only in LEO and maybe at the lunar fuel base. Everything else robotic.

Then build/invent orbital metal refinery with intention of blowing or sputtering onto foil a nickle iron barrel shape. Move that to LEO as new habitat. Also refuel and refurb asteroid tug and send it for the next asteroid.

Be fucking careful, an asteroid tug is a serious potentially planet destroying weapon. Use very strong crypto. Build hard restrictions into navigation computer.

Re:What NASA needs. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41443913)

You can't build rockets on the moon. There are no sources of refined metals, or plastics, or electronics. There are no machine shops, nor tool and die fabricators. There are no people to operate anything either. There are no launch facilities, no way to fuel the rocket, even if you managed to get it built.

Re:What NASA needs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443639)

Maybe we could do something similar with the DoD. Here's the $500 billion for your new fighter plane. Spend it wisely, and don't come back here looking for more because that's your budget.

I mean, if we can ask NASA to land a robotic truck on mars with like $14 and a pack of chewing gum, I think the DoD should be able to get its projects done the same way, with no actual deadlines and 1,000x's the budget.

Re:What NASA needs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443719)

What NASA needs is to be scrapped and started over.

I hear that... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443379)

Romney thinks the windows in our space craft need to be able to open.. ya know, in case there is a fire and they need to let the smoke out.

Re:I hear that... (5, Informative)

SoCalChris (573049) | about 2 years ago | (#41443521)

This is what AC is referencing. 7th paragraph down.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922,0,2317962.story [latimes.com]

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”

Sadly, this isn't an Onion article.

Re:I hear that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443809)

So, yeah... when your wife/partner/so narrowly escapes getting killed, we'll expect a coherent and cogent response from you too, right?

Re:I hear that... (2)

Lynchenstein (559620) | about 2 years ago | (#41443901)

All he's saying (Romney) is that they just need to stop buying the base model airplanes and get the ones with power windows - like in her Caddy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Space Policy Paper has power space windows as a requirement, and heated leather. We all know that if the Challenger and Columbia shuttles would have had OnStar, there would have been no loss of life.

Re:I hear that... (4, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | about 2 years ago | (#41444017)

If I'm running for the most powerful office in the world, and giving a prepared speech the day after an event like that happened then yes, I would fully expect to give a coherent and cogent response. It's not like they interviewed him on the runway, standing next to a still smoking plane while his wife was gasping for fresh air.

Glittering generalities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443381)

If you want to think that a President Romney will think big and ramp up the manned space program, you're free to think that

But if you're more concerned about budget deficits and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington, you bet that Mitt is all over that!

How About Tax Returns First? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443393)

It's like walking into an emergency room with blood spurting out of an artery and the doctor notices you got a little sun earlier in the day and offers you some aloe with these guys.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443435)

His tax returns have no impact on his ability to act as President. Grow up.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#41443567)

They are if there's a tax penalty in it levied under the FBAR Amnesty program [cafetax.com] because his Swiss bank threatened to report his numbered account to the IRS.

That program is for two people: those who are completely ignorant of the tax code because they just immigrated into the US and were told too late what to do with offshore accounts, and those who tried to hide capital gains from the IRS. The first one doesn't apply the Romney, and the second ought to really make you question why Romney is running.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41443643)

They are if there's a tax penalty in it levied under the FBAR Amnesty program [cafetax.com] because his Swiss bank threatened to report his numbered account to the IRS.

That program is for two people: those who are completely ignorant of the tax code because they just immigrated into the US and were told too late what to do with offshore accounts, and those who tried to hide capital gains from the IRS. The first one doesn't apply the Romney, and the second ought to really make you question why Romney is running.

Maybe he's running so when elected he can get that annoying bit of tax code repealed. It might be very popular with the 1%.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41443855)

The Swiss only reported numbered accounts opened after 1948 IIRC. So old money families like the Kennedys, Romneys and Gores have nothing to worry about.

Funny how that always works out.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443591)

His tax returns have no impact on his ability to act as President. Grow up.

Hiding things, being dishonest, and taking the amnesty deal after the IRS found out about his Swiss bank account to stay out of jail has everything to do with it.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443705)

If he's going to be President of a country who's attitude on individual privacy can now be summed up as "if you didn't do anything wrong, what are you hiding?" then yes, I think it's very relevant.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443741)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that thought.

Re:How About Tax Returns First? (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443899)

Both may be appropriate.

Then again, once Romney announces he's going to repeal the Patriot Act, fix the TSA and abolish the DHS, and prohibit all warrantless wiretapping and illegal imprisonment of US citizens, I'll consider his own right to privacy worth defending...

Same thing (2, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 2 years ago | (#41443399)

Whoa so wait a minute... Romney's policy is almost identical to Obama's? What a shocker! Who could have predicted such a thing, when they are so.diametrically opposed on every other issue? Gee, that makes it so much harder to decide which tyrant to vote for.

Re:Same thing (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about 2 years ago | (#41443503)

Any policy released before an election is just a marketing document, not an actual policy intended to be followed.

Re:Same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443691)

His 3 cent titanium tax goes too far.

Re:Same thing (1)

murdocj (543661) | about 2 years ago | (#41443909)

yeah, because in this election, with the other trivial issues on the line like women's health, Medicare, dealing with Iran, the budget deficit, the economy, for sure I'm going to vote based on space policy.

The real question... (5, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#41443403)

... will the Romney spacecraft have windows that open? [latimes.com]

When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous.

Clearly, Romney is an expert on these things, so I hope they take his input seriously in the design phase. We wouldn't want future astronauts dying from not being able to open their windows.

(yes, I know I'll be moderated down for this. but I've got karma to burn - even if I can't get oxygen at 30,000 feet to burn it with)

Re:The real question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443463)

Oh wow, that's pretty stupid; but he was speaking from emotions. If your spouse was in peril, would you think about the technicalities first? He's done and said some really stupid things, but I have to give him a pass on this one.

His fratboy antics regarding attacking people's hairstyles, and the whole dog on the roof thing give me more pause than this. He's a total "bro", and we don't need 4 years of that.

Re:The real question... (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#41443559)

Oh wow, that's pretty stupid; but he was speaking from emotions. If your spouse was in peril, would you think about the technicalities first? He's done and said some really stupid things, but I have to give him a pass on this one.

You might feel the need to give him a pass, but I do not. He had time between the incident and when he gave that remark (at a $50k/plate dinner no less). Furthermore he is college educated and should realize the stupidity in that statement (actually there are layers of stupidity in it if you read it carefully).

His fratboy antics

You must be new here. On slashdot you are only allowed to call Obama (or BHO as is preferred) to be a frat boy or party animal. All republicans are serious, Obama is a party animal. Get the mantra straight before you talk politics here...

Re:The real question... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#41443633)

Oh wow, that's pretty stupid; but he was speaking from emotions.

I think even if I was trying to cope with the thought of my wife dying in a space shuttle fire, I'd know that outside the space shuttle, there's pretty solid vacuum, and that I should take that into consideration. Or are you arguing that getting some very basic physics wrong when you're under pressure is ok? What if the pressure situation is the Chinese landing troops on the Diaoyu islands? Do you really want him to go "wow, that's bad, I'd better hit them with my space laser?"

I can understand not thinking through long-term ramifications. I don't understand forgetting basic physics - or geography, or political landscape, or conflict principles.

Re:The real question... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#41443651)

Sigh. Posted without reading the article first. Replace space shuttle with airplane, and vacuum with 30000 feet. Still, it should be pretty obvious why you don't open windows on airplanes.

Re:The real question... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443635)

Oh wow, that's pretty stupid; but he was speaking from emotions. If your spouse was in peril, would you think about the technicalities first? He's done and said some really stupid things, but I have to give him a pass on this one.

His fratboy antics regarding attacking people's hairstyles, and the whole dog on the roof thing give me more pause than this. He's a total "bro", and we don't need 4 years of that.

Yeah, we need four more years of someone who calls a deadly, preplanned terrorist attack against a US Ambassador a "bump in the road" after completely lying about it and trying to blame it on a Youtube video from some obnoxious jackass.

Oh, what. Obama didn't lie, you say? What? He didn't know what really happened so he made shit up?

Didn't Obama claim his "smart power" approach would lead to more respect for the US abroad?

What a load of crap - his "smart power" is being taken by Iran et al as weakness, not smart. And THAT means there's MORE chance of a deadly war.

All because Obama thinks apologizing for FREE SPEECH of all things will make a bunch of religious nutcases hate the US less.

What fucking planet did THAT come from?

And yet while he'll apologize for a US citizen exercising free speech to a bunch of whack-jobs who invoke their perpetual outrage, he'll sign off on the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens.

You'd almost have to think Obama's GOAL is to weaken the US, wouldn't you? No one could be THAT inadvertently stupid, could they? Mealy-mouthed apologies for free speech to nuts who don't believe a word you say while at that same time murdering US citizens?

Hell, in this case the evil we don't know - Romney - simply can't be as bad as the evil we DO know - Obama.

Re:The real question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443669)

Wow. You sure have been puffing the Fox News crack pipe.

Re:The real question... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443987)

Sheesh! Where to begin?

Let's just say this: The people in Libya are in no way happy that these Americans were killed. Indeed, if you have been getting your news from anyone besides Fox news, you would know that the Libyan people are right now finding and taking care of the Islamic militants who did this terrorist attack.

Obama, instead of being a jackass and sending a bunch of US troops to Libya -- and, face it, that's what the idiots watching Fox news want -- saved the US taxpayers a lot of money by being friendly and diplomatic with the Libyan people. As a result, the Libyan people felt really bad about the Americans killed and took care of it themselves without us needing to send in our troops.

Re:The real question... (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41443775)

Since he's running for President, expecting him to be rational and think about the technicalities rather than emotionally blurt out stupid things is not only important, but pretty damn essential.

Re:The real question... (2)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#41443939)

So he acts inappropriately emotional at times despite his usually having some signs of a neutral affect problem?

Doesn't sound like the guy we need answering that 3 AM phone call.

Re:The real question... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41443667)

Clearly, Romney is an expert on these things, so I hope they take his input seriously in the design phase. We wouldn't want future astronauts dying from not being able to open their windows.

You missed the recommendation that magnets not be used in spacecraft, since nobody knows how they work... *cough* *sputter*

I blame the USSR for the fall of NASA (4, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#41443477)

We can blame ether side all we want, but the truth is that without a perceived threat there isn't any political power to throw to NASA. If their was a known killer asteroid that was going to hit in 10 years we'd put every penny of the defense budget towards stopping it. If North Korea were building a lunar station we'd do everything to get one up first. But without the credible threat of something like what USSR presented we have no motivation other than just "to do it". I'm sorry but as much as we like to think we do things just because we can we do things a lot faster when you're in fear for your life.

Re:I blame the USSR for the fall of NASA (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41443629)

Balderdash. It's well known that North Korea has probably the most extensive and sophisticated system of tunnels and underground bomb shelters in the world. If we based our policies on perceived threats, we never would have allowed a mine shaft gap!

Re:I blame the USSR for the fall of NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443699)

That's why we have MineCraft!

So, where's Obama's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443533)

Hell, forget Obama's space plans. We know he doesn't have any plans (at least those that he'll articulate, anyway...)

Where the hell is the BUDGET the Dems have YET to pass since they took office in Jan 2009?

And don't blame "Republican stonewalling" - Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had enough clout to ram Obamacare through. They damn well could have passed a budget.

The Dems don't WANT to pass a budget, because that one document would show how much they really want to spend.

But no, this being /. we can create a distraction by making fun of Teh EEEVIL RETHUGLICAN!!!!!

Re:So, where's Obama's? (1)

seepho (1959226) | about 2 years ago | (#41443577)

Ram Through (verb): The act of a legislature passing a bill you don not agree with.

I don't like the editorializing with Gingrich. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443549)

It wasn't at all necessary.

Summary (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41443551)

blah blah space good. Insult Obama. I will be better than Obama

1:Science and innovation important, some how having nasa means our workforce is some how more scientifically educated and skilled. Which makes no sense because I thought education did that, not Nasa.

2: Space is important some how to a bunch of industries, despite the only real importance being research and satellite launching.

3:Military in space good, need to secure space against space terrorists. More money to defense contractors. Could be hostile aliens?

4:Nasa and our space program is like fancy armor in WoW, it is the international penis we can wave in the face of non-space faring countries. People respect space penis. Also private space penis is good too.

Restate all the above and say that the country needs clear and concise leadership etc.

pretentious quote by me. Who quotes themselves in their own policies? I do. I'm that awesome

Huge diatribe on how Obama is bad and stuff. Also commercial space stuff is good

Now that Space-X has a working booster... (1)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41443585)

who needs NASA?

Really. Space-X has docked a test capsule to the ISS, and their first cargo delivery launches October 7th. Astronauts will follow on later flights.

NASA hasn't developed a successful new booster in 30 years, despite about three failed attempts. Space-X has a new booster that works. Arianespace has a new booster that works. NASA has old ICBM derivatives and a "Space Launch System" proposal.

Space-X has only 1800 employees. NASA still has 34,000. NASA does some good stuff, but it's far too big for what it accomplishes.

Re:Now that Space-X has a working booster... (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41443649)

Space-x hasn't designed anything new. They have just refined working technology. The tech Nasa tends to work with when designing a new launch system isn't. Just look at the Aerospike engine compared to the launch system that SpaceX uses.

Ya Nasa isn't perfect but they are hardly washed up and they are hardly useless. They face a declining budget each year and have to try find ways to make it streach and what projects should cover it. Any long reaching projects are also impossible because each administration ends up setting Nasa's goals so every four to eight years they end up marching to a new drummer.

Romney just showed he is still a hypocrite (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443621)

January 27, 2012 Republican debate:

“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’” -Mitt Romney

Calling for anything other than a minimal to nonexistent manned space program is hypocrisy for Mitt Romney.

Re:Romney just showed he is still a hypocrite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443683)

A business and a government have different functions. Him making a decision in one context does not necessarily affect a decision he may make in the other.

But by all means, let's limit political discourse to things that can be expressed as one liners, like "Flip-Flopper", "Tax Return", "Birth Certificate", and other bullshit that has no affect on one's ability to govern.

Yes! We Must Go Into Space! (-1, Troll)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41443661)

We must go into space and hunt the evil galactic overlord! It's only a matter... oh... I'm getting the Mormons confused with the Scientologists again aren't I? I have trouble telling all the little cults apart. You know, Evil Galactic Overlord, scriptures read from a glowing gold plate in a hat, Natalie Portman in hot grits, it's just impossible to keep up! IMPOSSIBLE, I SAY!

Parallel Universe: Not a Star Trek episode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41443715)

Be the first to promote exploration and logistical security, in space. It is the vague responses that are reported by the media. If the country cannot refocus legacy programs into these two options; issuing tax incentives for health, agriculture and resource procurements in space for new products, could be legitimized. Using similar engineer from the Navy, most notably - Submarines; the Marines should be building, at the very least - Life Guard stations, in space. Sharing knowledge might be better to leave to Educators and theologians.

This might quickly be interpreted are a foreign relations issue; however, it is a great resources to build partnerships, with other nations – For resources. As a country: When have the skills we need to build the infrastructures for mass production; Else, R&D with current COTS/ off the shelf to get more Americans in space.

If you build it: People will come .. . .. .

thinking seriously about space. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41443993)

Newt Gingrich, one of the few politicians who thinks seriously about space...

I think the specific quote was "Mars, bitches!"

Or maybe it was "Mars...BITCHES!" indicating the former Speaker of the House and perennial presidential candidate thinks there are hot bitches on Mars who could be persuaded to do a little chubby chasing. After all, Calista isn't getting any younger, if you get my drift.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...