Slashdot Mirror
President Bush To Call For Return To Moon?
Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."
Bush must really think that US citizens are stupid. As the new opposition leader in Australia said "President Bush is the most incompetent and dangerous president yet" or something like that. Not far wrong I think.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Read my .sig and choke on it, whiner.
Yeah!! Just like that tax cut he promised!! oh wait...that passed..YEAH!! Just like the prescription drug benefit he promised!!! erm damn it..he made good on that one too. Yeah!! Just like that War on Terrorism!!! Wait, he's still committed to that even though the press and liberals aren't...THIS GUY DOESNT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS!! LOOK AT ALL THE EXAMPLES!
Molly Ivins? Give me a break. Her writing is complete and utter nonsense. And she's an idiot to boot. Her columns are nothing more than spite towards the Bush family. You almost could call her a Bush family stalker.
Besides, you live in California, and you spell program "programme?" What kind of pretentious self-important Bay Area liberal are you? Oh, sorry for the redundant comment. "Bay Area Liberal" includes all the preceding adjectives.
Just because you read something doesn't mean you know what you're talking about (typical Bay Area thing to do, though). And reading Molly Ivins pretty much sets your IQ back about 50 points (which might put you in the negative).
Living in the Bay Area is great -- it's too bad about the people here.
I think this poster has summed up Bush's opposition.
If Bush decided to save some cash and announce a cutback in NASA and the space program, he would be flamed.
If he announced bold new steps in the space program, he would be flamed.
Bush's opponents don't oppose Bush ideologically -- they hate him for being Bush.
Blind hatred is no way to treat a fellow citizen. At least the KKK hated blacks because they were black. You hate Bush for no reason at all!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
It sounds like you haven't absorbed enough of the "Everything American is sloppy and inferior. The rest of the world is so much superior than the US" programming.
Please report back to your programming classes or you will be banned from Slashdot.
Thank you.
Mmmm.. Donuts
While America may have its faults (the anti-God secular humanist agenda being a prime one), I think any reasonable person will admit that the United States is generally a force for good in the world, and having the United States Armed Forces maintaining a military base on the Moon, capable of sending one hundred tons of steel encased rock to any place on the globe is no worse than the thousands of thermo-nuclear weapons that the US already has ready to launch in minutes.
But, you need only read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by noted patriot and moral American Robert Heinlein to realize what kind of trouble an unscrupulous, inscrutable adversary could cause the world if they controlled the Moon. Do you want to see Western Civilization in peril, under the yellow light of the moon? Do you computer geeks want to be told you can no longer buy Taiwanese RAM, under penalty of a Tunguska like event?
So, it's about time the keen strategic minds of President Bush's cabinet have realized that if we don't go back to the Moon and stake our rightful claim ahead of our oriental competitors.
(A tip of the hat to Mr. Rightmann.)
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
you mean the plans the Reps kept shooting down when Clinton proposed them at the start of both terms?
Saddam
Really, GBI did encourage the Kurds to rebel against their rightful, recoginzed govt...notice Turkey refused to deal with them too...even with US occupation of Iraq. The Chemical weapons came from US-USSR cold war policies of selling "surplus" arms to higest-bidder dictators for quick cash. We are directly to blame for their deaths just as much as Saddam is.
desert-style Vietnam situation
This is more-or-less how vietnam started. That conflict [never actually a declared war...hun?] started as a knee-jerk reaction to commies. It was supposed to be a "quick" clean up to keep the French "serfs" down. But, The commies correctly avoided direct confrontation of superior force and dragged the war for years by "camping" for the US troops we kept sending [sotra like right now]...It's only a matter of time before the whole region is openly against us...at that point the UN will simply turn it's back and let us take it!
more support with the war on terror
funny how people "support" you at the business end of a fleet of B-52's! Bush has openly theatened/extorted/bribed many countries into compliance...that's nearly the same as support. They WILL knife us in the back for this when the time is right!
Regan's defense spending also lead to the expectations of the wild profits that created the careless dot com boom/bust cycle, and set the stage for the business practices that Enron enbraced. As far as helping the economy, I don't really see how? We're still loosing GOOD jobs in most of the country at an alarming rate. Remember unemployment only counts those who GET it, not who it's run out for...the numbers are really MUCH higher, and the new jobs aren't as good as the old ones. He's only created larger, and more Orwellian government...the very kind Regan tried to put down in Cold war Russia. I was a kid when Regan was president, in high school when the "wall" fell...Bush has copied every, single thing I was told by the govt was WRONG with the commies in all but name. This is a very, very dark time for the US!
I must have been asleep when the supposedly rational bred with the irrational to produce geeks who hate Bush enough to oppose everything he does, despite the fact that they'd objectively like some of these things if they were implemented by a socialist.
Seriously, ask yourselves: how many of you posting in opposition to this are really in favor of smaller government, or streamlining NASA (who says he won't take this opportunity to de-suck NASA?), or really care about the size of the budget deficit or about how high the tax rate is on the highest income bracket?
It's not BANANAism either ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone"), which explains the actions of the anti-everything crowd, the neo-Luddites: we are geeks. We obviously are not against progress, unless up is now down and Britney has become a nun.
Now, I personally oppose the government performing research of this sort, as the private sector can do it better; but unless my mods over time are unrepresentative, the libertarians on slashdot are vastly outnumbered by the statists/socialists/communists/pinkos who are surely not opposed to massive government programs. Therefore, I posit that you should love George W. Bush, who has increased government spending faster than any president since Lyndon B. "budget-buster" Johnson. Yikes!
Be an independent. Use your brain to analyze policies, instead of opposing everything this president does simply because it's the fashionable thing to do. Learn about the history of government, question your beliefs, and see how fixed your opinions really are.
[ home ]
This is perplexing. When Clinton was the President, I disagreed with some of his policies but attempted to at least evalute them in a fair manner.
You say that the President is trying to pull the wool over our eyes all the time and that is why you don't think we should go to the moon? Is that it? You mention the possibility of terrorists in space. I don't see what you're getting at. Let's suppose that Bush is trying to use a moon mission to divert attention away from the war in Iraq, or whatever other liberal theory you can come up with. Why are you so angry about this? Using smoke and mirrors is a long known political trick that's been used by many more people than Bush. Remember those missile strikes Clinton launched when Monicagate was breaking open? Pulling the wool over anyone's eyes?
At least with a moon mission, Bush is pushing for something that will yield useful science. And you'll be a vigilent liberal and keep an eye on him and make sure the mainstream press doesn't forget what is going on in Iraq with letters to the editor and phone calls, right? I'm just amazed that people are as irrational as you. Sure, you don't agree with what's going on - deal with it but learn to deal with it in a manner that still affords you the ability to debate someone on the topic without foaming at the mouth. You're hurting your cause.
Of course, you don't have to listen to me - I'm just a 'dumb ol' Conservative', what would I know? (Please take note of my sig.)
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.