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."
After the "Clear Sky Initiative" (reducing emmission limits on some of our heaviest polluters), changes to the "Clean Water Act" (reducing environmental protections on 1/5 of nations water sources), and the "Healthy Forests Initiative" (boils down to allowing logging in protected areas), I wouldn't be surprised if "Going back to the Moon" meant "Nuking the Moon and using the bits and pieces to build parking lots in Yellowstone."
What, so you like being taxed? Do you honestly like giving the government 40% of your paycheck...your hard earned money? Since when is giving back to the citizens such a bad thing? And look what it's done - it's given the economy a chance to rejuvinate - to get back on it's legs. And that's exactly what's happened. If you're so ungreatful, go live in a country that like s taxing it's people like most countries in Europe. I for one like living in a republic, and not a social democracy.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Most of the national debt is actually owed to the American people.
How did that obvious troll get modded up?
economy problems
considering that the US economy was up 8.2% last quarter, which is the highest growth since 1984 -- when Ronald Reagan was president, i'd say it's becoming a lot less of a problem.
the claims of a 'jobless recovery' are pure BS. First-time filings for state unemployment benefits dropped 11,000 to 351,000 in the week ended Nov. 22.
The report also showed the number of unemployed still on the benefit rolls in the Nov. 15 week fell by a sharp 105,000 to 3.37 million, a level not seen since early February -- also from Forbes.
Bush's approval ratings are still extremely high-- and as long as the democrats can't figure out what their agenda is, none of the nine dwarves are going to beat him.
Yes, it would be the perfect place for my "laser".
If you want to be really picky. However, did you also know that statistics show that 62% of all people who read that line from my original post, would have spent 1 minute or more actually spelling numbers?
Actually, the number is "one hundred one". You don't use "and" until you get to the decimal point.
7301.4 = seven thousand three hundred one and four tenths.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Are you daft? That unemployment benefits are a good indicator of the actual unemployment rate is a terrible myth.
Did your stats say how many hapless people have been unemployed for so long that they don't even qualify for benefits anymore? Or how many people never qualified in the first place? All your stats mean is that the rate at which jobs are being cut is falling, but it doesn't mean that new jobs are being created any faster in replacement. That 105,000 drop is most telling of the truth, and is least supportive to your argument.
There's a very important difference, especially when considering the poorest of the poor, those who don't have any income now that they've lost both their jobs and thier benefits.
Well, I guess technically the queen is younger and more attractive than Cthulhu too, but that's not the adjective we traditionally use in these sorts of situations.
And I have to say, if I had to screw a xenomorph, Ann would not be my first choice.
When clinton proposes govt spending the republicans call him evil when bush does it the democrats call him evil. It's not what you do it's who does it that matters. Don't believe me? Try this on for size.
During the Iran Iraq war Saddam Hussein launched chemical war against the iranians and the kurds. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The UN security council drafted a resolution to condemn him. The US vetoed that resolution. Who was running the US? Reagan, Bush sr, Rumsfeld and Cheney!. The same people that now claim that Saddam is evil were at the time helping him.
Also consider this. Bush has created a brand new govt branch. He has grown the size of the govt more then anybody else in recent history. He has also (almost) created the largest entitlement program since the advent of medicare and social security (the drug benefit). He is running enourmous deficits. Despite all that he is the darling of the conservatives who supposedly are for smaller govt and fiscal responsibility.
If clinton had done what bush is doing FOX news would be comparing him to satan on an hourly basis. When bush does it they love him.
War is necrophilia.
the claims of a 'jobless recovery' are pure BS
This so-called recovery has been going on for well over a year, and only now are jobs beginning to be created. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of 'jobless recovery'.
The report also showed the number of unemployed still on the benefit rolls in the Nov. 15 week fell by a sharp 105,000 to 3.37 million, a level not seen since early February -- also from Forbes.
Does that include the number of discourged workers who aren't even counted in the "benefit rolls", because their benefits have run out? No. Unemployment has been understated for a long time because these people aren't counted.
And how does that number of people on the benefit rolls compare what it was at the beginning of George II's reign?
Bush's approval ratings are still extremely high -- and as long as the democrats can't figure out what their agenda is, none of the nine dwarves are going to beat him.
His ratings have been hovering in the 50's for a while now, well under what Clinton's were on the day of the impeachment vote. And some Democrats (Dean, Kucinich) do have an agenda, you just need to get your news from other places than Fox News to find out what it is.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Between 1992 and 2000, the US was the sole champion of crushing sanctions against Iraq. The US bombed Iraq several times in that period, including 1998.
This is the same Iraq that supposedly didn't have any WMDs.
Clinton also shot cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Africa which missed more than they hit to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinski case.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Some interesting news:
Turns out Bush's Baghdad turkey and Baghdad British Airways rendezvous were both completely fabricated by the White House. Washington Post story here
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
muppet.
people made the words "miserable failure" link to bush's bio on hundreds (thousands?) of web pages. get a clue.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Ummm... What planet are you from? The economy is doing fine, and on its way up. Despite what the nine dweebs running for the office say, We actually have about 1.5 million more jobs now than when Bush took office.
Take your typical blind rant somewhere else.
From the parent post: "... (this is starting to look more and more like Vietnam, thought I am too young to know that for certain)..."
In the Vietnam War, the U.S. government killed approximately 2,000,000 Vietnamese directly, and many more indirectly. None of those Vietnamese threatened the U.S. directly. Even if they had wanted to threaten the U.S., the average income of Vietnamese then was less than $100 per year. So they couldn't have afforded an airline ticket even if they did want to go to the U.S. to threaten someone.
Not to be outdone by the Vietnam War in stupidity and lack of social sophistication, the U.S. government's war in Iraq is, for many Arabs and Muslims, equivalent to picking a fight with 330 million Arabs and 1.1 billion Muslims.
So, while the second U.S. Government-Iraq War is equally as illogical as the U.S. Government-Vietnam War, it is not yet equally as immoral.
Is the rest of the world just there for the U.S. government to use to act out the inner conflict and anger of its members? If you don't think so, this man seems to be more mentally healthy than George Bush: Howard Dean.
Only if "you" are American. "We" say "one hundred and one".
Between 1992 and 2000, the US was the sole champion of crushing sanctions against Iraq. The US bombed Iraq several times in that period, including 1998.
Nice definition of "sole" you've got there, bud. If by "sole" you mean only one apart from Britain, etc then you're spot on.
This is the same Iraq that supposedly didn't have any WMDs.
Uh, it didn't have them then and it doesn't have them now. Or did the coalition suddenly find a massive stockpile of them in the last five minutes?
Clinton also shot cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Africa which missed more than they hit to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinski case.
Too true. But those measures weren't exactly opposed by Republicans at the time, were they?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
" Between 1992 and 2000, the US was the sole champion of crushing sanctions against Iraq."
So? I was talking about the 80s. After Bush sr. attacked iraq then the sanctions were imposed. You are right though they were crushing. During that war the US targetted lots of infrastructure. We bombed the shit out of water treatment plants, bridges, roads, electrical plants and such. Then imposed sanctions which drastically slowed the ability of iraq to rebuild hoping that the thirsty starving masses would revolt. It was a sad miscalculation which ended up causing almost a million deaths while still keeping Saddam in power.
" The US bombed Iraq several times in that period, including 1998."
Between 1998 and the current war we bombed them whenever we wanted. We were imposing a no fly zone which meant that we were partolling the skies pretty much constantly. I don't think a month went by without some sort of a bomb falling on some body.
"This is the same Iraq that supposedly didn't have any WMDs"
Huh? They didn't have WMDs? How could they have developed them while they were under continuous overflights and surveillance? That was a lie and you believed it. You are not alone though lots of people believe it too even though there is not one shred of evidence to back up the proposition. It's kind of like believing in god I suppose, maybe you don't need evidence, you believe what you choose to believe.
'Clinton also shot cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Africa which missed more than they hit to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinski case."
Yes I remember that. At the time Rush Limbaugh called him a murderer on TV. I noticed that Rush hasn't called Bush a murderer though which just goes to prove my original post.
BTW I notice that lots of people are comparing Bush to Clinton these days saying in effect "see bush isn't any more evil then clinton. Clinton bombed haphazardly too!". I never thought I would see people saying that Bush is no worse then clinton so therefore it's all good.
War is necrophilia.
Perhaps you haven't read the news lately. Besides the declining value of the US dollar, as a direct result of a "weak" dollar policy by the Fed, the economy has started to do quite well lately. Yes, jobs are very slowly coming back into the picture, but thats just the way it works. There has been increased spending across the board and insane GDP booms which only means that more jobs will soon be available (of course, this also happened a few years before the 87 crash, but conditions were different: we were on a strong dollar policy and it was helping foreign economies more than ours). Go look this news up. Its been everywhere the past few days.
Your comment wasn't insightful in the slightest. It was weak attempt at some sort of political message that has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic. To the moderators: just because you agree with a statement, does not mean its insightful or informative. If anything, its offtopic, just like my post.
Please keep in mind, I have my qualms with the president. The war in iraq, guantanamo bay, the patriot act, and a couple of other things. I do not believe, however, that this economy was his fault, but that he is doing what he thinks is right to help.
As for space: hey, he's a competative kind of guy. You have the Chinese and the EU taking stabs at space, along with the venerable Russians who have always been in the picture. The playing field is getting more crowded and he probably thinks that its time the 600 lb gorilla got back in the game.
No, that is "seven thousand, three hundred and one, point four."
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
At any rate, I'd love for Bush to announce that the US is going back ASAP. I'd want them to be there by 2010 at the latest and this time I want a promise that they're not leaving. Ever.
i'd love for him to say that we are going back and leaving him there with no air.
As for Dean...well, I think he has a really good base of the far left thinkers in the US at this time. However, I think that most of the US is more moderate...neither far left nor far right...
I can't say that I'm happy with everything Bush has done. I like the tax cuts...I don't believe in a govt. run wealth redistribution system. However, I don't like the way he has also increased spending and promoting more big government. And don't like the intrusiveness of Ashcroft and his bunch.
However, I feel that if Dean gets the Dem. nomination, he will, at least if the election were held today...lose by a landslide. I don't think his message can relate to the majority of people in the US. And...he has trouble speaking 'off the cuff'. If he gets off script, he gets into trouble. The debacle on Meet the Press really opened my eyes to this. He just doesn't seem well versed in many things. I mean, GWB isn't that great of a speaker, but, I think he'd beat Dean in a debate...especially if in a format where scripted answers wouldn't be the only way to answer.
Bush still has over 50% approval rate...of course things change in a year...but, right now, I'm watching for the Dem's to put up a valid candidate...and through all the speeches and debates I see, I don't see any of them doing anything but bash Bush. I'm looking for their plans, goals, and programs and ways they want to implement their ideas. But, all I hear is Bush sucks. I'm more interested in their vision for the next presidency. I'd like to hear them spell them out.....but, I've yet to see this. I truly wish a 3rd party candidate could be a viable choice...I want someone slightly left of Reps...and a little further right of Dems.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........