Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
if you vote for mccain or obama this fall, you have failed.
grow some balls
I think the reason why Republicans end up spending more money than Democrats is because their attitude sucks.
Because of their attitude they have this perception that they don't care about people, don't give a shit, etc. Then when something bad happens, they can't just say "I feel your pain, I understand your suffering" or whatever cause nobody believes them. So they respond by spending boatloads of money in order to prove they are Compassionate.
It's all about the psychology. When you've got economic advisors walking around saying the US is full of a bunch of whiners, and the economy is fine, you have to undue the damage through actions, otherwise known as spending boatloads of money.
So what about the CIA's attempts at assassinating Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, Rafael Trujillo, et. al.?
Well, if Castro wants to overthrow the Kennedy administration, then I guess he'd be in his right.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How many FUCKING times does this have to be said before you Bush worshippers get this:
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING 9/11!!!!!
Iraq has nothing to do with terror, and while Saddam isn't, to borrow a phrase from Lewis Black, "a snuggy bear", he didn't plan or execute 9/11.
Oh, and before you get on your whole, "Saddam started this war" bullshit, do a little research first, OK? The war that Saddam started in 1990 was an extension of the Iran-Iraq war. During that war Daddy, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. had 0 qualms about arming Iraq, as long as they could get Iraqs oil afterwards, so yeah, I really believe it when the people who armed Iraq warned me about the dangers of Iraq having weapons.
Monstar L
Realistically ,Obama is just spouting half baked intentions to gain votes.Once in office,which isn't likely he will continue tough foreign policy stances that his party has historically done.Remember Carters "give up the hostages or die" speech to Iran? How about Bill Clintons surprise bombing obliteration of Bagdad?
Kennedys amazing handling of Cuba?
Neither does anyone else.Promises go out,money stays for vote buying programs while the important issues are left to fend for themselves rather than spend money on anything that won't further the interests of the Demo/Socialicratic party.They can always make up some slobbering humanitarian excuse to improve their image and make problem solving look detrimental to the people they rule..er govern.
Get over this Obama thing,it's dead as disco.
Not that Republicans are much better,but at least they defend our interests.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
dumbass, you wouldn't know a socialist radical if one came up and kicked you in the nuts
Which would be a very good idea, I might add.
EVERY major War the United States has ever fought has had conscription because we intended to WIN.
Tell that to the parents of the conscripts that Kennedy and LBJ killed in Vietnam. That's the problem with liberal pricks: they feel so fucking righteous when they send other people to die (and kudos to GWB for continuing the fine neoliberal tradition).
Is it TOO MUCH for someone such as yourself, who seems to have done alright for themselves, to give JUST A LITTLE[...]
It's not too much for me to give it to those less fortunate or otherwise deserving. It is, however, TOO MUCH for YOU to give MY money to the people YOU think are deserving.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
It's called oil shale. In 10 years the US could not only produce every drop of oil it needs on a daily basis, but export over 8 million barrels a day to other countries. And do it for nearly 3 centuries.
What's stopping this? It's not the Governors or State Assemblies of Utah and Wyoming. It's the Democrats in Congress who insist on maintaining the prohibition on oil shale production.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I get it now, you're not just ignorant you're a willfully ignorant asshole.
Just because I enjoy making dicks like you feel stupid, that link you didn't click because you knew it proved you wrong leads to John Maynard Keynes. Probably the most important ECONOMIST of the 20th century. He agrees with deficit spending. THAT IS WHY YOU FAULED TO CLICK IT. And you know it.
And your failure to know that Keynes disagrees wth you before you asked me to " find a link to an economist" proves you're too fucking stupid to converse with any further.
I will say that you look like a total fucking boob when you ask for a link to something I've already provided, and you admitted you were too arrogant to click.
I think if your post proves anything it's that you'll lie to save face and lie about who you're voting for and why. Your failure to address my points with anything other than handwaving and "nu uh, REPUBLICANS BAD! I know so!" in the face of evidence that you're wrong demonstrates that.
You're a total lying partisan cunt, and nothing you can say will change that in light of the fact that you openly admitted you wouldn't accept irrefutable proof you were wrong.
Fuck off and die, and stop ruining my fucking country with your stupid partisan garbage.
Guy, you've proven you're a lying piece of trash, how fucking stupid are you that you think I'd give a fuck about anything you say in light of that.
Ps reread my previous post until you realize how much of an idiot you are for incorrectly thinking I assumed you a Democrat, instead of correctly thinking I said you were partisan.
If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd avoid using straw man like you did because you'd know the difference.