http://gamingtrend.com
November 23, 2014, 03:42:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ironrod: McCain supports manned exploration of Mars  (Read 3516 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« on: June 07, 2008, 02:43:58 AM »

McCain wants manned mission to Mars, and he supports missions that engage the public more.

Sounds like good stuff to me.     I tend not to believe Obama -- usually the first stand a politican makes reveals his true opinion on the subject.    He said he'd slash the NASA budget and give it to the less fortunate.    I think he'll launch all these social programs and then say that they took priority over the space program even though he supports the program.   

Not like I'd vote Obama anyway, but if I were even considering it I would not risk it based on a flip flop.
Logged
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 692



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2008, 02:48:42 AM »

Couldn't you hve pm'd him?

Ale
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2008, 02:52:37 AM »

Quote from: Alefroth on June 07, 2008, 02:48:42 AM

Couldn't you hve pm'd him?

Ale

This is a story of interest to anyone that supports manned space exploration.     I just wanted to make sure Ironrod saw it since we seem to be the two with the strongest interest on these forums.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2008, 03:12:36 AM »

msduncan's claim regarding McCain's space policy:  "McCain wants manned mission to Mars, and he supports missions that engage the public more."

Actual McCain budget plan:  NASA budget for 2010 would be frozen to 2009 levels, which "will have a cumulative 1.5 billion dollar hit to what NASA has planned for over only 2 years."  He's cutting the budget that he, himself, passed as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2004.

What space program will get cut?  Or will he raise taxes?

And you seriously want to raise the issue of flip-flopping on policy statements?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 03:31:13 AM by Brendan » Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5488


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2008, 04:39:27 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 02:43:58 AM

  He said he'd slash the NASA budget and give it to the less fortunate.    I think he'll launch all these social programs and then say that they took priority over the space program even though he supports the program.   

Maybe he can send all the less fortunate to Mars? Two birds with one stone.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2008, 04:39:30 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 07, 2008, 03:12:36 AM

msduncan's claim regarding McCain's space policy:  "McCain wants manned mission to Mars, and he supports missions that engage the public more."

Actual McCain budget plan:  NASA budget for 2010 would be frozen to 2009 levels, which "will have a cumulative 1.5 billion dollar hit to what NASA has planned for over only 2 years."  He's cutting the budget that he, himself, passed as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2004.

What space program will get cut?  Or will he raise taxes?

And you seriously want to raise the issue of flip-flopping on policy statements?


Thanks for the find on McCain and NASA's budget.    My linked story was from today, so I hadn't read this one that indicates he might freeze the budget for one year.

Obama originally said he wanted a 5 year freeze.

And also I was limiting this thread just to one policy position to discuss.    I have no interest in discussing wiretapping positions in my NASA budget/manned mission initiative thread.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2008, 04:45:44 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 02:43:58 AM


So did scientists think they found oil up there?

Or does McCain just want to bring democracy (by force) there as well?

 ninja

Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2008, 06:15:55 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 04:39:30 AM

Thanks for the find on McCain and NASA's budget.    My linked story was from today, so I hadn't read this one that indicates he might freeze the budget for one year.

Obama originally said he wanted a 5 year freeze.

His budget proposal is to freeze federal non-defense discretionary spending - it's not specific to NASA, it's just that it includes NASA.  Of course, the 2004 bill he passed gave NASA a budget that they planned against, and the end result of his reversal is that they'll have a 1.5 billion dollar shortfall over the next two years (if his new plan is implemented).

The Obama position you're complaining about was his idea of delaying Constellation for five years and diverting that money to education instead - that'd cut 3.4 billion (I believe) from NASA in the short term.  He's said repeatedly, and this is reflected by a position paper on his site, that he's committed to finishing Orion, Ares I, and the ISS.

As evidenced by his inability to articulate precisely where the resources for his budget come from, McCain's position seems considerably less thought out.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2008, 03:36:33 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 07, 2008, 06:15:55 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 04:39:30 AM

Thanks for the find on McCain and NASA's budget.    My linked story was from today, so I hadn't read this one that indicates he might freeze the budget for one year.

Obama originally said he wanted a 5 year freeze.

His budget proposal is to freeze federal non-defense discretionary spending - it's not specific to NASA, it's just that it includes NASA.  Of course, the 2004 bill he passed gave NASA a budget that they planned against, and the end result of his reversal is that they'll have a 1.5 billion dollar shortfall over the next two years (if his new plan is implemented).

The Obama position you're complaining about was his idea of delaying Constellation for five years and diverting that money to education instead - that'd cut 3.4 billion (I believe) from NASA in the short term.  He's said repeatedly, and this is reflected by a position paper on his site, that he's committed to finishing Orion, Ares I, and the ISS.

As evidenced by his inability to articulate precisely where the resources for his budget come from, McCain's position seems considerably less thought out.

Well that is comforting.   I was extremely worried that Orion could be delayed, and we can't afford a gap in time where we don't have a vehicle for operations.     Delay would also delay the overall plan to return to the moon.     
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2008, 03:44:55 PM »

McCain has explicitly supported moon/Mars all along, so I don't see how saying "it's cool!" changes anything. He didn't say anything about changing the direction or schedule that Bush has already laid out for NASA. It's always encouraging to hear any candidate express support for a strong space program, though.

Obama's recent conversion is probably one of convenience, as you said...not very trustworthy, but sufficient to make me (and people like me) cease open hostilities toward his campaign. I don't think that Congress will let him inflict serious damage on the manned space program regardless of what stripes he reveals if he wins office. Regardless of who takes the White House, NASA is probably in for some budgetary turbulence until the economy stabilizes and the federal budget comes back into some semblance of balance. Reversing the last eight years of raping and pillaging is going to be painful for everyone.

It doesn't matter whom I vote for anyway, as a Masshole. Obama can't possibly lose here.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2008, 06:59:49 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on June 07, 2008, 03:44:55 PM

McCain has explicitly supported moon/Mars all along, so I don't see how saying "it's cool!" changes anything. He didn't say anything about changing the direction or schedule that Bush has already laid out for NASA. It's always encouraging to hear any candidate express support for a strong space program, though.

Obama's recent conversion is probably one of convenience, as you said...not very trustworthy, but sufficient to make me (and people like me) cease open hostilities toward his campaign. I don't think that Congress will let him inflict serious damage on the manned space program regardless of what stripes he reveals if he wins office. Regardless of who takes the White House, NASA is probably in for some budgetary turbulence until the economy stabilizes and the federal budget comes back into some semblance of balance. Reversing the last eight years of raping and pillaging is going to be painful for everyone.

It doesn't matter whom I vote for anyway, as a Masshole. Obama can't possibly lose here.

Well I certainly hope we stay on track.    I want to see a man/woman on Mars before I die.    I was hoping to see a man on the moon again while my kids were still at home (they are 3 and 5)
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2008, 08:21:38 PM »

Part of the problem for McCain is that a large portion of the base he needs can best be characterized as anti-science, includiing the people who they want overseeing NASA.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2008, 10:56:55 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 07, 2008, 08:21:38 PM

Part of the problem for McCain is that a large portion of the base he needs can best be characterized as anti-science, includiing the people who they want overseeing NASA.

I am in the bible belt, and I'm a conservative Republican.   I can tell you that it's inaccurate to say that these people are anti-science.    They are anti-abortion and they don't buy into global warming, but they aren't anti-science.     People flocked to the 'Sue' exhibit here recently which was the replica of the T-Rex.    They were as interested as I was about the recent Mars mission around my workplace.     They aren't even anti-environment which is another label some would place on them.    There was a huge movement to save the 'Cahaba Lily' which is a Lily unique to the Cahaba river here in Birmingham that was threatened.

So I have to disagree with you that they 'can best be described as anti-science'.    They just don't like messing around with genetic planning, genetic manipulation, growing embryos to harvest, aborting unborn babies, and sinking the economy for the sake of global warming bills.    That's all.
Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2008, 11:11:18 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 07, 2008, 03:12:36 AM

Or will he raise taxes?


McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts before he supported them, revealing his true opinion as someone who favors taxes.  slywink
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 11:15:26 PM by Electronic Dan » Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2008, 11:14:35 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 10:56:55 PM


I am in the bible belt, and I'm a conservative Republican.   I can tell you that it's inaccurate to say that these people are anti-science.    They are anti-abortion and they don't buy into global warming, but they aren't anti-science.     

What about people who oppose evolution?

Quote
Politically, a majority of conservative Republicans favor replacing evolution with creationism in the classroom, but support for this proposal falls below 40% for all other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2008, 11:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 07, 2008, 08:21:38 PM

Part of the problem for McCain is that a large portion of the base he needs can best be characterized as anti-science, includiing the people who they want overseeing NASA.

It's true that the President has staffed our science organizations with the lunatic fringe:  the NASA inspector general just released a report on it this week.

Quote
An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday.

Quote
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."

And who can resist revisiting the delightful presidential appointee to NASA, young George C. Deutsch?

Republicans are typically unwilling to fund anything that might disrupt any of their previously held beliefs, whether those are social/religious beliefs (evolution, stem cell research), or business/corporatist beliefs (global warming).
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2008, 04:06:45 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 07, 2008, 11:14:59 PM

Republicans are typically unwilling to fund anything that might disrupt any of their previously held beliefs, whether those are social/religious beliefs (evolution, stem cell research), or business/corporatist beliefs (global warming).

This seems only recent though - since the religious right became more prominent after Bush II was elected - some of the most important NASA missions were conducted with Republicans in office. Moreover, it might be more appropriate to say Republicans might not want to fund these issues less because they don't agree with them (though that would def. be the case with religious Republicans on issues such as stem cell research) than not believing these are areas in which government should be involved with.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2008, 02:24:55 PM »

Quote from: CSL on June 08, 2008, 04:06:45 AM

some of the most important NASA missions were conducted with Republicans in office.

You need to look at when missions and programs are initiated and funded, not when they're conducted. Few politicians think 5, 10, or 20 years out.

Eisenhower established NASA to ward against a military monopoly on space technology. Kennedy famously committed NASA to beat the Russians to the moon. Despite his longstanding enthusiastic personal support, LBJ had to pay for Vietnam and his Great Society. His 1967 Outer Space Treaty ended the space race. Nixon shut down Apollo before the moon missions even ended, junked that whole generation of technology, green-lighted the space shuttle, and then gutted that program so that it would never achieve its promise of cheap, frequent space flight. Carter had no effect that I can discern. Reagan's interest was military (remember Star Wars?). Bush I committed NASA to moon/Mars, but didn't fund it. Clinton cut NASA funding and scaled back the ISS into uselessness. And that brings us to Bush II recommitting NASA to moon/Mars and junking the shuttle era technology to return to Apollo-style hardware...again without major new funding.

I don't see a partisan pattern here, do you? Maybe Republicans get a slight edge, but NASA has not enjoyed strong presidential support since the 1960s. Fortunately, bipartisan Congressional support has been consistent.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2008, 08:32:01 PM »

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 07, 2008, 11:14:35 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 10:56:55 PM


I am in the bible belt, and I'm a conservative Republican.   I can tell you that it's inaccurate to say that these people are anti-science.    They are anti-abortion and they don't buy into global warming, but they aren't anti-science.     

What about people who oppose evolution?

Quote
Politically, a majority of conservative Republicans favor replacing evolution with creationism in the classroom, but support for this proposal falls below 40% for all other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans.

Believing that there is a divine spark to life != anti-science.     They simply believe that there is more to the beginning of everything than a singlularity about which scientists can't explain how it got there, why it was there, what was there before it, etc.    Science about the beginning of the universe is as unprovable, unexplainable, and fantasmical as anything religion has conjured up.
Logged
Trappin
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 28


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2008, 09:35:48 PM »

I'll support manned Mars/Moon missions once we have the proper heavy lift systems for transporting construction materials from the Earth surface to low Earth orbit. The first real construction project should be a multi-purpose 2001 Space Odyssey type space station which would also be used as a staging point for longer distance missions.

Space Elevator - build it first and the rest will fall into place.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3823-supertough-nanotube-threads-created.html


Another important topic needs to be discussed as well. During the 18th-19th centuries the East India Trading Company actuarial tables show a loss/comfort level of about 17% - 17% of its active trading ship fleet and all those aboard as lost at sea.

Whats NASA's comfort level? Whats our comfort level?

Sweden EITC - During its existence from 1731 to 1821 the SOIC launched 132 expeditions. Of these a total of 8 ships were lost. Not sure about the English and Dutch firms but the 17% figure sticks in my head for some reason.



« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 09:44:12 PM by Trappin » Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2008, 09:51:22 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 08, 2008, 08:32:01 PM

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 07, 2008, 11:14:35 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 07, 2008, 10:56:55 PM


I am in the bible belt, and I'm a conservative Republican.   I can tell you that it's inaccurate to say that these people are anti-science.    They are anti-abortion and they don't buy into global warming, but they aren't anti-science.     

What about people who oppose evolution?

Quote
Politically, a majority of conservative Republicans favor replacing evolution with creationism in the classroom, but support for this proposal falls below 40% for all other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans.

Believing that there is a divine spark to life != anti-science.     They simply believe that there is more to the beginning of everything than a singlularity about which scientists can't explain how it got there, why it was there, what was there before it, etc.    Science about the beginning of the universe is as unprovable, unexplainable, and fantasmical as anything religion has conjured up.


Believing that there is a divine spark to life != opposing evolution.  One can believe in a divine spark to life and evolution(see Theistic evolution).   That's not the case with people who oppose evolution.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2008, 11:09:03 PM »

Quote from: Trappin on June 08, 2008, 09:35:48 PM

I'll support manned Mars/Moon missions once we have the proper heavy lift systems for transporting construction materials from the Earth surface to low Earth orbit. The first real construction project should be a multi-purpose 2001 Space Odyssey type space station which would also be used as a staging point for longer distance missions.

Von Braun's station. The station that won't be built because we built ISS instead. Stupid ISS. I agree that we need an orbital transfer station if we're going to be sending out regular interplanetary flights.

Quote
Space Elevator - build it first and the rest will fall into place.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3823-supertough-nanotube-threads-created.html

I don't know about "build it first." There are a lot of technical unknowns and materials breakthroughs before that can work. Not saying that it can't or won't or shouldn't be done, just that dropping everything to go for a radically different approach is probably not prudent. We are stuck with Big Dumb Boosters for a while yet.

Quote
Another important topic needs to be discussed as well. During the 18th-19th centuries the East India Trading Company actuarial tables show a loss/comfort level of about 17% - 17% of its active trading ship fleet and all those aboard as lost at sea.

Whats NASA's comfort level? Whats our comfort level?

That's an interesting question. Part of the reason that NASA programs are so expensive are their extremely high safety standards -- quadruply redundant everything. The tolerance for loss in experimental, big-budget, government programs is low. We lost two shuttles out of a projected 134 total flights over the STS lifetime -- something well under 2%. With such a small fleet, flying so infrequently, and at such great cost, that's borderline unacceptable.

If, OTOH, we were talking about private spacecraft, flying much more frequently and with a profit motive, then both the loss rate and tolerance of loss would be higher. As in your East India Co. example, losing the occasional vessel and crew becomes part of the cost of doing business.

But the moon/Mars initiative that's getting under way now is strictly a NASA show. Unless it leads to a whole fleet of spacecraft flying frequent missions, we're back to the big-budget, high-profile, very cautious design that must characterize experimental government operations. The loss tolerance will be much lower than a for-profit operation could accept. OTOH, the vehicles we'll soon be building are comparatively expendable.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1096


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2008, 03:11:12 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 08, 2008, 08:32:01 PM

Believing that there is a divine spark to life != anti-science.     They simply believe that there is more to the beginning of everything than a singlularity about which scientists can't explain how it got there, why it was there, what was there before it, etc.    Science about the beginning of the universe is as unprovable, unexplainable, and fantasmical as anything religion has conjured up.

Replacing evolution with that kind of bullshit is anti-science.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2008, 11:26:53 AM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on June 09, 2008, 03:11:12 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 08, 2008, 08:32:01 PM

Believing that there is a divine spark to life != anti-science.     They simply believe that there is more to the beginning of everything than a singlularity about which scientists can't explain how it got there, why it was there, what was there before it, etc.    Science about the beginning of the universe is as unprovable, unexplainable, and fantasmical as anything religion has conjured up.

Replacing evolution with that kind of bullshit is anti-science.


Wrong.  It's anti-evolution.   Plenty of ID people support and believe science is valuable.    What you are saying is a perfect example of the science inquisition.   You believe our mainstream theory or you are an outcast.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 11:33:53 AM by msduncan » Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2008, 11:35:24 AM »

And just for the record -- I believe evolution happens.    I just believe there is a creator, and I see no reason why evolution can't happen according to a scientific engine he set up and set into motion.
Logged
Dan_Theman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2008, 12:49:12 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 11:35:24 AM

And just for the record -- I believe evolution happens.    I just believe there is a creator, and I see no reason why evolution can't happen according to a scientific engine he set up and set into motion.
I don't think anyone is arguing against that point of view, MSD - it's also my own.  Of course, it's not a scientific one, which would lead one to question the wisdom of teaching it in science classes.  Religion, philosophy, or even cultural anthropology?  Sure, no problem, but NOT in biology.  Unfortunately, most public schools don't have much in the way of those programs outside of the very basics.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2008, 06:10:37 PM »

I think the fringe on either side has taken control of their respective parties and you are seeing a struggle from the non-fringe to take it back.   I'm stopping short of saying I'm moderate, because I'm not.   But I'm not so far out there to demand religon be placed in class.
People like Yellowking was on board the Reagan bus -- fiscal responsibility, strength, effective diplomacy, and the ability to pick and choose correctly when we 'go it alone' as we did in Lybia.      Now the bus has taken a detour into religon and spending ghettos and he's pulling the cord to try to get it to stop and let him off.

On the other side of the isle, you had a Democrat bus that had a working class platform, ideologies to help the poor, and consumer watchdog platforms.     Now you have a bus hijacked by moveon and George Soros, and Cindy Shehan folks that some are trying to exit.

I had to go to electoral-vote to remind myself that we aren't any more divided than we used to be.... just some elections swing back and forth more dramatically than they have the last 2 elections.      I'd say there is no doubt that more extreme groups have had the reins of these parties for the last decade or two...   When will that change?
Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2008, 09:24:08 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 11:26:53 AM

  What you are saying is a perfect example of the science inquisition.   

I didn't expect a kind of science inquisition.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2008, 09:29:51 PM »

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 09, 2008, 09:24:08 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 11:26:53 AM

  What you are saying is a perfect example of the science inquisition.   

I didn't expect a kind of science inquisition.

No one expects the Span- . . . . wait, I mean science inquisition.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2008, 09:37:21 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 06:10:37 PM

I think the fringe on either side has taken control of their respective parties and you are seeing a struggle from the non-fringe to take it back.   I'm stopping short of saying I'm moderate, because I'm not.   But I'm not so far out there to demand religon be placed in class.
People like Yellowking was on board the Reagan bus -- fiscal responsibility, strength, effective diplomacy, and the ability to pick and choose correctly when we 'go it alone' as we did in Lybia.      Now the bus has taken a detour into religon and spending ghettos and he's pulling the cord to try to get it to stop and let him off.

On the other side of the isle, you had a Democrat bus that had a working class platform, ideologies to help the poor, and consumer watchdog platforms.     Now you have a bus hijacked by moveon and George Soros, and Cindy Shehan folks that some are trying to exit.

I had to go to electoral-vote to remind myself that we aren't any more divided than we used to be.... just some elections swing back and forth more dramatically than they have the last 2 elections.      I'd say there is no doubt that more extreme groups have had the reins of these parties for the last decade or two...   When will that change?

I don't know if it is accurate to declare the fringe as having taken over the Democratic party.  The Clinton White House was a very centrist white house.  I don't think the same can be said for the (current) Bush White House.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1096


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2008, 03:29:44 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 11:35:24 AM

And just for the record -- I believe evolution happens.    I just believe there is a creator, and I see no reason why evolution can't happen according to a scientific engine he set up and set into motion.

Believing that evolution can happen because of a creator isn't anti-science, believing that evolution is wrong based on faith is anti-science.

As for believing that there is a creator? why? Also who created the creator? The creator's creator? Then who created the creator's creator?smile

Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2008, 04:19:22 AM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 09, 2008, 09:37:21 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 06:10:37 PM

I think the fringe on either side has taken control of their respective parties and you are seeing a struggle from the non-fringe to take it back.   I'm stopping short of saying I'm moderate, because I'm not.   But I'm not so far out there to demand religon be placed in class.
People like Yellowking was on board the Reagan bus -- fiscal responsibility, strength, effective diplomacy, and the ability to pick and choose correctly when we 'go it alone' as we did in Lybia.      Now the bus has taken a detour into religon and spending ghettos and he's pulling the cord to try to get it to stop and let him off.

On the other side of the isle, you had a Democrat bus that had a working class platform, ideologies to help the poor, and consumer watchdog platforms.     Now you have a bus hijacked by moveon and George Soros, and Cindy Shehan folks that some are trying to exit.

I had to go to electoral-vote to remind myself that we aren't any more divided than we used to be.... just some elections swing back and forth more dramatically than they have the last 2 elections.      I'd say there is no doubt that more extreme groups have had the reins of these parties for the last decade or two...   When will that change?

I don't know if it is accurate to declare the fringe as having taken over the Democratic party.  The Clinton White House was a very centrist white house.  I don't think the same can be said for the (current) Bush White House.

The Clintons lost control of the Democratic party back in 2000.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2008, 04:22:41 AM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on June 10, 2008, 03:29:44 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 11:35:24 AM

And just for the record -- I believe evolution happens.    I just believe there is a creator, and I see no reason why evolution can't happen according to a scientific engine he set up and set into motion.

Believing that evolution can happen because of a creator isn't anti-science, believing that evolution is wrong based on faith is anti-science.

As for believing that there is a creator? why? Also who created the creator? The creator's creator? Then who created the creator's creator?smile



Why was the sigularity there?   What was there before the singularity?    What created the singularity?    We could do this for days.

Perhaps the answer is that our entire universe is a infinitely small particle of some piece of furniture in a massive other universe, and they are the same which makes us even smaller .... and so on.   
Logged
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1096


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2008, 04:34:57 AM »

My answer is "I Don't Know."
Logged
ChrisGrenard
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 175


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2008, 08:49:33 PM »

I decided to drop into the R&P forum today just to see what was up after not having OO for two months.

Turns out it's SSDD.

I'm going back to working on my Rock Band page.
Logged

PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2008, 12:10:23 AM »

I wish our government would quit spending all those billions of dollars on hunting for life on other planets and use the money here on Earth where we need it. We don't need to send humans to other planets.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2008, 12:14:28 AM »

Quote from: ChrisGrenard on June 10, 2008, 08:49:33 PM

I decided to drop into the R&P forum today just to see what was up after not having OO for two months.

Turns out it's SSDD.

I'm going back to working on my Rock Band page.

For the record, I feel sorry for the universe that had the misfortune of being in a particle in the seat of Chris Grenard's computer chair.    icon_lol
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2008, 12:15:55 AM »

Quote from: PaulBot on June 11, 2008, 12:10:23 AM

I wish our government would quit spending all those [gold pieces] on hunting for [trade routes] and use the money here [in europe] where we need it. We don't need to send humans [off the edge of the globe].
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2008, 12:23:29 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:15:55 AM

Quote from: PaulBot on June 11, 2008, 12:10:23 AM

I wish our government would quit spending all those [gold pieces] on hunting for [trade routes] and use the money here [in europe] where we need it. We don't need to send humans [off the edge of the globe].

roger that!
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 718


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2008, 12:25:56 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:15:55 AM

Quote from: PaulBot on June 11, 2008, 12:10:23 AM

I wish our government would quit spending all those [gold pieces] on hunting for [trade routes] and use the money here [in europe] where we need it. We don't need to send humans [off the edge of the globe].

Hey, a globe doesn't have an edge! (otherwise, spot on!)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.174 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.04s, 2q)