Obama sure lied to NASA

[Conservative]

"Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster. And if you gaze into the abyss, it also gazes back into you."


Robert

A... your Nietzsche quote is off slightly...

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

is the correct quotation. Google it.



B... You capitulation is noted.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

You made the statement. Either you can back it up, or admit it is an assumption/opinion. No shame either way.

EDIT

I typed '92% of all new technology came from NASA' into GOOGLE. I don't get anything that even remotely supports your statement. Certainly, NASA has had a huge impact on the world in regards to technology, but your 92% figure is drastically inflated.

That won't do it since you have given a number to Google's logrhythm and thus you will not get any history or anything.

I have been doing this for over 40 years. I was on the first day of the net. There were 588 of us that day.

I will not argue with you without you doing your research to verify. It's all there. I have stated a fact.

Are you on a Mac? Are you educated? Can you formulate a premise?

At the beginning, start here:

NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives

Battle not.........

Robert

not impressed.

You made a claim (that 92% of all new technology came from NASA) and called it fact. The fact you state it does not make it FACT. Now, posting a link to a credible source that agrees with you..>THAT, is proving it.

BTW, if you've been around that long, you should know that standard board etiquette is that when you make a claim of fact, you either provide a link in said post, or you or you provide one when asked. When you make claims of fact, then refuse to post something that supports you, you look like a hack.

guess what you look like.

I am 60. I did provide a link. You continue to be in gross error. Are you stalking now? Odd, this.

Ok. There is no NASA.

Battle not with..............

Robert

 

[Conservative]

That won't do it since you have given a number to Google's logrhythm and thus you will not get any history or anything.

I have been doing this for over 40 years. I was on the first day of the net. There were 588 of us that day.

I will not argue with you without you doing your research to verify. It's all there. I have stated a fact.

Are you on a Mac? Are you educated? Can you formulate a premise?

At the beginning, start here:

NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives

Battle not.........

Robert

not impressed.

You made a claim (that 92% of all new technology came from NASA) and called it fact. The fact you state it does not make it FACT. Now, posting a link to a credible source that agrees with you..>THAT, is proving it.

BTW, if you've been around that long, you should know that standard board etiquette is that when you make a claim of fact, you either provide a link in said post, or you or you provide one when asked. When you make claims of fact, then refuse to post something that supports you, you look like a hack.

guess what you look like.

I am 60. I did provide a link. You continue to be in gross error. Are you stalking now? Odd, this.

Ok. There is no NASA.

Battle not with..............

Robert

Show me where I ever said there is no NASA.

I said you have utterly failed to prove your statement that 92% of all new technology came from NASA related sources.

You're not very good at this, are you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey, let's just let Pinkerton and Advance Security go over to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban.
Private contractors can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

Cheaper than our military? You cannot be serious.

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Armadillo Aerospace launches 2nd flight of Stiga to 95 KM up. This is in keeping to the OPs concerns of Obama's shut off and kill program issues he has done to NASA and to other programs.

Here is the quote and story from AA site on the Stiga flight.

Armadillo Aerospace - News Archive

They lost the rocket core on the way back down but the ascent was a go. This and the many other flights from Earth to Orbit may assuage the NASA cuts that are in effect and pending as well.

Robert

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Hey, let's just let Pinkerton and Advance Security go over to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban.
Private contractors can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

Cheaper than our military? You cannot be serious.

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

Gadawg,

I was per chance watching on History 2 the profile on a EID unit in Afghanistan and was amazed to see the amount of technology in their rig. The obesity inherent in the soldiers themselves, and the overall video game like format and their reaction when an IED blew up and took out civilian Afghanis. Very disturbing. So, I went and checked the cost of their rig. Wow, you are correct, that rig alone outfitted for IED work with a crew of 4 was $993,000.

Sobering.

Good post.

Robert

 

[Conservative]

Armadillo Aerospace launches 2nd flight of Stiga to 95 KM up. This is in keeping to the OPs concerns of Obama's shut off and kill program issues he has done to NASA and to other programs.

Here is the quote and story from AA site on the Stiga flight.

Armadillo Aerospace - News Archive

They lost the rocket core on the way back down but the ascent was a go. This and the many other flights from Earth to Orbit may assuage the NASA cuts that are in effect and pending as well.

Robert

Won't help with the ISS. Not their goal. The SpaceX Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule are the next step to the ISS.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Campaigning there in 08 he said he would never allow them to fold up.
He spoke at NASA stating that.
And then he folds them up.

This is what I was discussing earlier on page 3 about the companies that are targeting the ISS for access.

Space X is likely to be the first out of all of them. But there are over 80 just here in NM alone working on Earth to orbit vehicles.

This vehicle and the intension is for a service and delivery rig.

SpaceX - Updates

They are coming along and it should be interesting to see what happens. If Bezos gets Atlantis out of park, that too would be incredible.

Robert

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey, let's just let Pinkerton and Advance Security go over to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban.
Private contractors can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

Cheaper than our military? You cannot be serious.

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

First off, I do not believe that $1 million per soldier figure, so you will have to link up on that one.

And while you are Googling, how much was each Blackwater 'soldier' costing?

 

[daveman]

Obama had to make sure one more piece of American exceptionalism was destroyed.

So, now you're admitting that a government program was exceptionally successful?

And all the other righties are thanking you for making said statement?

Well, that is interesting.

Is it? You're going to provide a link where I said government programs are never successful if you want to claim you had a point.

Hint: Don't bother looking. You won't find one.

 

[Gadawg73]

Cheaper than our military? You cannot be serious.

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

First off, I do not believe that $1 million per soldier figure, so you will have to link up on that one.

And while you are Googling, how much was each Blackwater 'soldier' costing?

As a son of a Marine officer I despise the contracting out of security services to the likes of Blackwater. However they are not soldiers and do not participate in combat.
Friend of mine's son is in country over there now and his son is on security detail along with Blackwater employees or whatever the name of them is now. His pay is about 30K a year and the Blackwater dudes get about 80K a year.
But Blackwater doesn't have the infrastructure that the US military has.
Add it up as it is all over DOD sites. That 100 billion is all the equipment and men in country for a year and we have 100,000 troops there. Do the math. 100 billion dividedby 100,000 is 1 million.

Iraq was 700K per soldier deployed.

 

[VaYank5150]

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

First off, I do not believe that $1 million per soldier figure, so you will have to link up on that one.

And while you are Googling, how much was each Blackwater 'soldier' costing?

As a son of a Marine officer I despise the contracting out of security services to the likes of Blackwater. However they are not soldiers and do not participate in combat.
Friend of mine's son is in country over there now and his son is on security detail along with Blackwater employees or whatever the name of them is now. His pay is about 30K a year and the Blackwater dudes get about 80K a year.
But Blackwater doesn't have the infrastructure that the US military has.
Add it up as it is all over DOD sites. That 100 billion is all the equipment and men in country for a year and we have 100,000 troops there. Do the math. 100 billion dividedby 100,000 is 1 million.

Iraq was 700K per soldier deployed.

Do you know if that $1M/soldier figure includes the costs of the multiple Carrier Task Groups operating in the region in support roles?

US to keep 11 aircraft carriers to show sea power


Read more: US To Keep 11 Aircraft Carriers To Show Sea Power | Fox News

 

[Robert_Stephens]

It's so funny and will get a link shortly with the overall results, but according to the Merritt Island Research group had Obama fuck not lied and went ahead and kept NASA's budget to 2010 level or above, the amount of taxable income on Cape Coast related NASA industries and businesses would have actually garnered 9% more revenue for gov, through taxes than shutting everything off and down to where it is now.

Hilarious the socialist fucker and his advisers.......

Oh well,

Robert

 

[Synthaholic]

The military currently spends 1 million PER SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN each year.
Talk about "serious".
100,000 troops and it costs us 100 billion a year.
Do the math. Our military is the most expensive outfit in the world and costs more than any other government expenditure per military personnel in all of government.

First off, I do not believe that $1 million per soldier figure, so you will have to link up on that one.

And while you are Googling, how much was each Blackwater 'soldier' costing?

As a son of a Marine officer I despise the contracting out of security services to the likes of Blackwater. However they are not soldiers and do not participate in combat.
Friend of mine's son is in country over there now and his son is on security detail along with Blackwater employees or whatever the name of them is now. His pay is about 30K a year and the Blackwater dudes get about 80K a year.
But Blackwater doesn't have the infrastructure that the US military has.
Add it up as it is all over DOD sites. That 100 billion is all the equipment and men in country for a year and we have 100,000 troops there. Do the math. 100 billion dividedby 100,000 is 1 million.

Iraq was 700K per soldier deployed.

So, you are counting each soldier as $1 million, and all the equipment and fuel is free?

 

[VaYank5150]

It's so funny and will get a link shortly with the overall results, but according to the Merritt Island Research group had Obama fuck not lied and went ahead and kept NASA's budget to 2010 level or above, the amount of taxable income on Cape Coast related NASA industries and businesses would have actually garnered 9% more revenue for gov, through taxes than shutting everything off and down to where it is now.

Hilarious the socialist fucker and his advisers.......

Oh well,

Robert

So again, you APPROVE of our Federal Government propping up private industry, whether the Government expenditure (NASA in this case) is necessary or Constitutional or not?

 

[Jackson]

Looking at our debt, I perhaps can justify cutting back NASA, but that also means not launching new projects that costs trillions like Obamacare when we just can't afford it.

We still have to defend our nation.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

It's so funny and will get a link shortly with the overall results, but according to the Merritt Island Research group had Obama fuck not lied and went ahead and kept NASA's budget to 2010 level or above, the amount of taxable income on Cape Coast related NASA industries and businesses would have actually garnered 9% more revenue for gov, through taxes than shutting everything off and down to where it is now.

Hilarious the socialist fucker and his advisers.......

Oh well,

Robert

So again, you APPROVE of our Federal Government propping up private industry, whether the Government expenditure (NASA in this case) is necessary or Constitutional or not?

This is so inane, its hard to answer with a straight face, but the syntax and merit of your post is that you have it backwards. Read it again, take a breath and then post a little, er, clearer response.

Best to you,

Robert

 

[VaYank5150]

Looking at our debt, I perhaps can justify cutting back NASA, but that also means not launching new projects that costs trillions like Obamacare when we just can't afford it.

We still have to defend our nation.

IF we were only defending OUR nation, just imagine how big of a dent we could make in our debt situation. Perhaps programs like NASA wouldn't need to be eliminated?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Looking at our debt, I perhaps can justify cutting back NASA, but that also means not launching new projects that costs trillions like Obamacare when we just can't afford it.

We still have to defend our nation.

Agreed and good thinking post.

NASA provides and touches our lives in so many ways with spinoffs, yes we need it for what it provides besides defense articles. But more so, it develops things we use everyday.....cell phone tech, laptops, GPS, huge amounts of imaging, medical, microtechs, etc etc.

There is a link and site at the main NASA site that gives a run down just in the last 2 years of what it provides for tech knowledge and that does not count the last 40.

Robert

 

[Jackson]

Looking at our debt, I perhaps can justify cutting back NASA, but that also means not launching new projects that costs trillions like Obamacare when we just can't afford it.

We still have to defend our nation.

Agreed and good thinking post.

NASA provides and touches our lives in so many ways with spinoffs, yes we need it for what it provides besides defense articles. But more so, it develops things we use everyday.....cell phone tech, laptops, GPS, huge amounts of imaging, medical, microtechs, etc etc.

There is a link and site at the main NASA site that gives a run down just in the last 2 years of what it provides for tech knowledge and that does not count the last 40.

Robert

We have to bring NASA back when we can afford to. It brings jobs not only to the NASA family, but to other industries as well. Just how much does this government waste that doesn't produce jobs?