Thanks Obama: Russia To Let International Space Station De-Orbit And Fall Into Sea

Send everybody to the movie show which will instill American Pride and Patriotism.
What movie show? What do you think is the meaning of American Pride and Patriotism? Give a educated logical answer please.

There are plenty of good patriotic & pride movies to watch. How about a John Wayne movie? Or full metal jacket. Imo Jima. Atomic bombs over tokyo. We can all cheer & salute the flag on intermission.:drills::salute::salute::salute: :popcorn:

My favorite is mostly about Ireland... The Quiet Man. However, Green Berets is a great film too.
 
BREAKING: The Cold War is over, for 20 years. The space station will be obsolete and worn out by then, Obama wants Mars to be the next objective, and in hard times wants private industry to do the work, as they always have done. The Pub Propaganda Machine makes the Dupes against everything he does, even when it's actually PUB policy, like this and mainly private health reform. The dupes are amazingly dumb.:eusa_angel:

It really is time to cut the military budget by 25%. Use a quarter of the savings to buy off the Israelis/Palestinians, and REALLY be the world's good guy with foreign aid- before the Chinese take THAT over, as they are in Africa and much of the 3rd world...
 
Green Berets: ridiculous, incredibly cliched BOMB- Wayne ruined his image being a Pub warmonger.Wrong War...could have been the most popular actor ever....Terrible war has poisoned everything since....
 
It's a plan that's long been in the works and is a step to avoid the station becoming dangerous space junk. It was supposed to plunge into the ocean as early as 2015. The U.S. recently extended its life until at least 2020, and there's been talk of keeping it going even longer.

Oh those nasty Russians.
 
Cutting NASA's space program is probably the only thing Obama has done that is in line with free market thinking. But it was the last cut that needed to be made. Other spending is far more unproductive and inefficient.
How is America suppose to remain dominate in space which instills American Pride and Patriotism. Like Sarah Palin said as well as the former Apollo Astronauts, we must maintain America Exceptionalism.

Space exploration and continued U.S. dominance is a national security issue, which is why Obama and most libs don't give a shit about.
 
So where is it important to maintain US dominance?
On the seas?
On the land?
Or just in space?

It seems to me that there're strong calls for the US to pull out of its bases across the world and pull back to within it's own borders...certainly on this forum, maybe not the most accurate gauge of public sentiment I admit.
But, in any case, if it's a matter of national security and pride to maintain a presence in space, why not in Africa or Korea or...
 
So where is it important to maintain US dominance?
On the seas?
On the land?
Or just in space
?

It seems to me that there're strong calls for the US to pull out of its bases across the world and pull back to within it's own borders...certainly on this forum, maybe not the most accurate gauge of public sentiment I admit.
But, in any case, if it's a matter of national security and pride to maintain a presence in space, why not in Africa or Korea or...

All of the above, what's so hard to understand? The U.S must maintain it's technological dominance because we are the counter balance to the forces that would seek to destabilize this planet. Whether we like it or not that’s just the way it is.
 
You want to cut waste? I would start with cutting welfare checks and SSI checks to minorities. The hard working American taxpayers are being raped by this atrocity. NASA should be fully funded.

I think we should start with cutting Military pensions & their health care, then gut the Pentagon and bring all our troops back to US soil and disban them. The military is the biggest waste we have, next to NASA.

So how would America defend itself if attacked by a foreign country? Be honest.

With a military designed purely to defend the US from attack. Which could be about half the size of our current military.
 
If we only spent money on things specifcally mentioned in the Constitution, we'd still be living in the late 1700's.

Join us in the future. We have cookies!

My question was addressed to that faction on the right who insist that the federal government shouldn't be doing anything that isn't 'enumerated'.

I guess that crowd has chosen the convenience of silence on this one.
I guess you ignored my posts then.

Ok, you're the one exception to the rule.
 
My question was addressed to that faction on the right who insist that the federal government shouldn't be doing anything that isn't 'enumerated'.

I guess that crowd has chosen the convenience of silence on this one.
I guess you ignored my posts then.

Ok, you're the one exception to the rule.

Two exceptions. I've made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't in the Constitution, we can't spend money on it. We'd still be living in the 1700's if that were the case.
 
I guess you ignored my posts then.

Ok, you're the one exception to the rule.

Two exceptions. I've made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't in the Constitution, we can't spend money on it. We'd still be living in the 1700's if that were the case.
No. You amend the constitution if you think times have changed. You dont just say it means something it doesnt. Otherwise there is no reason to have one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
 
Ok, you're the one exception to the rule.

Two exceptions. I've made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't in the Constitution, we can't spend money on it. We'd still be living in the 1700's if that were the case.

No. You amend the constitution if you think times have changed. You dont just say it means something it doesnt. Otherwise there is no reason to have one.

If we use your logic, why do we have a Supreme Court? They're the ones that decide. If they haven't declared something unconstitutional then it's OK, regardless of what others may think and going through the bother of amending the Constitution would just be a waste of time and effort.
 
Ok, you're the one exception to the rule.

Two exceptions. I've made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't in the Constitution, we can't spend money on it. We'd still be living in the 1700's if that were the case.
No. You amend the constitution if you think times have changed. You dont just say it means something it doesnt. Otherwise there is no reason to have one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

I think you misread or did not understand what I just said.

I said that I made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't written in the Constitution, you can't spend money on it. I disagree with that belief. It does NOT need to be spelled out specifically in the Constitution, in order to spend money on it. If it did, we'd not have advanced past the 1700's in many ways.

In simpler langauge... I agree with you.
 
Without the Shuttle, we will never be able to go into orbit ever again to fix any of our satellites. If the Hubble Telescope breaks down again, it's toast. The Russians have no vehicle capable of going to satellites like what I mentioned.

What did you expect after Obama appointed this yes man.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera last month that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Read more: Former NASA Director Says Muslim Outreach Push 'Deeply Flawed' - FoxNews.com
 
It's pretty ironic the Socialists/Progressives killed NASA. NASA was one of the very few Government Bureaucracies most Americans supported. So it probably wasn't the right Government Program to kill. The Socialists/Progressives screwed the pooch on this one.
 
Two exceptions. I've made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't in the Constitution, we can't spend money on it. We'd still be living in the 1700's if that were the case.
No. You amend the constitution if you think times have changed. You dont just say it means something it doesnt. Otherwise there is no reason to have one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

I think you misread or did not understand what I just said.

I said that I made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't written in the Constitution, you can't spend money on it. I disagree with that belief. It does NOT need to be spelled out specifically in the Constitution, in order to spend money on it. If it did, we'd not have advanced past the 1700's in many ways.

In simpler langauge... I agree with you.

If its not a specific enumerated power money cannot be spent on it without an amendment. The space shuttle program was unconstitutional. I am respectfully disagreeing with you. It absolutely must be spelled out specifically.
 
No. You amend the constitution if you think times have changed. You dont just say it means something it doesnt. Otherwise there is no reason to have one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

I think you misread or did not understand what I just said.

I said that I made several posts on this board in response to people who seem to think that if it isn't written in the Constitution, you can't spend money on it. I disagree with that belief. It does NOT need to be spelled out specifically in the Constitution, in order to spend money on it. If it did, we'd not have advanced past the 1700's in many ways.

In simpler langauge... I agree with you.

If its not a specific enumerated power money cannot be spent on it without an amendment. The space shuttle program was unconstitutional. I am respectfully disagreeing with you. It absolutely must be spelled out specifically.

And I respectfully disagree with you as well. See? We were both respectful. The rest of the board could learn something from us, eh?

Little bastards..... ;)
 
It's pretty ironic the Socialists/Progressives killed NASA. NASA was one of the very few Government Bureaucracies most Americans supported. So it probably wasn't the right Government Program to kill. The Socialists/Progressives screwed the pooch on this one.

The pooch and over 6,000 people who used to have jobs.

Most of whom have long memories and most of whom vote.
 
It's pretty ironic the Socialists/Progressives killed NASA. NASA was one of the very few Government Bureaucracies most Americans supported. So it probably wasn't the right Government Program to kill. The Socialists/Progressives screwed the pooch on this one.

The pooch and over 6,000 people who used to have jobs.

Most of whom have long memories and most of whom vote.

Not only that but 7,000 jobs were lost due to the Constellation Heavy Lift Vehicle program he cancelled and due to that it cost over 20,000 private sector jobs working on the project. Boy, Obama really is showing his pride and patriotism and love for America isn't he? :eek:
 

Forum List

Back
Top