White House Denies NASA Muslim Outreach Remark: Throws Boldon Under The Bus.

[RDD_1210]

Howzabout the FACTS of the case. The Obami Salaami makes another NATIONALLY advertised fuckup......attempts a blatantly disengenuous COVERUP that simply makes their TWO FUCKUPS even more ridiculous.......then has its political Obamarrhoidal stooges (as on this Forum) try to manage DAMAGE CONTROL by ATTACKING those that are merely commenting on just ANOTHER Obami Salaami FIASCO !!!!

Fucking pathetic.

Attack? All I did was point out that the OP is a raving lunatic by comparing Obama to a Nazi. There is no point in trying to "discuss the facts of the case" when it's obvious that the OP is unreasonable and closed minded.

And "Obami Salaami"? WTF does that even mean?

I'm sure your opinion means alot around here since your rep says you "suck off goats". LOL, I'm guessing people don't take you serious in any of the posts you make. Shocking.

R(eal) D(umbshit)Democrat,

Obami Salaami's tactics are NAZI-LIKE in that contrary to his BLATANTLY REPEATED CAMPAIGN LIES of "TRANSPARENCY" (and Bi-partisanship)..... his stooges Pelosi and Reid conducted the MOST FLAGRANTLY NAZI-LIKE, SECRETIVE, NON-INCLUSIVE, UNPOPULAR Legislative procedures in the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF AMERICA !!!!

As to the OTHER INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS of the case:

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT ONE: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are, in effect, IGNORING the existence of the SANCTUARY CITIES that are in VIOLATION of Federal Law.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT TWO: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are trying to destroy the AZ Law that is the State's last resort from being ANNIHILATED by the Fed's CONTINUED inaction.

ADDRESS THESE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS .....IF YOU CAN....... YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT !!!!

Obami Salaami ????? That is the expression of my TOTAL CONTEMPT for an EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD, i.e., a MARXIST, Palestinian Guardian, Muslim PC Protector.....and NOW !!!!...a SUPPORTER of AIDING & ABETTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and being the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS' PUSSY Obami Salaami !!!!

I am more than proud to stand on my record of TRUTH and VERACITY when confronted by my enemies' vomit. The OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between me and the OBAMARRHOIDAL LIBERRHOID BULLSHIT are the IRREFUTABLE ASSERTIONS like the statements above.

You seem nice.

 

[RDD_1210]

Bodey's supercilious (albeit dishonest) "click" comment was noteworthy only insofar as it reveals her fundamental problem. While contending that a post is so unworthy of notice that it would result in changing the channel of turning off the tv, she nevertheless finds it worthy of comment.

That you say the same thing (in more words) only demonstrates that you are as shallow and hypocritical as she is. But that doesn't mean you deserve a reply to every one of your grunting petty-ass little posts. You draw the wrong conclusion, of course.

It appears that the clinical condition from which you suffer is "narcissism."

Please explain how I am shallow and hypocritical for wanting people to be mature and not compare our own president to the worst mass murderers the world may have ever known. I am open to discussion and debate but it's hard to want to even try and have a real conversation when the person starts the thread by comparing our president to Nazis.

Actually, I agree with you in that regard. I think President Obama is a flaming dumbass, but any "comparison" of him to Hitler is ridiculous and unfair.

(You'd made only a very vague reference to one of your earlier posts, so it wasn't clear to me that you were somehow comparing Bodey's petty little "click" comment to your critique of the Hitler reference.)

Fair enough, People can disagree with Obama and hate him all day but to compare him or any other politician in power today to Hitler/Nazis is just ridiculous and where I have the problem.

 

[Liability]

How about if the reach out to SPACE?

President Obama seems to be saying (with far less eloquence) that our nation's policy for space exploration is to ground astronauts on Earth immediately and for as much of the decade as he can manage.

So the Government SHOULD be involved in space exploration? Is that your stance? I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

 

[RDD_1210]

President Obama seems to be saying (with far less eloquence) that our nation's policy for space exploration is to ground astronauts on Earth immediately and for as much of the decade as he can manage.

So the Government SHOULD be involved in space exploration? Is that your stance? I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

 

[gautama]

Attack? All I did was point out that the OP is a raving lunatic by comparing Obama to a Nazi. There is no point in trying to "discuss the facts of the case" when it's obvious that the OP is unreasonable and closed minded.

And "Obami Salaami"? WTF does that even mean?

I'm sure your opinion means alot around here since your rep says you "suck off goats". LOL, I'm guessing people don't take you serious in any of the posts you make. Shocking.

R(eal) D(umbshit)Democrat,

Obami Salaami's tactics are NAZI-LIKE in that contrary to his BLATANTLY REPEATED CAMPAIGN LIES of "TRANSPARENCY" (and Bi-partisanship)..... his stooges Pelosi and Reid conducted the MOST FLAGRANTLY NAZI-LIKE, SECRETIVE, NON-INCLUSIVE, UNPOPULAR Legislative procedures in the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF AMERICA !!!!

As to the OTHER INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS of the case:

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT ONE: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are, in effect, IGNORING the existence of the SANCTUARY CITIES that are in VIOLATION of Federal Law.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT TWO: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are trying to destroy the AZ Law that is the State's last resort from being ANNIHILATED by the Fed's CONTINUED inaction.

ADDRESS THESE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS .....IF YOU CAN....... YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT !!!!

Obami Salaami ????? That is the expression of my TOTAL CONTEMPT for an EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD, i.e., a MARXIST, Palestinian Guardian, Muslim PC Protector.....and NOW !!!!...a SUPPORTER of AIDING & ABETTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and being the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS' PUSSY Obami Salaami !!!!

I am more than proud to stand on my record of TRUTH and VERACITY when confronted by my enemies' vomit. The OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between me and the OBAMARRHOIDAL LIBERRHOID BULLSHIT are the IRREFUTABLE ASSERTIONS like the statements above.

You seem nice.

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emocrat),

Q.E.D.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Liability]

Please explain how I am shallow and hypocritical for wanting people to be mature and not compare our own president to the worst mass murderers the world may have ever known. I am open to discussion and debate but it's hard to want to even try and have a real conversation when the person starts the thread by comparing our president to Nazis.

Actually, I agree with you in that regard. I think President Obama is a flaming dumbass, but any "comparison" of him to Hitler is ridiculous and unfair.

(You'd made only a very vague reference to one of your earlier posts, so it wasn't clear to me that you were somehow comparing Bodey's petty little "click" comment to your critique of the Hitler reference.)

Fair enough, People can disagree with Obama and hate him all day but to compare him or any other politician in power today to Hitler/Nazis is just ridiculous and where I have the problem.

Agreed. Sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. In fact, it dawns on me that possibly even Bodey was actually directing her own comment to the Hitler comparison. If so, I retract my commentary about her in this case, too. (Bodey and I have a history. She dislikes me and I dislike her, but if she was trying to critique an Obama/Hitler comparison, then I can admit she was right.)

 

[RDD_1210]

R(eal) D(umbshit)Democrat,

Obami Salaami's tactics are NAZI-LIKE in that contrary to his BLATANTLY REPEATED CAMPAIGN LIES of "TRANSPARENCY" (and Bi-partisanship)..... his stooges Pelosi and Reid conducted the MOST FLAGRANTLY NAZI-LIKE, SECRETIVE, NON-INCLUSIVE, UNPOPULAR Legislative procedures in the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF AMERICA !!!!

As to the OTHER INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS of the case:

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT ONE: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are, in effect, IGNORING the existence of the SANCTUARY CITIES that are in VIOLATION of Federal Law.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT TWO: Obami Salaami, and his putrescent Administrative stooges, are trying to destroy the AZ Law that is the State's last resort from being ANNIHILATED by the Fed's CONTINUED inaction.

ADDRESS THESE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS .....IF YOU CAN....... YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT !!!!

Obami Salaami ????? That is the expression of my TOTAL CONTEMPT for an EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD, i.e., a MARXIST, Palestinian Guardian, Muslim PC Protector.....and NOW !!!!...a SUPPORTER of AIDING & ABETTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and being the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS' PUSSY Obami Salaami !!!!

I am more than proud to stand on my record of TRUTH and VERACITY when confronted by my enemies' vomit. The OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between me and the OBAMARRHOIDAL LIBERRHOID BULLSHIT are the IRREFUTABLE ASSERTIONS like the statements above.

You seem nice.

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emocrat),

Q.E.D.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Are you familiar with the saying you attract more flies with honey then vinegar?

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, I agree with you in that regard. I think President Obama is a flaming dumbass, but any "comparison" of him to Hitler is ridiculous and unfair.

(You'd made only a very vague reference to one of your earlier posts, so it wasn't clear to me that you were somehow comparing Bodey's petty little "click" comment to your critique of the Hitler reference.)

Fair enough, People can disagree with Obama and hate him all day but to compare him or any other politician in power today to Hitler/Nazis is just ridiculous and where I have the problem.

Agreed. Sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. In fact, it dawns on me that possibly even Bodey was actually directing her own comment to the Hitler comparison. If so, I retract my commentary about her in this case, too. (Bodey and I have a history. She dislikes me and I dislike her, but if she was trying to critique an Obama/Hitler comparison, then I can admit she was right.)

Yeah I believe thats all she was doing because she highlighted the Nazi part like I had in the quote. It's all good though. Thanks for being level-headed. It's a nice change around here.

 

[Liability]

So the Government SHOULD be involved in space exploration? Is that your stance? I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

There are indeed many areas where the government SHOULD stay out of it. I understand those who would include Space Exploration, but I guess I just disagree. If that is a hallmark of inconsistency on my part, then I guess it's "guilty as charged." (I am very much opposed to abortion on demand, too, but there are many conservatives who view my position on that topic with suspicion since I allow for some exceptions which are [I acknowledge] not exactly consistent in terms of logic.)

Life is a complicated affair and I find it impossible to assign all disputes into their presumed pigeon holes based on an unswerving position of political philosophy. But people get easily alarmed. I am not bothered by slippery slope arguments. I reject them. I will embrace exceptions to general principles where competing interests force me to allow for such exceptions.

When it comes to space exploration, there may come a day when private enterprise can assume the main role. I'd like that. But for now, given the urgent need to engage in such activities, I am content to permit the government to assume that burden and to have us all shoulder the costs, for now.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

There are indeed many areas where the government SHOULD stay out of it. I understand those who would include Space Exploration, but I guess I just disagree. If that is a hallmark of inconsistency on my part, then I guess it's "guilty as charged." (I am very much opposed to abortion on demand, too, but there are many conservatives who view my position on that topic with suspicion since I allow for some exceptions which are [I acknowledge] not exactly consistent in terms of logic.)

Life is a complicated affair and I find it impossible to assign all disputes into their presumed pigeon holes based on an unswerving position of political philosophy. But people get easily alarmed. I am not bothered by slippery slope arguments. I reject them. I will embrace exceptions to general principles where competing interests force me to allow for such exceptions.

When it comes to space exploration, there may come a day when private enterprise can assume the main role. I'd like that. But for now, given the urgent need to engage in such activities, I am content to permit the government to assume that burden and to have us all shoulder the costs, for now.

Couldn't agree more. I think using your brain to form your own opinion on each individual issue is critical and to automatically take the standard party view is a travesty. Thanks for the discussion, it's been a welcome change.

 

[The T]

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

There are indeed many areas where the government SHOULD stay out of it. I understand those who would include Space Exploration, but I guess I just disagree. If that is a hallmark of inconsistency on my part, then I guess it's "guilty as charged." (I am very much opposed to abortion on demand, too, but there are many conservatives who view my position on that topic with suspicion since I allow for some exceptions which are [I acknowledge] not exactly consistent in terms of logic.)

Life is a complicated affair and I find it impossible to assign all disputes into their presumed pigeon holes based on an unswerving position of political philosophy. But people get easily alarmed. I am not bothered by slippery slope arguments. I reject them. I will embrace exceptions to general principles where competing interests force me to allow for such exceptions.

When it comes to space exploration, there may come a day when private enterprise can assume the main role. I'd like that. But for now, given the urgent need to engage in such activities, I am content to permit the government to assume that burden and to have us all shoulder the costs, for now.

It is getting closer than you think...(At least a step in the correct direction).

Cecil Field NAS (Which was given to the City Of Jacksonville, FL upon it's closing under BRAC)...Is now a Certified Space Port.

Aero-TV: A New Milestone – FAA Certifies Cecil Field Spaceport

Reading what you wrote? I thought I'd shine a nice light on it.

~T

 

[gautama]

You seem nice.

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emocrat),

Q.E.D.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Are you familiar with the saying you attract more flies with honey then vinegar?

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emcrat),

Are you familiar with HISTORY......and the effect of "honey" on swines like Stalin, Hitler........

 

[FA_Q2]

So the Government SHOULD be involved in space exploration? Is that your stance? I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

Why? You think you're all good to go and ready to pounce if I harbor a view that doesn't pass muster with your preconceived notions of what the conservative position is or ought to be?

I believe humankind should be involved in the exploration of space. I have my doubts if it is the kind of thing that can be properly handled by private companies -- at least alone. Hell, airlines get regulated and overseen by the government in a whole lot of ways. I have no objection to that oversight. Not on practical grounds; not on political philosophy grounds; not at all. I kinda sorta think that maybe the government can play a similar role relative to space exploration.

Needless to say, a lot of this is over-simplified. As things presently stand, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of private companies engaged in the business of space flight. But since I think we have a pressing NEED to be doing that exploration thing, I am VERY content with having NASA do it.

President Obama doesn't seem to share this belief.

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

This is really not inconsistent with conservative goals. Conservatives believe in a small government but that government is still existent and still serves a purpose. That purpose is for the general welfare of the community. Police and firefighters are only one faucet of that purpose. There are many others and one such goal of the government is to advance us as a nation and break through technological barriers that the market cannot. There is a point at which the payoff is so far in the future that the market has nither the resources or the capability of advancing into that technology. I want the government invested in those frontiers. That includes things like space exploration. There really is no real benifit from exploring space other thatn the advancement of science. At some point it will become more, at a time when space is preferable to flight or we expand out borders onto other planets but the payoff here was way to far in the future for companies to get involved. This is where the government has the advantage - large resources and no need for profit. When these thechnologies become profitable then the free market can take over and devlope cammercial products with these technologies but for now it is still a government job.

On that same point, I was rather upset when Obama stopped NASA from building its own rockets but only because I thought that it was a precursor for something else. As it stands now, it may have actually been one of the few things I am happy that the president accomplished. We will still have to see though, the 'reach out to Muslim's' statements that were made bring the worries back. NASA is not an international peace core, they are an exploration based organization.

 

[RDD_1210]

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emocrat),

Q.E.D.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Are you familiar with the saying you attract more flies with honey then vinegar?

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emcrat),

Are you familiar with HISTORY......and the effect of "honey" on swines like Stalin, Hitler........

Enlighten me.....this should be good.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is really not inconsistent with conservative goals. ...That purpose is for the general welfare of the community.

That may be the first time I've seen that phrased used by a conservative to defend a federal government program or agency.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is really not inconsistent with conservative goals. ...That purpose is for the general welfare of the community.

That may be the first time I've seen that phrased used by a conservative to defend a federal government program or agency.

There is a first for everything. Even a staunch conservative must admit that there are things like the police that serve the community. Government has its place, most of us just do not like it when the government grows beyond that place.

 

[saveliberty]

This is really not inconsistent with conservative goals. ...That purpose is for the general welfare of the community.

That may be the first time I've seen that phrased used by a conservative to defend a federal government program or agency.

There is a first for everything. Even a staunch conservative must admit that there are things like the police that serve the community. Government has its place, most of us just do not like it when the government grows beyond that place.

Polce as community service agents? I want them to enforce the law. I'm full up on community organizers.

 

[Liability]

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

There are indeed many areas where the government SHOULD stay out of it. I understand those who would include Space Exploration, but I guess I just disagree. If that is a hallmark of inconsistency on my part, then I guess it's "guilty as charged." (I am very much opposed to abortion on demand, too, but there are many conservatives who view my position on that topic with suspicion since I allow for some exceptions which are [I acknowledge] not exactly consistent in terms of logic.)

Life is a complicated affair and I find it impossible to assign all disputes into their presumed pigeon holes based on an unswerving position of political philosophy. But people get easily alarmed. I am not bothered by slippery slope arguments. I reject them. I will embrace exceptions to general principles where competing interests force me to allow for such exceptions.

When it comes to space exploration, there may come a day when private enterprise can assume the main role. I'd like that. But for now, given the urgent need to engage in such activities, I am content to permit the government to assume that burden and to have us all shoulder the costs, for now.

It is getting closer than you think...(At least a step in the correct direction).

Cecil Field NAS (Which was given to the City Of Jacksonville, FL upon it's closing under BRAC)...Is now a Certified Space Port.

Aero-TV: A New Milestone – FAA Certifies Cecil Field Spaceport

Reading what you wrote? I thought I'd shine a nice light on it.

~T

I love news like that. That guy from Virgin records and Virgin airlines is also busting a move on space flight. And I know that a couple of American competitors do exist, which I think is terrific. But (sad to say) I acknowledge that there is going to inevitably going to have to be a good deal of regulation of this sector and it is (imho) necessary. So, I will remain content with a government hand in the matter -- especially considering it will entail dealing with other nations' space programs, too.

But, damn, isn't it cool to be living in the day and age where we are now seeing "spaceports" as actual entities in the real world -- not just on the pages of science fiction?

 

[gautama]

Are you familiar with the saying you attract more flies with honey then vinegar?

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emcrat),

Are you familiar with HISTORY......and the effect of "honey" on swines like Stalin, Hitler........

Enlighten me.....this should be good.

OMG !!!!! Are you really a TERMINAL IDIOT ?!?!?

 

[saveliberty]

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

I think the return on investment with NASA has been pretty good. In overcoming issues of space exploration, technology has been greatly advanced. Telecommunications is resting solely on the back of NASA. NASA is basically infrastructure much like interstate highways. I don't view healthcare in that light.