When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to

[Conservative]

Bacteria can live beside undersea volcanic vents at near the boiling point.

You should go swimming. After all, it's habitable, right?

Dumbass.

Yes, it's habitable to those creatures. You still haven't showed me what technology Antarctic wildlife use to survive in Antarctica

Again, we're talking about people.

You're so desperate to pretend you "won" that you're comparing humans to penguins.

You might actually have a point if we were launching penguins into space. Alas, we are not.

Dumbass.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe you responded to someone else with facts but not me. All your posts (to me) have been rhetorical questions, sarcasm and name calling.

I even asked you why you think it's probable to occur in 8 years and your answer was "good thing idiots like you weren't around during JFK"

Never name called all I said was it's not probable. And you start crying like I smacked your face?!?!? No matter what I say you cone back crying about something that never happened.

 

[The T]

People, dumbass. People.

Habitable means any life can survive there. Nice try, though. I don't blame you for trying to save face on that one. It was, afterall, one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen

Bacteria can live beside undersea volcanic vents at near the boiling point.

You should go swimming. After all, it's habitable, right?

Dumbass.

Yes indeed so...

Deep Sea Life Is Found In Volcanic Vents<Sky News Video...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fox..

If I started discussion on something you thought was nOt possible. Would you debate the thing you believe is impossible because you didn't want to be called bias?

I wantto debate walking on the sun! If you don't like my idea, or don't say "gee whiz that's a great topic" then that means you are mudslinging?

This PC bullshit saying that if I don't like an idea or don't think it's possible...I should say it is possible so you won't call me mean? Be serious.

I said I don't think it can happen in 8 years and even asked Dave why he thought it was possible. I'm a lefty! You asked what lefty has done it. I have. But that didn't stop Dave from jumping on his back and kicking his feet. An open ended question and still the whining never stops.

Let's debate walking barefoot on the sun...if you don't you are a big meanie. Be foreal.

 

[J.E.D]

Bacteria can live beside undersea volcanic vents at near the boiling point.

You should go swimming. After all, it's habitable, right?

Dumbass.

Yes, it's habitable to those creatures. You still haven't showed me what technology Antarctic wildlife use to survive in Antarctica

Again, we're talking about people.

You're so desperate to pretend you "won" that you're comparing humans to penguins.

You might actually have a point if we were launching penguins into space. Alas, we are not.

Dumbass.

Who's talking about people? 'Habitable' in the context of planetary exploration means life can be sustained by a planet's natural resources. Any life. You said that Antarctica is uninhabitable without human technology. You are wrong. Antarctic wildlife have, are and will continue to inhabit Antarctica without the aid of human technology. Think before you speak.

 

[J.E.D]

Go ahead and say it: "I hate the idea because Newt suggested it. That's all."

Because, after all, if Obama said it, you'd be singing his praises.

DAMN... this is the post I should have pos repped you for. Spot on, Dave... spot on.

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

And if NASA came up with a man-made habitat that could withstand the heat of the Sun, you'd call the Sun habitable

 

[J.E.D]

How are you even able to sit at your PC, with your ass having been beaten so badly by so many people in this thread?

An uninhabitable planet does not become habitable by simply placing a man-made habitat on its surface.

That is a fact. Since you, Caveman and The T-bagee keep insisting otherwise, the only thing you've beaten me at is at being utterly stupid. Carry on, dumbass

 

[The T]

DAMN... this is the post I should have pos repped you for. Spot on, Dave... spot on.

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

And if NASA came up with a man-made habitat that could withstand the heat of the Sun, you'd call the Sun habitable

They aren't trying to. non-sequitor, asswipe.

 

[J.E.D]

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

And if NASA came up with a man-made habitat that could withstand the heat of the Sun, you'd call the Sun habitable

They aren't trying to. non-sequitor, asswipe.

So is this, dick-sneeze:

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

Go have another drink

 

[Conservative]

Yes, it's habitable to those creatures. You still haven't showed me what technology Antarctic wildlife use to survive in Antarctica

Again, we're talking about people.

You're so desperate to pretend you "won" that you're comparing humans to penguins.

You might actually have a point if we were launching penguins into space. Alas, we are not.

Dumbass.

Who's talking about people? 'Habitable' in the context of planetary exploration means life can be sustained by a planet's natural resources. Any life. You said that Antarctica is uninhabitable without human technology. You are wrong. Antarctic wildlife have, are and will continue to inhabit Antarctica without the aid of human technology. Think before you speak.

you first, dumbass.

Haven't you grown tired of being shown to be a complete fool? NASA has said they want to INHABIT the moon... they want to INHABIT Mars, as I have already posted NASA links to.

Were they lying? Were they wrong? Should we take YOUR word over NASA's?

The answers to those questions, in order, are NO... NO... and **** NO.

You've been beaten. Repeatedly. Slink away with what little dignity you can muster. We won't laugh... for too long, anyway

what we are ALL trying to explain to you, dipshit, is that NASA says you can INHABIT an environment like the moon or Mars.

 

[The T]

And if NASA came up with a man-made habitat that could withstand the heat of the Sun, you'd call the Sun habitable

They aren't trying to. non-sequitor, asswipe.

So is this, dick-sneeze:

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

Go have another drink

Translation: "I JoeyK have handed my ass so many times I have to resort to hyperbolic bullshit to save my own ass as i don't even recognize myself in the mirror any longer..."

 

[J.E.D]

Again, we're talking about people.

You're so desperate to pretend you "won" that you're comparing humans to penguins.

You might actually have a point if we were launching penguins into space. Alas, we are not.

Dumbass.

Who's talking about people? 'Habitable' in the context of planetary exploration means life can be sustained by a planet's natural resources. Any life. You said that Antarctica is uninhabitable without human technology. You are wrong. Antarctic wildlife have, are and will continue to inhabit Antarctica without the aid of human technology. Think before you speak.

you first, dumbass.

Haven't you grown tired of being shown to be a complete fool? NASA has said they want to INHABIT the moon... they want to INHABIT Mars, as I have already posted NASA links to.

Were they lying? Were they wrong? Should we take YOUR word over NASA's?

The answers to those questions, in order, are NO... NO... and **** NO.

You've been beaten. Repeatedly. Slink away with what little dignity you can muster. We won't laugh... for too long, anyway

what we are ALL trying to explain to you, dipshit, is that NASA says you can INHABIT an environment like the moon or Mars.

You. Are. A. Moron.

There is a huge difference between the meaning of the words 'inhabit' and 'habitable'. NASA explorers can inhabit a man-made structure on the surface of Mars all they like, but that doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. If life cannot be sustained by a planets natural resources (water, oxygen), then it is not habitable.

I've posted NASA's definition numerous times. It clearly defines habitable planets in that way.

 

[J.E.D]

They aren't trying to. non-sequitor, asswipe.

So is this, dick-sneeze:

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

Go have another drink

Translation: "I JoeyK have handed my ass so many times I have to resort to hyperbolic bullshit to save my own ass as i don't even recognize myself in the mirror any longer..."

Translation: You're drunk...again

 

[daveman]

Fox..

If I started discussion on something you thought was nOt possible. Would you debate the thing you believe is impossible because you didn't want to be called bias?

I wantto debate walking on the sun! If you don't like my idea, or don't say "gee whiz that's a great topic" then that means you are mudslinging?

This PC bullshit saying that if I don't like an idea or don't think it's possible...I should say it is possible so you won't call me mean? Be serious.

I said I don't think it can happen in 8 years and even asked Dave why he thought it was possible. I'm a lefty! You asked what lefty has done it. I have. But that didn't stop Dave from jumping on his back and kicking his feet. An open ended question and still the whining never stops.

Let's debate walking barefoot on the sun...if you don't you are a big meanie. Be foreal.

Walking barefoot on the sun is impossible.

Colonizing the moon is not.

And gee, I bet you were all proud of yourself, too, weren't you?

 

[Conservative]

Who's talking about people? 'Habitable' in the context of planetary exploration means life can be sustained by a planet's natural resources. Any life. You said that Antarctica is uninhabitable without human technology. You are wrong. Antarctic wildlife have, are and will continue to inhabit Antarctica without the aid of human technology. Think before you speak.

you first, dumbass.

Haven't you grown tired of being shown to be a complete fool? NASA has said they want to INHABIT the moon... they want to INHABIT Mars, as I have already posted NASA links to.

Were they lying? Were they wrong? Should we take YOUR word over NASA's?

The answers to those questions, in order, are NO... NO... and **** NO.

You've been beaten. Repeatedly. Slink away with what little dignity you can muster. We won't laugh... for too long, anyway

what we are ALL trying to explain to you, dipshit, is that NASA says you can INHABIT an environment like the moon or Mars.

You. Are. A. Moron.

There is a huge difference between the meaning of the words 'inhabit' and 'habitable'. NASA explorers can inhabit a man-made structure on the surface of Mars all they like, but that doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. If life cannot be sustained by a planets natural resources (water, oxygen), then it is not habitable.

I've posted NASA's definition numerous times. It clearly defines habitable planets in that way.

no one has said Mars can be made a habitable planet in the context you are using it, dick-spittle.

I've posted numerous links to NASA sites, saying they want to INHABIT Mars, and INHABIT the moon. Yet you ignore those links and every mention of them, like they don't exist... all because they don't fit into that little pea brain of yours.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT THE MOON.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT MARS.

You lost. Get over it.

 

[daveman]

Yes, it's habitable to those creatures. You still haven't showed me what technology Antarctic wildlife use to survive in Antarctica

Again, we're talking about people.

You're so desperate to pretend you "won" that you're comparing humans to penguins.

You might actually have a point if we were launching penguins into space. Alas, we are not.

Dumbass.

Who's talking about people? 'Habitable' in the context of planetary exploration means life can be sustained by a planet's natural resources. Any life. You said that Antarctica is uninhabitable without human technology. You are wrong. Antarctic wildlife have, are and will continue to inhabit Antarctica without the aid of human technology. Think before you speak.

Perhaps you should think at all.

In this discussion, the context is limited solely to humans. If we want to send simple, unintelligent organisms into space, we'll call you. You wait by the phone.

 

[daveman]

DAMN... this is the post I should have pos repped you for. Spot on, Dave... spot on.

Heck, if Obama said we should land people on the sun, he'd support it.

And if NASA came up with a man-made habitat that could withstand the heat of the Sun, you'd call the Sun habitable

If they could, it would be.

 

[daveman]

How are you even able to sit at your PC, with your ass having been beaten so badly by so many people in this thread?

An uninhabitable planet does not become habitable by simply placing a man-made habitat on its surface.

That is a fact. Since you, Caveman and The T-bagee keep insisting otherwise, the only thing you've beaten me at is at being utterly stupid. Carry on, dumbass

"I hate hate hate hate HATE IT because Newt suggested it!!"

 

[J.E.D]

you first, dumbass.

Haven't you grown tired of being shown to be a complete fool? NASA has said they want to INHABIT the moon... they want to INHABIT Mars, as I have already posted NASA links to.

Were they lying? Were they wrong? Should we take YOUR word over NASA's?

The answers to those questions, in order, are NO... NO... and **** NO.

You've been beaten. Repeatedly. Slink away with what little dignity you can muster. We won't laugh... for too long, anyway

what we are ALL trying to explain to you, dipshit, is that NASA says you can INHABIT an environment like the moon or Mars.

You. Are. A. Moron.

There is a huge difference between the meaning of the words 'inhabit' and 'habitable'. NASA explorers can inhabit a man-made structure on the surface of Mars all they like, but that doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. If life cannot be sustained by a planets natural resources (water, oxygen), then it is not habitable.

I've posted NASA's definition numerous times. It clearly defines habitable planets in that way.

no one has said Mars can be made a habitable planet in the context you are using it, dick-spittle.

I've posted numerous links to NASA sites, saying they want to INHABIT Mars, and INHABIT the moon. Yet you ignore those links and every mention of them, like they don't exist... all because they don't fit into that little pea brain of yours.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT THE MOON.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT MARS.

You lost. Get over it.

Which doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. You do realize that's what this has been about, right? You say a man-made structure on a planet makes that planet habitable; I say it doesn't. I'm right; you're wrong. Not once did I deny that NASA wants to put human habitats on Mars. Nice try, though. You're retarded. Get over it.

 

[J.E.D]

And please, Conservatwit, stop whining to me in PMs. It's getting to be rather sad.