Posted on 01/26/2012 7:53:18 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Actually I have no ‘love’ of Newt: I do respect certain attributes of his character and I hope he can go on and win the nomination. He’s by no means my ideal candidate: but then too many of us have spent too long looking for a ‘perfect’ candidate in this race. There isn’t one.
I’d be just as happy to settle for Santorum as the nominee, though I have serious doubts about his ability to beat Obama: I simply don’t think the guy is ‘up to it’ despite his many good qualities. But this nomination game is likely to end much sooner than most imagine if Romney wins Florida and another primary or two straight after. He’ll certainly take Nevada, with its high LDS population. Do not underestimate the tragic power that the MSM can give momentum.
And bear in mind the nature of this inherently biased nomination process: the largest ‘conservative’ state, Texas, allocates its delegates on a proportional basis, meaning carrying the state by 20% only gains you a net benefit of 30 or so delegates. Most of the south does likewise. The largest ‘liberal’ states, California and NY (which will likely favour Romney over whoever is left standing against him by then) both award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Meaning they’re worth +267 between them, even if only won by a handful of votes each.
All this adds up to the fact that if we’re going to stop Romney from winning the nomination, we need to unite around ONE conservative candidate NOW. The internecine warfare has gone on too long now, and there are only so many conservative and potentially conservative votes to be spread around. Yes, there’s a risk with putting all your eggs into one basket. But that risk has now to be weighed against the near certainty of a Romney victory if we can’t finally bury our individual hatchets and unite.
For the record, if Santorum rather than Newt was the more obvious and likely challenger, I’d be backing him and calling on Newt to stand down. But he isn’t. The ‘but he’s won a state’ line doesn’t change this fact: he camped out in Iowa for a year or so, gave everything he had there, and snatched the state by a handful of votes. His lack of organisation and funding elsewhere means he simply isn’t a viable long-term challenger at this point. And of course it hurts Newt’s chances to have him stay in the race: some of his supporters may indeed elect to support Mitt after he finally does get out, but far more will clearly go to Gingrich.
In short: he needs to get out and give us our best chance of defeating both Romney and Obama. He’s not a bad guy: I repeat, in different circumstances I’d have been happy to give him my support. But if he stays in now, there’s only one person he’s staying in it for. And that person ain’t Uncle Sam.
We need to be ready because we're falling behind. When you don't explore and push forward you retreat and fall by the wayside.
Obama would not propose this. His Science and Technology adviser, John P.. Holdren has been working to remove the U.S. from advancing -- you know the "population bomb" guy? And btw he was Romney's adviser in Mass too.
Romney’s Troubling Appointments (Mitt's environmental policy team now works for Obama) …………….“"EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has taken most of the fire from Republicans as her agency rolls out a slew of controversial new climate and clean air rules. But McCarthy, the EPA assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, has taken on much of the heavy lifting of writing, structuring, and implementing the rules.
“Lisa’s the coach and Gina’s the quarterback” in the work of rolling out new clean air regulations, said Daniel Weiss, an energy and climate policy expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to the Obama administration. “She’s running the plays, improvising on the line.”
Another Romney environmental adviser in the effort to regulate “greenhouse gases” is now Obama’s Director of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has some exotic views: …………..
Tang was invented by NASA.
Teflon was invented by NASA.
Florescent lghtbulbs were invented by NASA.
Just to name a few.
Computer miniaturization was needed — it happened.
Those are bogus calculations. It will cost far more than a trillion dollars to establish and maintain a permanent Lunar base, and it will cost far less than a trillion dollars to deliver 500 tons of supplies to the Lunar base. You fail to understand how the capabilities and costs are changing and will continue to change. Commercial activities will provide the vast majority of funding. Helium 3 and a variety of other products will provide the economic rewards needed to fund such space operations. Later, a single small asteroid will provide some 5 trillion dollars of useful metals and other material. Lunar and extraterrestrial habitats are the very thing required to avoid the high transportation costs incurred by egressing from a high gravity well of a planet like the Earth. The Lunar base is needed to get the process started, using Lunar resources to avoid the need to bring such resources out of the Earth's gravity well.
Commercial spacecraft are about to radically decrease the cost of carrying payloads into Earth orbit and to escape velocities.
You’re dreaming. The numbers are what they are. Rocket technology has not changed in decades. There are no businesses that can profitably mine the moon and there are none with the kind of capital required to do so. Not to mention that there is nothing on the moon that we need. It cost 135 billion in todays dollars to deliver 50 tons to the moon. They returned with hundreds of pounds of worthless rock. Good return on capital, no?
You honestly think private industry would not have come up with those? And private industry would have had enough sense to skip the CFLBs and $400 Billion sugar drinks!!
Tang was invented in 1957, by General Foods Corporation food scientist William A. Mitchell.
Teflon was invented by Roy Plunkett of Kinetic Chemicals in New Jersey in 1938.
Fluorescent light bulbs have a much longer history, dating back to 1860's or so, but the pivotal event appears to be: In 1934, Arthur Compton, a renowned physicist and GE consultant, reported to the GE lamp department on successful experiments with fluorescent lighting at General Electric Co., Ltd. in Great Britain (unrelated to General Electric in the United States).
Say, did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? Look it up!
This is about much more than a “base” on the moon.
Just sayin....
The Founders hashed out that whole moon base construction thing in one of the Federalist Papers.
So, you are stupidly ignorant and proud enough of it to announce it to all of the public. Good. Then you should not receive a penny’s worth of taxes from our commercial space revenues. We’ll start by demanding zero percent capital gains taxes on our commercial space operations.
Still smarting from the time I snookered you into believing I got a text from the EBS?
Santorum’s trying to take a bite out of Ron Paul’s slice of the pie, good move, attacking Mitt and leaving Newt alone, and now this. Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Dig a hole Rick.
Dig a hole.
Dig a hole Rick.
Dig a hole.
Hide in the dirt.
Where you can’t get hurt.
Dig a hole Rick.
Dig a hole.
I’ll pass that along to my rapping homie, if you don’t mind.
Fine by me.
It is a cheer the girls used back when I was in high school.
Names have been changed to pick on an idiot.
Dude, I'm the one who sent you that text!
Is there a large amount of private sector demand for buying into a moon base? If there are some companies that would invest in this (vs. simply being paid as a contractor to do the work a la NGC or Lockheed), can you name a few?
We know there are companies doing near earth vehicles for satellites and, to a lesser degree, tourism. I just don’t see a sustaining commercial interest in a moonbase.
I almost went to work on a NASA research project to determine what it would take to bring mineral rich asteroids into orbit and land them for mining. Possible but the commercial motivation is not there - as there are really no rare minerals on earth that are industrially valuable. The moon just makes no sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.