Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President will speak about space future. On C-SPAN now.

Posted on 01/14/2004 10:58:26 AM PST by brazucausa

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last
To: RightWhale
I do not know what you mean by Clinton. His science policy was a disaster. I think he was deliberately giving the EU time to catch up. Look at High Energy Physics. Clinton "balanced the budget" by gutting long term military and civilian S&T efforts. It is not only defense that you need to keep away from the socialist. They really do have it in for the nation, they do not want us to have a leadership position in the world.
41 posted on 01/14/2004 11:57:48 AM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: redblood_american
I think the money could be better used here at home though.

No, we should load our warheads with greenbacks and fling them into space at every opportunity. Seriously, why does this specious argument get trotted out every day?

42 posted on 01/14/2004 11:59:28 AM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lancium
They have plenty to pay for social security, do not buy into the scare tactics.

1b invested in the space program is a bargain.

I am just as fiscally conservative (likely more so) than the next FReeper, but the billions wasted in federal government every year should be stopped and then us still hurting for cash before I'd give up the space program.
43 posted on 01/14/2004 12:00:59 PM PST by CyberCowboy777 (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: lancium
i can't believe they don't have enough to pay social security in 50 years

I got my social security statement the other day. It has all the credibility of Ed McMahon telling me I may already be a winner.

By the time I retire I will have paid far more into it than my 401k. My 401k will provide me with a decent retirement. By the time I am old enough to collect social security, I won't be old enough. I'll have to be 90 to start collecting and it will be just enough to keep me in cat food.

Trying to save social security is like trying to save Jimmy Hoffa.

44 posted on 01/14/2004 12:03:42 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
I compare every president to Nixon. Nixon was at zero. No president was ever a 10. Clinton was above zero, so, not so bad. Could have been worse. Hillary, assuming she has the right stuff to win the office, lacks the right stuff to be president, but even so she might not be as incompetent as Nixon. Clinton was about a 3. Dubya is about a 6. Bush was about a 3 also. Reagan was about an 8. JFK was about a 4. Like that.
45 posted on 01/14/2004 12:04:21 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
We have different scales, methinks. I see Clinton as actively selling tech to the Chinese and squandering multiple chances to nab Bin Laden as huge nullifiers. I'm thinking negative final numbers for the Slick One.
46 posted on 01/14/2004 12:08:04 PM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Is this the defacto live thread for the speech?
47 posted on 01/14/2004 12:09:03 PM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
The rules: no negative numbers. Subtraction is possible, but the scale stops at zero. Nixon was a zero. Having no president at all those years would have been better.
48 posted on 01/14/2004 12:10:25 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Comon now, the EPA? Now that has got to garner some points for Nixon.

Let us see how well you rate - the position of Carter on your scale?
49 posted on 01/14/2004 12:12:31 PM PST by CyberCowboy777 (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I think we need to contest the rules. Helpful should be positive, net no effec should be zero, and net harm should be negative.

Nixon, IMO, gets a negative 5. I'm waiting for my home to get evaporated by a Chicom Nuke before I rate Xlinton.
50 posted on 01/14/2004 12:14:27 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Carter. Hmm. Lots of subtractions. Inflation, Iran, death of space exploration. heavy negatives. Didn't bring discredit to the office, though, rabbits and UFOs notwithstanding. Honorable all the way. Carter gets a 2
51 posted on 01/14/2004 12:15:46 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: redblood_american
I think the money could be better used here at home though

For what, welfare?
The space program gives us jobs and progress, and just may save humanity from extinction.
52 posted on 01/14/2004 12:15:56 PM PST by LittleJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LittleJoe
The space program is one of those few tasks I actually like the Federal Government for.

They need to get out of education, SS, Health care and the like.
53 posted on 01/14/2004 12:19:12 PM PST by CyberCowboy777 (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Or having a two-term Goldwater...Barry was the man!

The VP's main job is oversight of NASA. Much of the criticism of Quayle overlooks his management changes to the NASA budgeting process. He was vilified by the lay, but the academic world at least took notice of his foresight and vision when he moved them to a long-term budget that was less tied to the Senate head count. Maybe your scale should be applied to VPs on this issue. Quayle gets an 8 in my book, at least on this one.

54 posted on 01/14/2004 12:20:53 PM PST by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
On the live speech, I don't get video here. What is the president saying?
55 posted on 01/14/2004 12:21:54 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
So Nixon moves below Carter for the disgrace, not the ineffectiveness?
56 posted on 01/14/2004 12:22:24 PM PST by CyberCowboy777 (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The president is running late. Nothing yet.
57 posted on 01/14/2004 12:22:56 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife (Freedom is a package deal - with it comes responsibilities and consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
Quayle is much underrated.
58 posted on 01/14/2004 12:23:05 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
On C-SPAN now.
59 posted on 01/14/2004 12:24:09 PM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Careful accusing Carter of having honor. I believe the Matrokin(sp) archive has evidence that he solicited help from Moscow during the 1980 election. There was a quid pro quo offered, one that was not exactly in our national interests.

He's also ran around undermining the foreign policy of every Rep. President since his.

From Newsmax:

"Reagan’s War” reveals new information that Carter, as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy of this country to undermine Reagan’s candidacy in 1980 and, even more shocking, tried to cripple President Reagan’s foreign policy in 1984."

I would have to admit that the inflation was really caused buy Nixon.
60 posted on 01/14/2004 12:25:37 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson