• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

JMak said:
So you just divine it?

How was such apparent in my first post? I merely asked why wait. And you divined from that a cold war mindset? Puhlease.

Oh, I see, so asking "why wait" evinces a cold war mentality that says what...exactly?

I thought I was simply asking why wait to prepare for a threat until that threat has already presented itself?

I'm glad you're here to inform me what I am really thinking... :doh
Click to expand...

Since you insist on innocently questioning "why wait" and being attacked I'm forced to re-post your original comment.

Hmmm, so we just wait until after China develops technologies to weaponzie space and then we respond...with developing similar technology presumably? And that is rational how?

Why wait? What? China's going to get mad and do what? Exactly what they were planning to do anyway?
Click to expand...

See that last part? In four "questions" you gave me a clear insight into your rationale. You made assumptions out of fear and prejudice to validate your position.
 
Goobieman said:
Didn't you provide:

As your primary definition of militarize?
Given that, how can you argue that it isnt 'really' militarization?


It doesnt use space any more than it has been used since the late 1950s.
Click to expand...

A word is to be understood in context. Do you always limit yourself to the primary definition of a word?

So the criticism of Bush "militarizing space" was empty and he did nothing to suggest the relationship of space and NMD might change?
 
shiznit770 said:
Since you insist on innocently questioning "why wait" and being attacked I'm forced to re-post your original comment.

See that last part? In four "questions" you gave me a clear insight into your rationale. You made assumptions out of fear and prejudice to validate your position.
Click to expand...

That "last part" does not give any indication of any cold war mentality (whatever that is).

What assumptions did I make? That you think we should avoid even preparing to militarize or weaponzie space to avoid offending the ChiComs?

Why is that such an unreasonable assumption?
 
shiznit770 said:
A word is to be understood in context. Do you always limit yourself to the primary definition of a word?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that, at worst, the primary definition you provided fits perfectly well.

So the criticism of Bush "militarizing space" was empty and he did nothing to suggest the relationship of space and NMD might change?
Click to expand...
Um, no...
The NMD 'weaponizes' space to the same degree as ICBMs and all the previous national missile defense programs. To argue that Bush wants to 'weaponize' space necessitates that it wasn't 'weaponized' before.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So as we are in the "worst economy" since the depression, we need another trip to the moon? :lol:
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. How do we suddenly have the money for a race to the moon? Especially when we'll be borrowing the money to get there from the country we're racing against!!!
 
Goobieman said:
Seems to me that, at worst, the primary definition you provided fits perfectly well.
Click to expand...

I said I saw your line of logic, I did not say the first definition matched the case. The military traits attributed to space as a result of the merging would be minimal.

1. Military rockets may substitute the NASA's more expensive and unfinished version.
2. NASA and DoD will now be sharing information.

Unless you have more significant traits you wish to include, it would be inaccurate to say these traits would necessarily character space as militarized.
 
JMak said:
That "last part" does not give any indication of any cold war mentality (whatever that is).

What assumptions did I make? That you think we should avoid even preparing to militarize or weaponzie space to avoid offending the ChiComs?

Why is that such an unreasonable assumption?
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't know what cold war mentality means speaks volumes.

:rofl you really want me to explain how you made a terrible assumption?

Ok, in my first post I said this:
I see this as the difference between weaponizing space and preparing for weaponized space. If China continues with plans to target satellite warfare I expect Obama to respond as any reasonable person would.
Click to expand...

Do you see how you made an ass of yourself now?
 
shiznit770 said:
The fact that you don't know what cold war mentality means speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know what you mean by it.

You really have a fetish with divination, don't you? I'm supposed to divine what you mean wen you post your cliched phrases, eh?

:rofl you really want me to explain how you made a terrible assumption?
Click to expand...

Yeah. What was so ~gasp~ terrible about it?

I mean, you could have just I made a poor assumption, but now you've gone and gotten all choked up about it.

Do you see how you made an ass of yourself now?
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Re-posting what you already posted doesn't explain why you think I was bieng an "ass."

With all the time you've wasted here you could have already responded to my post several times over in a direct and reasonable manner.
 
shiznit770 said:
I said I saw your line of logic, I did not say the first definition matched the case. The military traits attributed to space as a result of the merging would be minimal.
...
Unless you have more significant traits you wish to include, it would be inaccurate to say these traits would necessarily character space as militarized.
Click to expand...
You said that you agree that merging of the branches gives NASA somewhat of a military character to it.

You also stated as your primary definition of 'militarize' as 'to give a military character to'.

Hard to see how you dont agree that Obama looks to militarize space.

And, given that you did not respond, I take it that you agree that the Bush administration did indeed not look to 'weaponize' space.
 
JMak said:
Um, no. The president cannot simply direct NASA to start conducting research on whatever he likes. As you should already know, NASA cannot conduct such research unless it has the funding to do so. The President cannot and does not have the authority to reprogram appropriations made by Congress. Hence, Congress would have to authorize the expenditure of dollars on such a program and then appropriate the actual funding.
Click to expand...

Uhh no. NASA is under the Executive Branch. Congress controls the purse strings, but NASA is under the mandate of the President.
 
JMak said:
Uh, no. Re-posting what you already posted doesn't explain why you think I was bieng an "ass."

With all the time you've wasted here you could have already responded to my post several times over in a direct and reasonable manner.
Click to expand...

That you think we should avoid even preparing to militarize or weaponzie space to avoid offending the ChiComs?
Click to expand...

See you assumed I was against even preparing to militarize or weaponize space when in actuality I stated just the opposite in my first post which you quoted! Since your initial post characterized mine and had a hostile tone to it I responded in a similar fashion.
 
Ikari said:
Uhh no. NASA is under the Executive Branch. Congress controls the purse strings, but NASA is under the mandate of the President.
Click to expand...

So you whine about King George but you have no problem with the President taking an appropriations bill from Congress and ignoring it so he can spend the money some other way?

Your inconsistencies reflect a certain intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, NASA is under the control and supervision of the Executive. So is DoD. However, the President cannot reprogram appropriated budget dollars authorized for expenditure toward a new air defense system and redirect that money to fund a new division for the Army.

The President cannot reprogram appropriated funds without congressional approval.

If you disagree with this, please provide an explanation.
 
shiznit770 said:
See you assumed I was against even preparing to militarize or weaponize space
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

You clearly commented that the US should wait to prepare until it's clear that China is continuing with plans to weaponize space.

I merely asked you why we should wait.

when in actuality I stated just the opposite in my first post which you quoted! Since your initial post characterized mine and had a hostile tone to it I responded in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...

I see, so you said I had a cold war mentality (again, whatever that means - though in this case you just used as a perjorative rather than anything meaningful) because you thought my comments were accompanied with a hostile tone?

Rather than simply answering a plain question?

Really?
 
JMak said:
So you whine about King George but you have no problem with the President taking an appropriations bill from Congress and ignoring it so he can spend the money some other way?

Your inconsistencies reflect a certain intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, NASA is under the control and supervision of the Executive. So is DoD. However, the President cannot reprogram appropriated budget dollars authorized for expenditure toward a new air defense system and redirect that money to fund a new division for the Army.

The President cannot reprogram appropriated funds without congressional approval.

If you disagree with this, please provide an explanation.
Click to expand...

Congress appropriates money. That money is not dictated. They give X to NASA, but they don't stipulate what research or programs that X amount of money is spent on. If they don't like it, they could decrease X; but they don't. Once the money is appropriated, NASA spends it on the things the President wants done. NASA is under the mandate of the President, it does as the President tells them to. If the President says "manned mission to Mars", NASA has to work towards a manned mission to Mars. Congress won't slash their budget because of it. The entire point was that NASA should no longer be under the mandate of the President. If we're going to have NASA, it needs to be run by the scientists. I don't see why I should spend my money on a bunch of worthless programs that aren't scientifically viable.
 
JMak said:
No, I didn't.

You clearly commented that the US should wait to prepare until it's clear that China is continuing with plans to weaponize space.

I merely asked you why we should wait.

I see, so you said I had a cold war mentality (again, whatever that means - though in this case you just used as a perjorative rather than anything meaningful) because you thought my comments were accompanied with a hostile tone?

Rather than simply answering a plain question?

Really?
Click to expand...

I said the US should make preparations, such as the integration of NASA with the military but not weaponize space until diplomacy has failed.

The reason we should way is because China weaponizing space is not a certainty and should you treat it like one you are promoting a "cold-war like mentality". This means you assume the worst and attempt to prepare for it militarily, promoting military spending instead of diplomacy.

The fact is diplomacy will fail if the US insists on military dominance in every area.
 
Ikari said:
Congress appropriates money. That money is not dictated.
Click to expand...

What? Okay, dude, really, ... this is embarrassing.

Congress authorizes spending and appropriated federal dollars on a line-item basis. I.e., how that money is spent is explicitly dictated by Congress.

They give X to NASA, but they don't stipulate what research or programs that X amount of money is spent on. If they don't like it, they could decrease X; but they don't. Once the money is appropriated, NASA spends it on the things the President wants done.
Click to expand...

Again, no. Congress appropriates federal dollars on a line-item basis specifically directing how dollars are spent.

NASA is under the mandate of the President, it does as the President tells them to.
Click to expand...

Nope.

If the President says "manned mission to Mars", NASA has to work towards a manned mission to Mars.
Click to expand...

NASA cannot spend any federal dollars on it until Congress says they can.

Congress won't slash their budget because of it. The entire point was that NASA should no longer be under the mandate of the President. If we're going to have NASA, it needs to be run by the scientists. I don't see why I should spend my money on a bunch of worthless programs that aren't scientifically viable.
Click to expand...

The entire point here is exposing your ignorance.

Example, when Kennedy said NASA was going to the Moon, NASA didn't just start working on it. Congress had to appropriate funding for it.
 
JMak said:
What? Okay, dude, really, ... this is embarrassing.

Congress authorizes spending and appropriated federal dollars on a line-item basis. I.e., how that money is spent is explicitly dictated by Congress.



Again, no. Congress appropriates federal dollars on a line-item basis specifically directing how dollars are spent.



Nope.



NASA cannot spend any federal dollars on it until Congress says they can.



The entire point here is exposing your ignorance.

Example, when Kennedy said NASA was going to the Moon, NASA didn't just start working on it. Congress had to appropriate funding for it.
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to take the word of NASA personnel over yours.
 
Goobieman said:
You said that you agree that merging of the branches gives NASA somewhat of a military character to it.

You also stated as your primary definition of 'militarize' as 'to give a military character to'.

Hard to see how you dont agree that Obama looks to militarize space.

And, given that you did not respond, I take it that you agree that the Bush administration did indeed not look to 'weaponize' space.
Click to expand...

Somewhat of a military character does not translate into 'Space is militarized'. I pulled the definition from the first site I found, after investigating others the order of the definitions seems varied.

The Bush administration did look to weaponize space. The reason it has been out of news lately is due to the Democratly controlled house and tie in the Senate.

The Real Star Wars: Bush Revives Missile Defense Plan

He's left the door open for weaponizing space since his first election, he just never got around to it until it was too late.
 
shiznit770 said:
I said the US should make preparations, such as the integration of NASA with the military but not weaponize space until diplomacy has failed.
Click to expand...

That was not clear in your original comments. You seemed to be suggesting that the US wait rather than prepare now in response to China's declared plans to go to space.

The reason we should way is because China weaponizing space is not a certainty and should you treat it like one you are promoting a "cold-war like mentality".
Click to expand...

That's what the cold war mentality is? Promoting something that you disagree with? I never would have guessed that.

China successfully weaponizing its space program may not be certain, but China ha declared this as a national objective. You're saying we should wait to prepare until "diplomacy fails".

Lets ignore for a moment what the diplomatic question is...why wait until after the fact?

This means you assume the worst and attempt to prepare for it militarily, promoting military spending instead of diplomacy.
Click to expand...

What is the diplomatic issue? Begging China not to weaponize space?

And why can't both be done simultanously?

The fact is diplomacy will fail if the US insists on military dominance in every area.
Click to expand...

Your fetish with diplomacy would result in US interests being subservient to avoiding offending other nations.
 
shiznit770 said:
Somewhat of a military character does not translate into 'Space is militarized'. I pulled the definition from the first site I found, after investigating others the order of the definitions seems varied.
Click to expand...
Ah. So, when the definition doesnt fit what you want to say, you change it.
Good enough. Thanks.

The Bush administration did look to weaponize space.
Click to expand...
How, exactly, did it do that?
Remember, that for the Bush administration to 'weaponize' space, it must first not have already been 'weaponized', and that the program that 'weaponizes' it must have been initiated by the Bush administration.
 
JMak said:
That was not clear in your original comments. You seemed to be suggesting that the US wait rather than prepare now in response to China's declared plans to go to space.



That's what the cold war mentality is? Promoting something that you disagree with? I never would have guessed that.

China successfully weaponizing its space program may not be certain, but China ha declared this as a national objective. You're saying we should wait to prepare until "diplomacy fails".

Lets ignore for a moment what the diplomatic question is...why wait until after the fact?



What is the diplomatic issue? Begging China not to weaponize space?

And why can't both be done simultanously?



Your fetish with diplomacy would result in US interests being subservient to avoiding offending other nations.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being obtuse. I tried to start afresh by clarifying my stance, which I thought was made clear by my first post, but you've decided to carry on a little conversation with yourself. Carry on. :2wave:
 
Ikari said:
I think I'm going to take the word of NASA personnel over yours.
Click to expand...

You have not presented any NASA personnel that describes the process as you claim it is.

Meanwhile, from NASA: FY 2009 Budget Request.

When you open the file you'll that budget dollars requested are requested for specific programs. Not a single, ultimate dollar amount which would then be controlled by the President as he sees fit.

Just like the HUD budget. When you open it you'll see specific dollars for specific programs. Again, not a single, ultimate amount that, if approved, is controlled by the President.
 
shiznit770 said:
Now you're just being obtuse. I tried to start afresh by clarifying my stance, which I thought was made clear by my first post, but you've decided to carry on a little conversation with yourself. Carry on. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I addressed your comments directly.

Your problem is...?
 
Goobieman said:
Ah. So, when the definition doesnt fit what you want to say, you change it.
Good enough. Thanks.


How, exactly, did it do that?
Remember, that for the Bush administration to 'weaponize' space, it must first not have already been 'weaponized', and that the program that 'weaponizes' it must have been initiated by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

I was trying to show that one site does not maintain the definitive authority fo the English language. Clearly you're too Stupid to understand this.

Are you now arguing that space is already weaponized?
 
shiznit770 said:
I was trying to show that one site does not maintain the definitive authority fo the English language. Clearly you're too Stupid to understand this.
Click to expand...
Ah. The reversion to childish insults.
Thanks for the concession of the point.

Are you now arguing that space is already weaponized?
Click to expand...
I asked you to support your claim that the Bush administration did look to weaponize space.
I was simply reminding you of what you would need to include to do this.
Can you support your assertion, or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom