• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NASA not government funded any longer. What about space?

R

runningformayor

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Location
Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There was only one candidate talking space future in the presidential debates. President O. He said " we need to invest in space"! Defiance, that's a path to consistency.
President O closed down NASA so it could rebuild itself. When the Economy turns around that's where an investment has to be made.
The President has recognized this, the next step is execution.
Our policy can not be one that never goes venturing into uncharted territory.
That's how our country was found, and built.
Maybe not government funded but government assisted.
 
runningformayor said:
There was only one candidate talking space future in the presidential debates. President O. He said " we need to invest in space"! Defiance, that's a path to consistency.
President O closed down NASA so it could rebuild itself. When the Economy turns around that's where an investment has to be made.
The President has recognized this, the next step is execution.
Our policy can not be one that never goes venturing into uncharted territory.
That's how our country was found, and built.
Maybe not government funded but government assisted.
Click to expand...

President Obama... Oh yeah, the guy who killed NASA in the first place. Naturally he cut funding to SAVE it.

This should probably be moved to conspiracy theories. It's quite clear why he had the funding cut in the first place: He doesn't value NASA or their contribution to our country.

As if his first few stabs didn't hurt NASA enough, he's STILL doing it.

And lastly, NASA is still funded almost entirely by the US government.
 
Last edited:
runningformayor said:
There was only one candidate talking space future in the presidential debates. President O. He said " we need to invest in space"! Defiance, that's a path to consistency.
President O closed down NASA so it could rebuild itself. When the Economy turns around that's where an investment has to be made.
The President has recognized this, the next step is execution.
Our policy can not be one that never goes venturing into uncharted territory.
That's how our country was found, and built.
Maybe not government funded but government assisted.
Click to expand...



There is a great future for humanity in space, particularly considering the value of Helium3 isotope.


But that Heroic Future, due to America's foolish experiments with Obama Socialism and Ethinic Nationalism, will not be a part of it.


Like the fact that America invented the transistor and the cell phone, yet we import billions of dollars of cell phones every year and make none of our own, the Liberals and dead set on keeping our future bleak and diminished.


Obama and Rev. Wright would say that it is our just punishment for America's Sins of Colonialism.


I would say that it is the predictable outcome of being foolish enough to put any faith at all in socalism and statism.


But hey, look on the bright side, a few muslims will be feeling grand about their contributions to math and science.



-
 
Kurmugeon said:
I would say that it is the predictable outcome of being foolish enough to put any faith at all in socalism and statism.
Click to expand...

Obama is a terrible socialist. I think you should stop beating the crap out of that strawman.
 
JRog said:
Obama is a terrible socialist. I think you should stop beating the crap out of that strawman.
Click to expand...

Five Trillion in new debt with more Americans out of work than ever, and once strong American industries being moved overseas...


Yeah, it is a bit more than a Strawman.


The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been masterfully executed by the Manchurian Candidate come to life.


The Liberals are facing an eventual reckoning, it just a matter of time.


-
 
Kurmugeon said:
Five Trillion in new debt with more Americans out of work than ever, and once strong American industries being moved overseas...
Yeah, it is a bit more than a Strawman.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been masterfully executed by the Manchurian Candidate come to life.
The Liberals are facing an eventual reckoning, it just a matter of time.
-
Click to expand...

If deficits and debt were the sign of a socialist, every president since FDR would be a socialist. Also, if you have a problem with offshoring, I suggest you take it up with Mitt Romney. His company is in the business of offshoring for profit. Obama was criticized for some of his policies as they were too protectionist of US businesses.

If you intend on continuing to call the President a socialist, you should come up with other reasons besides debt and offshoring. Neither is an indication of socialism.
 
runningformayor said:
There was only one candidate talking space future in the presidential debates. President O. He said " we need to invest in space"! Defiance, that's a path to consistency.
President O closed down NASA so it could rebuild itself. When the Economy turns around that's where an investment has to be made.
The President has recognized this, the next step is execution.
Our policy can not be one that never goes venturing into uncharted territory.
That's how our country was found, and built.
Maybe not government funded but government assisted.
Click to expand...


What's the difference? Anyway, I'm calling bull**** on this. NASA is a govt agency, therefore it's govt funded.
 
runningformayor said:
There was only one candidate talking space future in the presidential debates. President O. He said " we need to invest in space"! Defiance, that's a path to consistency.
President O closed down NASA so it could rebuild itself. When the Economy turns around that's where an investment has to be made.
The President has recognized this, the next step is execution.
Our policy can not be one that never goes venturing into uncharted territory.
That's how our country was found, and built.
Maybe not government funded but government assisted.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford didn't need gov assistance to get his car company going.
 
"Um, yeah, we're still working and our paychecks still come from the government."

-NASA
 
I don't mind private industry leading the way on some of the stuff but we still need NASA and JPL involved.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Henry Ford didn't need gov assistance to get his car company going.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford didn't need to import parts from overseas as manufacturing occurred here in the US. He also paid his employees a decent wage to put them in the middle class. Unfortunately, US industry (due to global competition with unequal economies and the ever-increasing pressure to generate greater profits) is no longer strong and employees are no longer considered important parts of the company, rather expendible resources.
 
Fisher said:
I don't mind private industry leading the way on some of the stuff but we still need NASA and JPL involved.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as space travel capability is strategically important both from a military perspective and (in the future) from an economic perspective. Secondly, NASA develops a great deal of technological advancement and I would prefer that those advancements be used first and foremost to generate US business. Do we really want to start offshoring NASA functions?
 
JRog said:
I agree with this as space travel capability is strategically important both from a military perspective and (in the future) from an economic perspective. Secondly, NASA develops a great deal of technological advancement and I would prefer that those advancements be used first and foremost to generate US business. Do we really want to start offshoring NASA functions?
Click to expand...

I was thinking it would be nice to have someone make sure you don't launch straight into the side of the space station or a satellite :)

There are some things that private companies have no economic incentive to do, like deep space probes, telescopes, monitoring meteors/comets, developing technologies unrelated to travel/space tourism, rescuing people when for-profits cannot, etc.--The Space Coast Guard stuff
 
Fisher said:
I was thinking it would be nice to have someone make sure you don't launch straight into the side of the space station or a satellite :)

There are some things that private companies have no economic incentive to do, like deep space probes, telescopes, monitoring meteors/comets, developing technologies unrelated to travel/space tourism, rescuing people when for-profits cannot, etc.--The Space Coast Guard stuff
Click to expand...

All excellent points.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Henry Ford didn't need gov assistance to get his car company going.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the (mistaken) idea that anybody has closed down NASA?

Do you not consider national defense or law enforcement to be government assistance? Personally, I believe their making a sacrifice to help ensure a safe and stable environment for me to prosper in definitely counts as assistance. But that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom