At 1/31/13 03:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/31/13 03:01 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc

Space? Fuck that! We've brown kids to kill and money to give out to corporations! Don't be silly.

I think you secretly like killing brown people.
But really, what the fuck is NASA for? Justify the money spent on space aside from the old national security argument.

At 2/4/13 12:51 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:

At 1/31/13 03:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/31/13 03:01 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc

Space? Fuck that! We've brown kids to kill and money to give out to corporations! Don't be silly.

I think you secretly like killing brown people.
But really, what the fuck is NASA for? Justify the money spent on space aside from the old national security argument.

Watch the videos, your question is answered in them. The videos are very short so if you truly want to know then watch them and you will find out why NASA is important.

At 2/4/13 11:28 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 2/4/13 12:45 AM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 2/2/13 02:43 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: bring something useful to the discussion instead of just bitching and complaining all the time.

Nice alt, hypocrite.

Hypocrite?! Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? Do you even know what a hypocrite is?

Perhaps you use a different definition, but I think of hypocrites as people who criticize the same flaws in others that they suffer from.

Other then the fact that I started this topic I have brought up links to websites that talk about this issue.

Other people (mainly Tyson) are angry about it, so you get angry about it; that's not exactly original. Your point about "wasteful programs" might've worked out better if you had specified exactly which programs you would cut and which you would keep (bailouts versus stimuli, welfare, dozens of military operations with differing levels of justification), instead of a vaguely anti-corporate and anti-warfare stance; you can hardly expect a president like Obama to withdraw our troops from every other country and refrain from all business interventions. With specific suggestions, we could actually debate how to distribute the money.

I explained how much we spend on NASA. So I have brought many useful things to this discussion. LemonCrush has brought nothing.

You complained that we spend relatively little on NASA, but you didn't explain where we should get the money from. When we're getting deeper in debt daily, I think every unnecessary expenditure ended is a triumph for our economic future. Admittedly, I would like more space exploration and we would normally have plenty of room for it with our tax revenues, but we need large spending cuts in other areas first.

So what have YOU brought to this discussion?

I've moved us a step closer to actually talking about where to get the money, rather than why the government can or cannot take it, since they'll do so anyway.

I can agree with the points made in these videos - although they were extremely romanticized. Most people who are educated on the progressive benefits of NASA programs will not disagree that the lack of funding is a hinderance to the long-term advancement of society; however, NASA is absolutely not the "great bastion" of technology. American (scientific) achievements are not dependent on the program's funding.

With NASA receiving ~1% of the federal budget (reference), we have seen the creation of Apple and Windows software (1984-85), cellular telephones (1988), Doppler RADAR (1988), 3-demensional graphics and high-definition screens (late 1980's - 1990), HTTP & HTML (1990), DVD (1995); plus nano-technlogy, birth control, energy alternatives, hybrid vehicles, the internet explosion, and countless discoveries and breakthroughs in the scientific field including medicine, geology, physics, and yes even astronomy (2000 - current). The resounding argument from the videos seemed to be strictly environmental. In fact, NASA has benefitted from advancements that they had no part in. Technology is growing at an exponential rate despite the unfortunate situation.

Tyson made a great observation for why our "attention" is being turned away from space temporarily. Quite simply, we have no real competition or motivation. The primary cause of the space race was fear. America has a passion for staying on top. Thus, with no challenger, it seems like a waste to dedicate energy to a program that - while not useless - is unnecessary. (Though we may see a miniature space race in the near future).

Furthermore, the American programs which are agreeably a waste of money and/or do not work in their present forms are not direct reasons to designate their funding to NASA. Most of the programs in question were intended to better society in education, security, and health. Would you disagree that these aspects of our culture are important? We should not give up on improving conditions simply because current solutions have complications - however large or small. Before we can spend money on space exploration (which is, at the moment, not a pressing matter), we must first train and educate the future astronauts, scientists, and perhaps inter-planetary colonists. Before we can safely venture to other celestial bodies, we must first have a home secure from foreign threats in addition to threats within our borders. Before we can live on Mars, we must be able to live on Earth.

The War on Terror has obviously been a heinous misallocation of resources (especially human). Iraq was a total failure of intel, and the response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was grossly exaggerated. And, the irresponsible attempt at nation-building in the Afghan region is done in vain. However, like with all federal programs/operations, the method is the key factor in determining if an endeavor is worth the cost. American "diplomacy" was abysmal under the Bush administration, yet it shows signs of improving in the future despite the Iran nuclear controversy. What is clear is that we should be devoting our energy to ensuring the safety and well-being of American citizens (in addition to human rights all over the world). We must first be able to work together in remote harmony before investing in an unnecessary program.

Some good news for space/NASA enthusiasts is the growth of private space organizations. The CRS-1 mission of last year is proof that we do not need to fund NASA in order to continue our research and exploration of outer space. I would even venture to say that by allowing non-federal projects we will see more advancements than with NASA exclusively. While I am not suggesting that increasing NASA funding to 1% would be wasteful spending, it is clear that the fanciful international space race can be put on hold for the time being; and, the federal budget can be put to better use (ie: improving social programs).

In summary, I agree that the United States has wasted a substantial amount of money on global and internal affairs. Thus, I would have to agree that the money wasted could have given NASA a plethora of opportunities in space exploration and colonization. However, due to our present situation, we should focus more on the betterment of our educational and health systems in addition to the tension brewing in the Middle East. For the time being, research should be left to private organizations such as SpaceX. But, through the social program improvement process, we may find that money no longer needs to be given in such large quantities to the currently problematic solvents after they are "fixed". That money left over can then be designated back to NASA under the assumption that we do not see an economic collapse or significant global conflict.

To ohbombuh

There are two definitions to the word hypocrite. Nether one fits with what you said and just so you know, I looked it up in the dictionary.

1.) a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.

2.) a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

You said, "You complained that we spend relatively little on NASA, but you didn't explain where we should get the money from. When we're getting deeper in debt daily, I think every unnecessary expenditure ended is a triumph for our economic future. Admittedly, I would like more space exploration and we would normally have plenty of room for it with our tax revenues, but we need large spending cuts in other areas first."

First off I already explained how little we spend on NASA. So saying that cutting NASA to save money really doesn't make much sense. The two things that we spend the most money on is the military and social security. Yet its funny when it comes to those two things we suddenly have more then enough money to not only spend on them but to increase spending.

Now before you say "well every little bit helps." I want to point out that comparing the spending of NASA to the spending of the military and social security is like comparing a drop of water to the great lakes. Its just so small and insignificant that cutting out NASA is completely unnoticeable from the overall spending of are nation.

Now the comment on unnecessary expenditure. The video goes into why NASA is important.

Now the comment on that I didn't explain were we should get the money from. Clearly you did not read what I wrote very carefully because I rote this in my opening post. "The government says we don't have the money for NASA. Yet we have the money to spend on wasteful programs that don't work many of which cost as must as a 100 billion dollars or more a year." Here are some examples of wasteful spending that the government is making that we can cut funding to or get ride of all together.

Privet party's for government officials, bribing corrupt governments all over the world, spending money on stopping prostitution which is a complete failure. It also doesn't make sense on stopping these people from selling what is legal to give away, the war on drugs even most Americans believe it is a complete failure. Many first world nations have prostitution and marijuana legalized and if you listen to our government about those two things then it should be Armageddon over there, wasteful military spending examples of this is the research of thing that are clearly not real like psychic powers. Another example of this is even though every one that designed planes said that clearly fly saucers were not aerodinamik the military tried to make one. They gave up the project because to no ones surprise it could not fly.

The things I have mentioned are hundreds of billions of dollars and these are only some of the examples of government wasteful spending. The list just goes on and on. My point is if we really are short on funds then cut spending on these things instead of NASA. Because cutting NASA is not going to give you the money you need to pay off our debt.

Finally you said "Other people (mainly Tyson) are angry about it, so you get angry about it; that's not exactly original." I found that to be very insulting because it indicated that I am just a mindless husk that only follows what others say. I made this post because I believe in not cutting funding to NASA and I was against cutting funding to NASA long before I saw this video. So don't you dare make claims on what my motives are because only I know the reason why I am not for cutting NASA, not you. Besides that does not make my point about cutting NASA no longer valid.

And if this keeps up China's going to Mars first.

At 2/4/13 11:36 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: There are two definitions to the word hypocrite. Nether one fits with what you said and just so you know, I looked it up in the dictionary.
1.) a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
2.) a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

You at least implied that you thought he should do more than complain, so I think you're covered by definition #2 there.

First off I already explained how little we spend on NASA. So saying that cutting NASA to save money really doesn't make much sense. The two things that we spend the most money on is the military and social security. Yet its funny when it comes to those two things we suddenly have more then enough money to not only spend on them but to increase spending.

We don't have enough money for other things, it's just that we need to get our priorities in order and trim off the programs we can't afford before we start trying to go to Mars.

Now before you say "well every little bit helps." I want to point out that comparing the spending of NASA to the spending of the military and social security is like comparing a drop of water to the great lakes. Its just so small and insignificant that cutting out NASA is completely unnoticeable from the overall spending of are nation.

Yeah, I acknowledge that it's relatively small, but that does nothing to get around the lack of money. You can't beg people for a nickel they've already spent.

Now the comment on unnecessary expenditure. The video goes into why NASA is important.

It's important to you and Tyson, but we can survive as a country without it. As I said, I'd like to see it funded because it actually has some payoff, but it's not critical to our survival and we've got short-term problems cropping up.

Now the comment on that I didn't explain were we should get the money from. Clearly you did not read what I wrote very carefully because I rote this in my opening post. "The government says we don't have the money for NASA. Yet we have the money to spend on wasteful programs that don't work many of which cost as must as a 100 billion dollars or more a year."

Yeah, actually I did read that. You never specified spending cuts until this post on the second page. Nice try though.

PRIVATE PARTIES for government officials, bribing corrupt governments all over the world, spending money on stopping prostitution which is a complete failure. It also doesn't make sense on stopping these people from selling what is legal to give away, the war on drugs even most Americans believe it is a complete failure. Many first world nations have prostitution and marijuana legalized and if you listen to our government about those two things then it should be Armageddon over there, wasteful military spending examples of this is the research of thing that are clearly not real like psychic powers. Another example of this is even though every one that designed planes said that clearly fly saucers were not aerodinamik the military tried to make one. They gave up the project because to no ones surprise it could not fly.

Good, this is what I was waiting for. I consider my work in this thread done now that you've gotten your point out. I'd end the war on drugs entirely, but most people don't like hearing my views on that kind of thing. Anyhow, I'm sure you'll find some like-minded people to help you petition Congress after I leave.

The things I have mentioned are hundreds of billions of dollars and these are only some of the examples of government wasteful spending. The list just goes on and on. My point is if we really are short on funds then cut spending on these things instead of NASA. Because cutting NASA is not going to give you the money you need to pay off our debt.

Excellent. Now you just need to debate these issues with others and get government representatives to support the spending cuts you want; that will easily free up money for NASA.

Finally you said "Other people (mainly Tyson) are angry about it, so you get angry about it; that's not exactly original." I found that to be very insulting because it indicated that I am just a mindless husk that only follows what others say. I made this post because I believe in not cutting funding to NASA and I was against cutting funding to NASA long before I saw this video.

So why'd you only make the thread a few days ago?

So don't you dare make claims on what my motives are because only I know the reason why I am not for cutting NASA, not you. Besides that does not make my point about cutting NASA no longer valid.

True, NASA is still important, but the possibility that you were just parroting Tyson makes your claim that Lemoncrush wasn't bringing anything to the discussion seem rather silly.

To ohbombuh

If we cut money to NASA how the fuck do you think NASA could afford going to the Mars?

Here's what you said "You at least implied that you thought he should do more than complain, so I think you're covered by definition #2 there." "Now here's the #2 a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Now could you explain in what way did you make that connection? Because I commented on how he brought nothing to the topic while I brought many things to the topic which I have stated previously. Therefor what I accused him of and what I did are not the same thing. That's why #2 does not work. So tell me why do you think I fit under #2.

Why I have not brought this topic up sooner. Well for starters I did not think to bring this to New grounds until recently. I was busy talking about it with my friends and family getting there views on it. Even when I did come up with the idea I had other ideas for topics to do which I did first. So there's my explanation and you will just have to take my word for it.

Now for this comment "True, NASA is still important, but the possibility that you were just parroting Tyson makes your claim that Lemoncrush wasn't bringing anything to the discussion seem rather silly."

First off even if what you say is true (which it isn't) it still does not change the fact that I brought more to the table then just bitching. Second there's a reason why our court system has it innocent until proven guilty. Because its almost impossible for some one to prove that they didn't do some thing. Its up to the prosecution to prove that they DID do it. This is the same situation that I am in. All I can do is say that I am not parroting Tyson but it is impossible for more to prove that. Its just like if I accused you of having no friends. There's no way (at lest on this form) that you could prove that you have friends. Even if you show me a picture of one of your friends I could just say that's not prof, you probably just got a random picture of someone off the internet and photo shopped it to look like you two were "friends".

That's why my response to your accusation that I am just parroting Tyson is this, PROVE IT! Until you do that then I am just going to ignore any more claims you make of me just parroting Tyson.