You are not logged in.
I asked my mom's 65 year old friend the question of birthright citizenship. She basically said that illegals shouldn't be able to come across the border and have babies and have them have citizenship. Totally makes sense.
I posed the scenario: illegal kid gets born and lives in the US. fast forward 20 years. Marries another illegal kid born in the US. Are their children illegal, or legal? Fast forward 40 years. Are the kids of illegal kids illegal?
If you (US citizens) all think this is some theoretical bullshit hypothetical, well, this is your own familial history.
Being American is an idea. Being a martian is an idea. That's why this forum is mostly american and why the underlying viewpoints of non-americans still align.
But i digress, i defer to whatever lame follow-up that is posted after this.
Void's not done, but we appear to all be dogs in his world view. Woof Void. Woof.
I don't need to fight, the failure of the public education system is proven with every reply you care to provide.
Election meddling. Dumb-asses. Where is your space policy? Where is your Mars landing date? Zubrin, our lord god and savior, has to write a terrible apology of moon landing tomorrow. You all should be ashamed. You all are responsible for the failure of Mars exploration to have a larger view.
Why?
Because each of you can be influencer's. Each of you can push for Mars to be part of the conversation. Each of you can make the case for Mars. Each of you can be a loud advocate on the hill.
Or each of you can post more of this drivel and pretend you care.
Hey Void, to be clear, your views are wrong. Your views and comments should be rejected. Void, you are wrong.
I recognize you are comfortable in your views. You are comfortable in your mild racism or ethnic bigotry. I recognize your rationalizations that underpin your world view.
If I was a stupid cow, i would be the first to follow. If i was proof of theoretical extrapolation of genetic/social Darwinism, I would probably not comment, as I would be some proof that reinforce your opinion.
Everyone, if you agree or align or forgive Void's points, you are a sad fu*king human being. Void, talk science. You are smart when you do that. You are a terrible person when you don't. This is coming from a terrible human being so fu*king take a moment to reflect.
you make me sad. All of you. you could do better. you could be better.
for those that come for sport, shame. for those that don't, please note that you are but play things.
I'm the troll, but you all choose to live under the f*cking bridge. what is wrong with you? please don't reply. please.
President Trump is a sad reflection of who we are as Americans. I, unfortunately, am not surprised that some here support his behavior.
kbd512, go read the federalist papers. your understanding of our republic is shallow.
I'm American. I own a gun. I grew up and learned how to use, operate and respect firearms. I've hunted large game (deer). I've pursued target practice as a hobby. I was a boy scout.
I believe that the second amendment should be removed, primarily because there is no ability to regulate this right. I believe that access to firearms should be regulated. I believe that those who want to own a gun should be allowed to do so, but should be required to demonstrate that they will be responsible in maintaining and operating a firearm.
But hey, easy access to firearms by untrained, untested, emotional individuals, what could go wrong?
KBD512, a movement to regulate gun ownership is not a movement to remove gun rights.
The upside: NASA will now focus on non-earth climate related science. The downside: NASA will now defund earth climate related science.
If you are not living on Mars, this is f*cking fantastic news. If you happen to be part of the 8 billion people that find themselves on Earth at the present moment, not so much.
kbd512, no need to capitalize my name. i am not a proper noun. i am all that you say i am. i am all that you think i am.
you clearly have strong positions that are unassailable, even though you pay lip service to being open to other points of view. i get it. you appear to want a horse swap. my thousands of aborted fetuses for your glock. quite the trade you make. whatever god you pretend to pray to must cry. but on behalf of the millions of women out there, thanks for the quid pro quo you appear to engage in.
i've attempted to find common ground. though i marked you as troll in this thread, i attempted to answer your questions sincerely. your response and reaction since only demonstrates a shallow conceit you pretend at.
i know as much about you as you choose to share. i know as much hypocrisy in your life as you share. if and when a vote comes to repeal the second amendment, i will vote for repeal. if you want to take up common cause against cars, more power too you, you will not need to over turn an amendment to do so.
We appear to agree on Mars, but not on this. Good luck in life, and with your wife's family immigrating to the united states.
Terraformer, i am not a politician. i cannot predict the future, but i've made calls in the past based on the analysis of the data at hand, and been right more often than not. I place a repeal/modification of the second amendment within the next 10 years at a 70% probability. Not a very sexy prediction, granted, but based on current trends and political timing, realistic.
I plan to be around in 2028, so I'll eat crow then and there.
Well, if i buy into the premise of a school crossing guard, why not this? Disarming isn't the solution; making it hard to obtain the guns is.
but whatever.
Climate change denier in charge of NASA. But hey, "mars". James, you make me sad.
kbd512, thanks for giving us a run down on your personal experience. i appreciate learning more about you. it is interesting to understand how you live.
I see in the papers today, more dead kids.
I respect your point of view. Just to be clear though, when the time comes, I'll vote to have the 2nd amendment removed or curtailed. Rail if you want. Just wanted to let you know, one American to another, I will vote to rescind a constitutional right because there is no other alternative to legislate some middle ground.
In our few, brief exchanges, I attempted to find a middle ground. But there isn't. I get it. I respect the passion. When we get counted, and you lose, I'll try not to rub it in your face.
In the mean time, we will always have Mars. Cheers.
It is not a failure of background GW, it is a failure to recognize a troll. louis is either (a) delusional or (b) yanking the collective chain. Enjoy the tea party.
As for GPS on Mars; what is the point? Something like that is needed if we have a more robust Mars-centric exploration program. We don't.
Entire universe and somehow we need to prioritize GPS on Mars? Fling a couple satellites at Mars? Sure, no problem, let's just torch 20 million for some hardware to do something with limited immediate value.
I did enjoy the government agency quip though. Having been to places without an equivalent EPA, FDA, DOE, or [ohmygod] NASA, I think the alternative is not ideal. Large groups of people develop internal inertia, it is not a government thing. The broad stroke being painted here is lazy.
Oh, and A-10. Because somehow that is relevant and I want to belong.
I don't live in a place where personal reputation decreases aberrant behavior. I've never pointed a gun at a human being (why the f*ck any one would think that is a badge of honor is beyond me).
I live in a highly urbanized, population dense, environment. No rattlesnakes. No neighborhood armed threat. I am the majority.
You want your guns, fine. I am happy to support the acquisition and ownership of guns by those who put in the time and effort to demonstrate that they can maintain them responsibility. I, like most free thinking sensible f*cking adults who happen to live like I do, will say that unfettered and unrestricted access to firearms is a bad f*cking idea.
You are the god damn sensible arguing for the moronic. What the f*ck is wrong with you?
Mighty neighborly of ya kbd512. "Someone breaking into ya house? I'm watchin' the game right now, here, take this gun and go keep what's yers'."
Lovely strawman you've got going on here too.
Since we are talking about our neighborly experiences that no one asked for, mine is totally in line with the recent chest thumping xenophobia posts as of late:
Couple years back, my neighbors were renters, a couple of middle eastern fellows in their mid to late 20's. Couple of bachelors living in a rented home in a neighborhood mostly known for raising kids and establishing residency for access to the excellent local school system. It's a sleepy neighborhood, so they were a little out of place, but hey, whatever. So a few months go by and one weekend they get the bass thumping in the middle of the day, and they lit up. Like Coachella or Burning Man. Super Chill. But man, it was a bit much after an hour or so, so I leaned over the fence and told them to turn that sh*t down. They had a Canadian immigrant, shirtless, few tats, wearing a baseball cap smoking a fat blunt in the backyard. I think he was that singer who dated Selena Gomez for a while (some kind of tween heart-throb I am told). He said sorry, put out the doobie, and they turned that bass down.
So here I have an immigrant, polite, but using illegal drugs, making a ruckus. Probably should have waved a gun around, but opted just to tell him to get off my lawn. Whatever.
Anyway, few months go by and the neighbors move out in the middle of the night. Found out they hadn't paid the rent in like 6 months, and were under police investigation for threatening someone in the local park with a gun, and for trying to get an Uber driver to take a package to the airport (without a person to accompany the package). Apparently a couple mid twenty something middle eastern men who rent, with gun charges, and questionable delivery choices checks off a few boxes for counter terrorism.
i need time to reflect on the company i keep. i just can't.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepu … ok2017.pdf
Science aside, since that seems to distract these days, let's just play questions.
Is reducing reliance on oil an agreeable objective?
Is reducing CO2 emissions objectionable?
Is providing market incentives to developing technology that can be leveraged for future martian colonies objectionable?
Is providing market incentives for technology that other nations are heavily investing in so the US can stay competitive objectionable?
Full disclosure, I am driving my second electric vehicle and plan for my third next year. I choose electric not because I love trees, but because I want a stupid sticker that opens up another lane to me on the freeway. It was either that or pick up a hitchhiking meat-bag and make inane chatter in some poor attempt at approximating civility.
Some general observations:
1. High technology is required for mars sustained human habitation of mars.
2. High technology requires alloys, processed metals, plastics, microchips, advanced integrated electronics and probably a bunch of other things I don't know about.
3. Processing plants, smelters, chemical processing plants and factory assemblies are required to create the alloys, metals, plastics, microchips, and integrated electronics.
4. Identified supply of resources and minerals must be available to feed the smelters and processing plants to create alloys and plastics.
5. The ability to transport industrial volumes of minerals and assorted resources
6. The ability to mine high value minerals and produce the resources in a near vacuum must be possible.
7. Sustained power generation is required for all points in the logistical supply chain
The reason why this entire conversation is absurd is that is glosses over the very real logistical hurdles involved with long term habitation of mars. We have an entire world, Earth, that can produce the requisite components, but they are built on decades of investment in a far more forgiving environment.
Without addressing the logistical supply chain needs locale, you are dependent on Earth. As long as you are dependent on Earth, any system design architecture must build in a 2-3 year fail safe redundancy for fail safes.
You can forgo the safety margins, but you must then accept that more people will die.
If you want real martian colonies, figure out how to boot strap the creation of the martian microchip. It's a lynchpin.
Technically the requirements to keep one person alive on Mars is the same as 100 or a 1000, only just more of everything. If you think we are ready on the current timeline being thrown around, reserve some cargo space for the body bags.
At least we have a name for the first dome. Ranoke.
cheers
Hi kbd512,
I won't argue the semantics of the concept of "safe". I concede the point. If you prefer, we can speak in terms of risk aversion or risk mitigation. In my mind, gun restrictions is a sensible risk mitigation strategy. Gun access is ubiquitous in the US, making the barrier to entry low. The same is not true for bombs and I would surmise that if they were easily accessible, we would see more instances of violence with that method. I see other countries where it is difficult to own a gun and there is lower instances of gun violence. To reiterate, we can find a middle ground where those with a strong interest in possessing firearms have a means to do so, while also making it harder for someone to just walk off the street or pick one up on a secondary market.
Since you are pursuing chain migration you also know that you are in effect sponsoring an immigrant and taking on the onus of supporting her, so I am surprised about some of the rhetoric you use around immigrants that come here to "sponge" off the welfare state. Or am I mistaken on the support requirements you commit to? Either way, I would support a more liberal immigration policy that allows for immigrants to easily secure a tax-id to pay to taxes and retain an ongoing residence status in this country as long as they maintain gainful employment and avoid felony convictions. Why deport people if they have a job and keep their nose clean?
This feels like we are sliding into hyperbole, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions. Based on previous posts I assumed you were passionate about the second amendment, so am not surprised I am able to trigger this type of response.
To answer some of your points, I accept restrictions and limitations on 1A rights. Most notably they all involve giving up unfettered freedom in the interest of public safety (yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting violent overthrow, threats against leaders, etc.). Our rights come with responsibility as you full well know. You accept limitations on your 2A rights today; unless you feel that removal of your weapons on a plane, in a courthouse, or at a public sporting event is an infringement. My view is that the availability of guns coupled with their lethal purpose is such that the best interest of society is better served by doing more to limit access, not prevent. I think we can find a middle ground where we make it harder to acquire a gun but still make it possible to posses one. Unfortunately i do not believe we can engage in meaningful compromise until the 2A is repealed or replaced with a modified amendment that allows for greater scope in laws to restrict access to guns.
I've been to Mexico, China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, England, South Pacific, and Europe. I've had an opportunity to see how different people live, and I am not surprised some would want to find their way to our shores. I also understand what some people sacrifice in being in the US. It's easy to paint in broad strokes and ignore their humanity.
Hey kbd512,
Generally speaking, immigrants that come to this country, or any country, do so for opportunity, not handouts. Is it all, no, but the vast majority. Because they come for opportunity, most are willing to learn to read and write to allow for more opportunity. Adding in a government requirement adds in a level of coercion that is unnecessary. I'm willing to oppose regulatory requirements stipulating that everything must be communicated in multiple languages just as well as opposing regulatory requirements that everything must be communicated in english. Let free people decide for themselves. We have a far greater problem with deadbeat citizens than with deadbeat immigrants, so I don't really see a need to focus on that as a problem that needs solving.
As for how much you should pay in taxes, I am of the mind that it should be little. We would be far better off in my opinion if progressive taxation moved a larger burden to the 1%. A fat middle class with more disposable income equates to more consumers, more customers, and more jobs to service them. You can sell more burgers if 10 people have a 100 dollars vs. 1 person with a 1000.
I can't answer how much government spending is enough, but clearly how it is spent should be better.
Your questions are fair regarding the value of social welfare programs. I attended public school. I attended a public university. I've worked for not for profit organizations that serviced or focused on medicaid and medicare beneficiaries. I've worked for academic institutions that perform research on behalf of mankind, through grants from the state. I know that if I am unemployed I can receive some level of temporary assistance. I know that if my income is not sufficient to cover my food needs, I can qualify for assistance. I know that children who do not have enough to eat can qualify for programs and be fed at school. Everything i just pointed out are a form of socialism or welfare that help improve productivity or leads to opportunities for people to become more productive.
I support gun restrictions in general and I say this as someone who has experience with firearms. They are too easily accessible by those that have no respect or understanding of how to operate or maintain them safely. I support concealed carry and ownership of weapons, just with more regulations, permitting, and oversight. I recognize this conflicts with the second amendment so would support a repeal of the second amendment to allow for more laws that could legally restrict gun ownership. I recognize this will not stop gun violence, but I believe it will help reduce instances of gun violence while still allowing those with a desire to own a weapon, to do so.
Hi kbd512,
I'll note that your last post contained no questions, but faults me for not answering questions. Have I trained you, or are you testing me?
As to my insecurity on my reasoning, it is at a comfortable level 4 on a scale from Blue to Magenta. I've worked really hard over the last few years to get above Chocolate. And to clarify, i do not in fact have a high opinion of myself, and in point of fact have opted to reserve judgement on myself as I might be biased. So many conflicts of interest, ya know?
Buffoonery aside, you and I agree more than not. I have enough sense to know quite well that where my views diverge from yours it is entirely for subjective reasons. Self-awareness [shake fist at invisible non-existent god]! We can both look at the same facts and come to equal, and different, conclusions.
As to what I believe: people are people, regardless of where they come from, what they pray to, how they look, or how they speak. We are all fundamentally the same, with equal parts good and bad. we need rules in place to help guide behavior, not enforce behavior; and only as many rules as absolutely necessary. anything that maximizes personal choice and increases opportunity of choice is better; anything that reduces personal choice or decreases opportunity of choice should be considered carefully. I think that people, when left to their own devices, will in the great majority of situations, make the best choices afforded to them that are best for their situation. I think that it is in my own self-interest to encourage or support private or public programs that increase opportunity and choice for people.
The validity of my views are self-evident, in the same way that saying slavery is wrong. The assertion needs no additional justification. To engage in a debate on the subject only adds credibility of the counterpoint, and frankly I don't care if someone disagrees with me on the points above. Call me righteous if you want, i get it.
Here are some of the things I believe that we might find areas of disagreement: I support limiting or restricting sales of AR-15's, not all guns. I support immigration control, but expanded immigration processing so it easier for people to come to the united states and build a life here. I reject requirements around immigration integration or language acquisition; people should choose of their own accord how and in what way they want to integrate into the fabric of society, not forced. i support universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and other forms of government intervention that furthers social stability as it is in my self-interest as a "have" to have things that help reduce social tension and individual desperation. I'm against capital punishment. I don't condone destroying or burning images that hold significance to others (aka flags), but I oppose trying to criminalize the behavior. I think that the political parties in the united states are fundamentally the same, and do not represent any real, meaningful choice.
So now what? Shall we nitpick and spar? Hug it out? Do you have views that you are on the fence about, or do you have fully formed thoughts and opinions on everything? Are you putting your opinions out here to test them, or test others?
louis, watch Starlink. That is the long term funding source for the BFR, which means it is more likely to dictate timelines for BFR.
I look forward to the very unlikely event of being wrong.