Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-18 08:27:02

Deagleninja, c'mon now. You're too smart to be ranting like a Party hack. Let's step back.

Bush has made mistakes. Bush didn't steal the election. Bush is spending too much money. Bush hasn't done a whole hell of a lot to further the space program, though backing a vague shift toward a coherent policy is huge, relatively speaking. :hm: The Iraq war wasn't vitally necessary in that Iraq was not poised to invade us or smite us into utter ruin, it could have been put off. Of course, based on the same reasoning... well, better not to follow that tangent just yet.

Now Kerry. He hasn't said much on space either way. His record is clearly against it. His stand on the war is murky, he voted to authorize it but not to fund it, he has said we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, but also that he would have done the same. :hm: He has made it clear that he will raise our taxes though to pay for... whatever he decides to do.

Bush appears stronger on defense by his record, has no real substance on space, and is spending too much money on military ops and useless social programs. Medicare prescription drug benefit for example, just watch the pricetag on that explode.

Kerry appears weak on defense by his record, has a history of opposition to the space program, has been known to vote for military and intelligence cuts but has a history of backing increases in social spending as well as taxes. We can conclude that he too would spend too much money, just in somewhat different areas.

We got ourselves a couple of turds, folks. If anyone is actually going to vote based on the space program, Bush is the narrow winner. On other issues, that's a matter of individual belief. In neither case should we allow the drivel-spouting hacks of the Party propaganda machines to determine those beliefs.

Well, back to passing out copies of the 9/11 report outside the local theater.

wgc · 2004-08-18 09:24:29

wgc-I didn't need Michael Moore's movie to tell me that this is the worst president ever to steal the office. The facts speak for themselves. We will be paying for Bush's policys during Kerry's term much as we paid for 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s during Clinton's.
Bush hasn't done anything for our space program. Opps, I nearly forgot, he did make a speach at the beginning of this year.
If you think four more years of record deficits and deceptions are going to get us to the Moon or Mars, then I have some beachfront property you might be intrested in at low tide.
The surest way we will ever get back to the Moon or go on to Mars is to quit wasting the governments money by fighting needless wars. Kerry has promised this.

Sure lets pull half our troops out now (Kerry) so the rest can be sitting ducks.

Clinton did absolutely nothing for the space effort.

Historians will tell you it was the Reagan buildup that largely led to the end of the soviet empire.

The timimg of Michael Moore's movie was perfect, Lets see it for what it is one big negative political add .

Kerry visited nasa and didn't even mention a word about the space program.

If you stop talking politics I will too, I'm getting tired of this.

wgc · 2004-08-18 09:37:40

Deagleninja, c'mon now. You're too smart to be ranting like a Party hack. Let's step back.
Bush has made mistakes. Bush didn't steal the election. Bush is spending too much money. Bush hasn't done a whole hell of a lot to further the space program, though backing a vague shift toward a coherent policy is huge, relatively speaking. :hm: The Iraq war wasn't vitally necessary in that Iraq was not poised to invade us or smite us into utter ruin, it could have been put off. Of course, based on the same reasoning... well, better not to follow that tangent just yet.
Now Kerry. He hasn't said much on space either way. His record is clearly against it. His stand on the war is murky, he voted to authorize it but not to fund it, he has said we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, but also that he would have done the same. :hm: He has made it clear that he will raise our taxes though to pay for... whatever he decides to do.
Bush appears stronger on defense by his record, has no real substance on space, and is spending too much money on military ops and useless social programs. Medicare prescription drug benefit for example, just watch the pricetag on that explode.
Kerry appears weak on defense by his record, has a history of opposition to the space program, has been known to vote for military and intelligence cuts but has a history of backing increases in social spending as well as taxes. We can conclude that he too would spend too much money, just in somewhat different areas.
We got ourselves a couple of turds, folks. If anyone is actually going to vote based on the space program, Bush is the narrow winner. On other issues, that's a matter of individual belief. In neither case should we allow the drivel-spouting hacks of the Party propaganda machines to determine those beliefs.
Well, back to passing out copies of the 9/11 report outside the local theater.

One point everyone is missing.

Under Kerry the CEV will be delayed (notice I didn't say canceled) , but he will be committed to keeping the iss.

That means more payments to the russians (can't go on forever) or more likely the shuttle will be pushed beyond 2010.

Which could mean another Shuttle accident.. and I'm sure the congress will blame that on "lack of vision and goals by Nasa", just how long can you beat that horse.

I am getting tired of preaching this, here's whats need to be done, so far no president has committed to anything like this.

1) Space activities need to be made a cabinet position
2) Our space efforts should not compete against Venterns and the poor, funding it from that part of the budget is sstupidity.
3) space funding should be mutiyear, not subject to annual permutations.
4) Funding for space should come from multiple agencies in the government.
Perhaps satellite launches and aeoroautics should be part of the department of tranportation.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-18 10:36:18

Wgc
I am getting tired of preaching this, here's whats need to be done, so far no president has committed to anything like this.
1) Space activities need to be made a cabinet position
2) Our space efforts should not compete against Veterans and the poor, funding it from that part of the budget is stupidity.
3) space funding should be multiyear, not subject to annual permutations.
4) Funding for space should come from multiple agencies in the government.
Perhaps satellite launches and aeronautics should be part of the department of transportation.

Well here is a list of What I believe to be current cabinet posts and who is in them. So how would that work giving it a post? Would that also mean a separate budget?

I agree that action must be taken but what form should it take is the question.

Cabinet Position Cabinet Official
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Commerce Secretary Don Evans
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Education Secretary Rod Paige
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham

Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson

Homeland Security Tom Ridge
Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Interior Secretary Gale Norton
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
Treasury Secretary John Snow
Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi

President Bush's Advisors Position Advisor
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card

Director of the Office of
Management and Budget Josh Bolten

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Director National Economic Council Steve Friedman

comstar03 · 2004-08-18 19:37:34

All of the Above, Spacenut, but only what relates to each portfolio, example - Agriculture / weather sensing operations talk about the satellite programs.

Target the parts that effect their portfolio, then build the case for increase funding and measure to strength the american economy with space development initatives.

You can win if you win the cabinet, andlet them understand what is at stake for the long term space involvement of Amercia and the position of america in space history. You need to fight this with passion and conviction.

Euler · 2004-08-18 20:45:07

Well here is a list of What I believe to be current cabinet posts and who is in them.

You missed (at least) one:
Science Advisor John Marburger

deagleninja · 2004-08-18 21:23:01

:angry: No politics? Grrrrrrr :angry:

Ok......

Cobra-I believe the election was stolen because Bush lost the election and no one can say his team didn't use every resource they had to take the presidency.

You know I'm not crazy about Democrats either, but if Bush hadn't spent 42% of his pre-9/11 term on vacation after fighting so hard for an office he wasn't elected to, I wouldn't be nearly as pi$$ed at him. Politics aside it was beneath the office to assume it after losing the majority vote. In short, its undemocratic.

I also don't feel that someone should be considered weak on defence simply because they have a limit in mind as to what our military should spend (it has to stop somewhere doesn't it?)

Quick fact before I go to bed: Of the top 7 country's military budgets, the US spends more on its military than 2nd to 7th place combined. Is this really necessary? Can't everyone see why the world fears us?

Euler · 2004-08-19 01:32:26

but if Bush hadn't spent 42% of his pre-9/11 term on vacation after fighting so hard for an office he wasn't elected to, I wouldn't be nearly as pi$$ed at him. Politics aside it was beneath the office to assume it after losing the majority vote. In short, its undemocratic.

Bush won the system fairly, according to the rules in the constitution. The person who gets the majority vote does not become president, the person who wins the electoral collage does. Perhaps the system should be changed, but that is the way that it is.

However Bush has done many other things to be mad about. For starters, you can't trust anything that he says. While he does not often actually lie, he does seem to intentionally mislead people with every other sentence. I am not just talking about the missing WMDs in Iraq either, just take a close look at some of his other policies or his campaign adds.

Quick fact before I go to bed: Of the top 7 country's military budgets, the US spends more on its military than 2nd to 7th place combined. Is this really necessary? Can't everyone see why the world fears us?

The last I heard, we actually spent as much as #2 through #40 combined. There are many different was of calculating military budgets though.

deagleninja · 2004-08-19 06:28:09

Well, yea Euler, Ive heard something similar too about the top 40 militaries (but lets be honest #40 is like 1 million dollars)

I never did buy the 'information' coming from GOP camps at the time about butterfly ballots being the cause of the difference between exit polls and actual voters ballots (wouldn't it be just as easy for a Bush supporter to vote for Gore?).

I don't think its a coincidence that the company that recounted the votes has strong GOP ties (owner is cousin to Jeb I believe) or that the districts missing the most votes are dominantly black districts (in other words: Democrats).

I wish the media would have published some of the information available about the demographic breakdown of missing votes. But oh well.....

comstar03 · 2004-08-19 06:58:34

America was built from men that had vision, not storekeepers, and since 1953 we had one, greatest president John F Kennedy, That made Americans heart fire with a desire of greatest ( Camelot ). Since then we haven't seen that greatest, its time to make that greatest live again, Make the bold decision and re-elect Bush over Kerry, and make America grow great again, it hungers for it, but it need to be the right way. I hope that Bush has seen this !!!!!!!!!!! ( I don't think that Kerry the storekeeper will make America Great, but look after health, look after home affairs, transport and terrorism, but not make America's Spirit Fly ------------>>>>

deagleninja · 2004-08-19 19:58:30

Unfortunately, we cannot afford to fly Air Bush....

Dreams are great, inspiration is something badly needed in modern America, but basics must come first.

The problem with presidents like Bush is that he does have a plan for America, but not Americans. We have been negleting our domestic needs for far too long. I know that many will disagree, but I believe that Republican presidents wage as much war as they do to distract the American public from more important issues.

Ask yourself what issues will be important to everyday citizens twenty years down the road. Will the war in Iraq really be seen as an important event in our day to day lives that far into the future? The answer is no (unless a new generation of terrorists are attacking us).

A war against terrorism cannot be won with conventional weaponry. The ranks of terrorists are swelling (as I correctly predicted) due to the behavior and tactics of our government and soilders.

Had we assasinated/captured Saddam and then brought humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, this war would long ago have ended.

Kerry wants to invest in America. This is why he is getting my vote regardless of his position on space exploration. By improving OUR country our private space industries have the best chance of opening up the new frontier for people like you and I.

Trebuchet · 2004-08-19 20:13:49

Deag, you twit, the media itself went back and recounted the ballots. Bush won anyways. Stop beating the dead donkey.

That butterfly ballot was made by a Democrat, btw, and the confusion of votes was between Gore and Pat Buchanan, not Gore and Bush as you insinuate, though that's an irrelevant issue anyways.

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 02:09:24

'Deag, you twit, the media itself went back and recounted the ballots. Bush won anyways. Stop beating the dead donkey.

That butterfly ballot was made by a Democrat, btw, and the confusion of votes was between Gore and Pat Buchanan, not Gore and Bush as you insinuate, though that's an irrelevant issue anyways.'

See, this is the major difference between people like me and people that support Bush. I respect your rights to have an opinion based on facts, but you don't respect my same rights. Theres no need to name call.
The 'media' (whoever that is) may well have recounted the available votes and Bush may have won, but that doesn't change the fact that thousands of votes from key districts historically known to vote for Democrats have missing votes in a disproportionate amount to the usual amount of 'lost votes'.
As I said, I don't swallow the excuse put forth that butterfly ballots are at fault, it makes no sense.
Fact: since exit polls have been taken they have never been wrong with only one notable exception, Florida 2000. In 50 years of taking polls from people who have just cast their votes, this is the only exception.
All this is beside the point anyway. Give Bush Florida by 500 votes and he still loses the majority vote national. Bush W, could have made the arguement about electoral colleges mute by setting a president and refusing the office on the basis that he didn't win the majority vote. This is supposed to be a democracy isn't it?
What boggles my mind is that many supporters of Bush don't see this as realistic. The ends justify the means, no matter what the cost. If the roles had been reversed and Gore had taken the position Bush took, I'd be ashamed of my vote for Gore. Winning at the cost of your morales and integrity is not worth it. We are Americans and we should expect better from our leaders.

comstar03 · 2004-08-20 03:35:27

Blah, Blah, Blah, Who cares if they are republican or democrat, its the policies that are what's going to effect americans , not who won or lost at the last election, ( IN THE PAST< ITS DEAD THEN BURIED IT)

I don't think that any of they are good enough for running the country because they both don't know how to manage the country or abroad. Also remember this the OPEC are playing a destroy BUSH campaign as well, by letting the oil price stay high to place pressure of the american voters, They are concerned to have Bush there, Does or doesn't say something for Kerry, Its weird that the oil price has gone up US$ 17.00 per barrel ( Closing today at 48.70 ) in an election year. Funny !!!!!!.

At the end of the day , what policies are the benefit in america, at home, abroad, and in spirit will be the best for the people of this great country.

Euler · 2004-08-20 04:19:12

Also remember this the OPEC are playing a destroy BUSH campaign as well, by letting the oil price stay high to place pressure of the american voters, They are concerned to have Bush there, Does or doesn't say something for Kerry, Its weird that the oil price has gone up US$ 17.00 per barrel ( Closing today at 48.70 ) in an election year. Funny !!!!!!.

OPEC is running at maximum capacity, they are trying to bring down the price of oil rather than raise it. However, demand is growing faster than supply, and there are some concerns about the security of some of the oil production. If OPEC really wanted to cause Bush problems, they could start pricing oil in Euros...

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 04:33:19

I remember that when we first started to go to war in Iraq, oil prices shot up in anticipation of more oil fires (even though Kuwaitt only provides a tiny fraction of our oil).

OPEC is pro-Bush due to his being an oil man and his energy policies, so they wouldn't be trying to oust him by raising oil prices.

Let's not forget that oil companies sell oil to make money, not determine elections. Remember all those polls a few months back about weither Americans would buy less gas for summer holidays and traveling if gas went over $2 a gallon? Remember the results of those polls? Americans said they would continue to buy as much gas as always mainly cause they have no choice.

There is a false belief in this country that oil producers can offer cheaper gasoline at the pumps if production is raised in the Middle East. This is simply not true. OPEC sets the prices and regulates the production of oil to avoid flooding the market with oil and therefore make less per barrel.

Notice how they make just enough barrels to satisfy demand, yet not enough to actually allow countries to build up reserves?

Kerry may or may not live up to his promise of ending the Middle East's strangle-hold on us by switching to alternative energy sources, but we have little choice. Bush's policies won't have any effect on our energy consumption until around 2020 and that is only if the next four presidents continue with his policies. And seeing how partisan politics has become, I don't think that is possible.

wgc · 2004-08-20 06:21:58

Unfortunately, we cannot afford to fly Air Bush....
Dreams are great, inspiration is something badly needed in modern America, but basics must come first.
The problem with presidents like Bush is that he does have a plan for America, but not Americans. We have been negleting our domestic needs for far too long. I know that many will disagree, but I believe that Republican presidents wage as much war as they do to distract the American public from more important issues.
Ask yourself what issues will be important to everyday citizens twenty years down the road. Will the war in Iraq really be seen as an important event in our day to day lives that far into the future? The answer is no (unless a new generation of terrorists are attacking us).
A war against terrorism cannot be won with conventional weaponry. The ranks of terrorists are swelling (as I correctly predicted) due to the behavior and tactics of our government and soilders.
Had we assasinated/captured Saddam and then brought humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, this war would long ago have ended.
Kerry wants to invest in America. This is why he is getting my vote regardless of his position on space exploration. By improving OUR country our private space industries have the best chance of opening up the new frontier for people like you and I.

If turning the country into a wellfare state is your idea of investing go for it.

What this country needs is more investment in R & D, more engineers than lawyers.

I just don't see it in Kerry's policies, I don't see it in Bush's either but I don't see the retreat in certain areas like I do in Kerry's.

For one thing, no investment in new nuclear plants under Kerry. What kind of energy is going to be needed to meets this countries needs in the next 300 years. It sure isn't going to come from fossil fuel. There's more energy output in one supernova explosion that all the power produced in the last millenum.

Back to the clinton policies on space, which means earth orbit . Delayed work on the CEV, which means we keep flying shuttles maybe until we lose all of them.

Every Kerry person I meet has no clue what he will do just that he must be better than Bush.

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 10:58:55

Nope, turning this country into a welfare state is bad, can't say I was ever for that. However, there are serious needs that aren't being addressed.

Nuclear fission is not the solution to our power needs. Until a means can be devised for dealing with the radioactive waste we have already, I cannot fathom a reasonable person being for even more plants.

No one sees Kerry as a saint (Bush either for that matter). These are the choices one gets when people cast votes due to a single issue (military, space, etc.). It becomes very easy to please enough the population to get elected by calling yourself 'the education president, the compassionate conservative, the environmental president and so on.

I honestly groan deep inside when a politicain says he/she will improve something while cutting funding (coarse they don't say how, but no one asks for details just soundbites).

It appears that the GOP's plan to label Kerry as a flip-flopper has been at least somewhat successful. I admit, I honestly hoped people wouldn't be fooled, but it appears to have stuck. Perhaps people have come to trust anything that comes out of their TVs as truth, without questioning where the accussers get their information from.

Has Kerry changed his position on issues over his 30 years in the Senate? Yes, of coarse. Every human being changes over time and with change goes insight and new opinions. A representitive should change the way they vote if the people that elected them expect them to vote as they would on a bill.

Bush's policies have hurt a LOT of people. Perhaps this is why they hate him so much. I don't hate Bush, but the people around him are rather arrogant, secretive, and deceptive. I don't like our nation being compared to Nazi, and I don't like the path this administration is leading this country. This is why I am voting for Kerry. He is a good man, a caring and hardworking man. I feel he has what it takes to be a good President. That's why I and so many others are going to vote for him.

Clinton may have made the world chuckle at us (and they mainly laughed because of how over-blown the issue became), but I fear Bush is making the world disgusted and angry with us.

Euler · 2004-08-20 12:08:05

Nuclear fission is not the solution to our power needs. Until a means can be devised for dealing with the radioactive waste we have already, I cannot fathom a reasonable person being for even more plants.

There is not really all that much nuclear waste, and most of it is either not very radioactive of quickly loses it's radioactivity. If it is a choice between nuclear fission and coal, I would definitely choose nuclear. Of coarse, renewables would be better than either.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-20 12:26:13

Nuclear fission is not the solution to our power needs. Until a means can be devised for dealing with the radioactive waste we have already, I cannot fathom a reasonable person being for even more plants.
There is not really all that much nuclear waste, and most of it is either not very radioactive of quickly loses it's radioactivity. If it is a choice between nuclear fission and coal, I would definitely choose nuclear. Of coarse, renewables would be better than either.

I am entirely with Euler on this one, nuclear energy is a vital componet to our energy-hungry country, and has proven to be exceptionaly safe and clean. Only one accident leading to serious core damage with a properly designed reactor, which harmed no one and released essentially no radioactive material, and that was due to human error. You also know more-or-less where every last gram of nuclear waste is and where its going, plus it simply does not retain the very deadly radiation for long... that "millions of years!" line is for the Uranium and Plutonium, which produce so little radioactivity (because of their long half life), they are pretty safe to store. The really "bad" stuff decays and vanishes in months or a few years, which is why the TMI reactor cooled down in the following months instead of being red-hot forever. It is certainly alot better than throwing various minerals (including radioactive ones), Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides, and other nasty soot into the air in a coal plant. Oh, and did you know the leftover Uranium and Plutonium in nuclear "waste" is recycleable? There is also a design for a type of reactor, the Pebble Bed reactor, which is meltdown-proof. Even if all the coolant leaks, the core is punctured, or just about any catastrophy the reactor will not melt down or signifigant material released... The Helium gas coolant will never become "hot" either. In theory, this design is completly safe beyond the radiation produced when running.

France uses nuclear for >80% of their electricity, almost exclusively using American Westinghouse designed reactors... and you don't hear them screaming, and in fact they like them. The "evil nuclear" bit is an environmentalist lie to enlist the aid of gullible people...

But in defense of coal, it is possible to make coal 100% clean: if you cook coal with some oxygen or other aditives, it can be made to convert into Carbon Monoxide and separated from the solid or chemical contaminants and burned in gas fired plants. The Hydrogen can also be released and operated in large ceramic fuel cells. All the nasty stuff would be removed, and the carbon dioxide left over could be sequesterd as chalk or stored undeground, if you believe in global warming.

Grypd · 2004-08-20 12:29:07

It is 3 main reasons for oil prices to have risen like they have

1) India and China have with there increased consumption pulled all spare capacity towards themselves. All oil producers are at close to maximum capacity and unless demand reduces (it wont) or new sources appear. I suspect high oil prices are here for a long time.
2) Political instability in the Gulf states has worried many people as terrorism finds the oil industry a soft target. This though is tempered by the increased supply coming from Iraq, this is the only country who's capacity is increasing. This actually is a good thing for the financial state of the Iraq people
3) Serious political instability in Venezuela. This is what is currently pushing prices up. It is the high possibility of civil war in this country that is worrying the buyers of Oil. Venezuela is a Major Major oil supplier and it may well have the greatest reserves of any country short of Saudi Arabia.

As im not from the USA I have tried to stay away from this thread but this needed to be posted.

Euler · 2004-08-20 14:21:50

But in defense of coal, it is possible to make coal 100% clean: if you cook coal with some oxygen or other aditives, it can be made to convert into Carbon Monoxide and separated from the solid or chemical contaminants and burned in gas fired plants.

Even if you can make the burning of coal completely clean, coal mining is also an environmental disaster. Of coarse, mining Uranium is also bad for the environment, but you do not need as much of it.

It is 3 main reasons for oil prices to have risen like they have

There is also a fourth one: a large Russian oil company has said that it may stop producing oil because it can not afford to pay its taxes.

John Creighton · 2004-08-20 14:37:32

Even if you can make the burning of coal completely clean, coal mining is also an environmental disaster. Of coarse, mining Uranium is also bad for the environment, but you do not need as much of it.

Why is mining such an environmental disaster? In some place old mines are filled with water and provide a source of geothermal heating in the winter.

Euler · 2004-08-20 14:49:46

Why is mining such an environmental disaster? In some place old mines are filled with water and provide a source of geothermal heating in the winter.

Usually, the water that the mines fill up with is highly toxic and kills animals that try and drink from it. It does depend on the method of mining used though.

John Creighton · 2004-08-20 15:21:25

Usually, the water that the mines fill up with is highly toxic and kills animals that try and drink from it. It does depend on the method of mining used though.

That would only be for strip mines right? Also even if a few animals drink it is not so bad unless the toxins are fat soluble and can concentrate if the animal who drink it becomes part of the food chain right. Besides there must be ways of preventing an animal from drinking the water while the mine is in operation. Once the mine is done with, could it be sealed with a mix of latex and concrete and paint to make one big swimming pool.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-08-18 08:27:02

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#152 2004-08-18 09:24:29

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#153 2004-08-18 09:37:40

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#154 2004-08-18 10:36:18

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#155 2004-08-18 19:37:34

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#156 2004-08-18 20:45:07

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#157 2004-08-18 21:23:01

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#158 2004-08-19 01:32:26

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#159 2004-08-19 06:28:09

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#160 2004-08-19 06:58:34

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#161 2004-08-19 19:58:30

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#162 2004-08-19 20:13:49

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#163 2004-08-20 02:09:24

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#164 2004-08-20 03:35:27

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#165 2004-08-20 04:19:12

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#166 2004-08-20 04:33:19

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#167 2004-08-20 06:21:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#168 2004-08-20 10:58:55

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#169 2004-08-20 12:08:05

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#170 2004-08-20 12:26:13

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#171 2004-08-20 12:29:07

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#172 2004-08-20 14:21:50

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#173 2004-08-20 14:37:32

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#174 2004-08-20 14:49:46

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#175 2004-08-20 15:21:25

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer