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

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 11:46:59

Oh, the tangents we take here. :laugh:

PS: Is it bad that whenever I hear Cobra's words in my head, they're spoken with a shrill nasal accent by a GI Joe cartoon character in a hood?

I never whine when I lose.

And pale blue doesn't work for me.

Euler · 2004-09-03 12:51:47

Yes, the Republicans spent far too much time bashing Kerry, and the Democrats spent far too much time bashing Bush. Both spewed out some rhetoric that really doesn't mean much, Vietnam, yada yada, end of story. Both were big spin-fests for their respective parties, nothing more. Entertaining at times, but hardly profound.

Did you watch the Dem Convention? They hardly mentioned Bush at all. Just compare the two keynote speeches. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/con … ion/]Barak Obama's speech was full of hope and optimism. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ … shtml]Zell Millar's speech was a diatribe against Kerry.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-03 13:03:35

If the convention were held in the reverse order do you think that it would play out in the same way or that it would still be sort of a one way sling fest. Would the republicans still have take there shots still at Kerry if they were reversed in order?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 13:07:21

Did you watch the Dem Convention? They hardly mentioned Bush at all.

I watched little bits of both of them, and the Dem convention had it's share of Bush hits. They intentionally moderated it, but it was there.

Zell Miller's speech was over the top, but very sincere I suspect.

Barak Obama's speech (which I heard the next day) was odd in that it conflicted with the message they'd been putting out previously, concurrent with, and after. John Edwards' oft-repeated "two Americas" speech for example.

Both were full of calculated soundbites, and that's about it. That's what these conventions are about, it's not as though they actually pick candidates there or anything.

Euler · 2004-09-03 13:40:58

Zell Miller's speech was over the top, but very sincere I suspect.

Not likely. ZigZag Zell never does anything unless he thinks that he will benefit from it. Look what he said about John Kerry earlier:

"My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good friend. He was once a lieutenant governor -- but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984. -- U.S. Senator Zell Miller [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001]
"In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.” -- U.S. Senator Zell Miller [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001]

With "freinds" like this, who needs enemies?

deagleninja · 2004-09-03 20:43:05

Euler, thank you. The Democratic convention was much more upbeat and positive. Even Ron Reagan never suggested we vote out Bush, he tactfully just asked for everyone to vote for the canidate that would support the research.

I find that often, not always, the Dems may pick and choose figures that show Bush doing poorly, but Republicans seem to have a knack for making things up, and put words in Kerry's mouth that he never said. For instance, kerry never once changed his position on the Iraq war, yet Bush is going around the country telling his followers that Kerry changed his mind again about it.

Know what makes me really mad? Cheney doggin Kerry over the use of the word sensitive in his statements about he would wage the war differently. What the heck is wrong with that? Does the word make Cheney's homophobic skin crawl? We have slaughtered countless thousands of innocent civilians in this war, just perhaps we should be a little more sensitive???

I read an article yesterday about how Bush's dodging of Vietnam has recieved less than half the media coverage as the so-called 'Swift boat Veterans for truth'. Wasn't republicans favorite slur for Clinton "draft dodger"? Guess they aren't troubled that Bush dodged the draft. God, Im tired of their hypocracy.

Euler · 2004-09-03 22:18:53

Know what makes me really mad? Cheney doggin Kerry over the use of the word sensitive in his statements about he would wage the war differently. What the heck is wrong with that? Does the word make Cheney's homophobic skin crawl? We have slaughtered countless thousands of innocent civilians in this war, just perhaps we should be a little more sensitive???

Actually, Cheney is one of the few people in this administration who is definitely not a homophobe(he has a homosexual daughter). However, that does not change the fact that his attack it completely unfair, especially since Bush also said that we need to be more sensitive in war.

God, Im tired of their hypocracy.

You haven't even scratched the surface. For instance, they are criticizing Kerry for voting to cancel some weapons programs at the end of the cold war. What they neglect to tell you is that Dick Cheney(who was Defense Secretary at the time) had recommended those same programs for deletion. They also criticize him for voting against the $87 billion Iraq war spending package. What the neglect to mention was that an earlier version of the bill that Kerry supported was killed by a presidential veto threat because it contained funding for healthcare benefits for wounded veterans.

You expect politicians to mention facts that are favorable to themselves and ignore those that are not. However, the tactics that the Bush campaign is using to attack Kerry are going way to far. Many of the things that they have said are outright lies, and most of the rest are intentionally misleading. I have never seen a more dishonest campaign and I hope I never will.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-09-03 22:35:54

John Kerry's winning the election could hinge on two key issues, stem cell research and space. Right now Kerry and Bush are in a dead heat with each other and 10% of the voting population will end up deciding the election. A good deal of that 10% are republicans who overall support republican ideals like tax breaks and muscular foreign policy but don't care for Bush because of his stance on science, the environment, etc (Were I at voting age I'd be in this group). If Kerry can draw these people over to his side that, all other things being equal, could decide the election. Fortunately, it's not to hard to beat Bush on these issues.

According to some recent polls (Don't know any links unfortunately), over two-thirds of Americans don't support Bush's effective ban on stem cell research. Kerry has verbally supported it at various times including at the convention and could easily win a percent or two who otherwise would be in a quandry over who to vote for. If he were to support space exploration on a much greater and more involved scale than Bush, however, he could leap ahead.

The majority of the well-educated population in the US supports funding NASA, and there's a good percentage of those (Like us) who would love to see some sort of new vision and real effort to leave LEO on their part. Were Kerry to come up with a good space plan and stick with it all the way while simultaneously funding stem cell research and, say, renewable energy research, that could have the power to send him to the White House.

If one of Kerry's advisors were to realize what an enormous boost space advocacy could be for him, that could bode very well for the coming decade. Unfotunately, it seems as though this is destined to be one of those what-ifs?

What if?..... :hm:

deagleninja · 2004-09-04 06:20:45

'Actually, Cheney is one of the few people in this administration who is definitely not a homophobe(he has a homosexual daughter).'

Well I know more than a few guys that love to watch movies with two women making love to each other yet freak out if they think a guy is hitting on them so.....

And can you really trust a guy that talks out of the side of his mouth anyway?

John Creighton · 2004-09-04 06:35:06

And can you really trust a guy that talks out of the side of his mouth anyway?

I don't know why or if Chaney talks out of the side of his mouth but if it is due to a medicala problem please retract that statement.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-04 11:49:16

I don't know why or if Chaney talks out of the side of his mouth but if it is due to a medicala problem please retract that statement.

:laugh:

And if it's just a habit?

One of television's great evils is that it makes us assign prejudices to political candidates based on nothing more than what they look like. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, two of our country's greatest presidents (easily as good or better than either of the current candidates), could never have been elected today. People in wheelchairs just don't "look presidential", and squeaky voices just don't get votes. So leave Dick Cheney's facial twitches out of it.

It's enough to know that he talks out of the side of his mouth figuratively. Knowing he does it literally, too, adds no useful information. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-04 23:43:57

Euler, thank you. The Democratic convention was much more upbeat and positive. Even Ron Reagan never suggested we vote out Bush, he tactfully just asked for everyone to vote for the canidate that would support the research.

In fairness, I only watched small portions of both conventions, so I'm probably not the best judge of the matter. However, the messages put out by both parties have been resoundingly negative. The Republicans have been negative about Kerry while the Democrats have been negative about Bush and in many way, America. Failing economy, losing war, lying President (which us stupid dupes fell for being the implication), doom and gloom.

The Republicans proceed as though everything they're doing is right despite obvious shortcomings and failures while the Democrats offer no real viable alternative. This election should have been an easy win, but the Dems have chosen a candidate that inspires no one and focuses on irrelevant points such as what did or didn't happen 30 years ago.

John Kerry's winning the election could hinge on two key issues, stem cell research and space.

I suspect you're overstating the impact of those two fairly minor issues. Those that have made up their minds already, well, they've already made up their minds and won't be swayed. That "10%" that will decide the election is by nature the same segment that doesn't pay attention until the end, doesn't have a firm grasp of the issues and for the most part doesn't care about issues that don't directly affect them. The space program either won't matter or will be a negative, and a huge chunk of that grop doesn't even know what a stem cell is. The election may well be decided by a small percentage of the electorate, but unfortunately a large chunk of that group are the type that are swayed by tv ads and handouts at the polling place. ??? If either side really wants to secure that group they'll have to focus on big meaty everyday issues, not relatively esoteric research programs. That, and some pretty ads and frisbees with the candidates name emblazoned in bright colors. Sad but true.

Euler · 2004-09-05 00:37:05

In fairness, I only watched small portions of both conventions, so I'm probably not the best judge of the matter.

For the portions that you did see, did you watch them on Fox?

However, the messages put out by both parties have been resoundingly negative. The Republicans have been negative about Kerry while the Democrats have been negative about Bush and in many way, America. Failing economy, losing war, lying President (which us stupid dupes fell for being the implication), doom and gloom.

Since when does 'Help is on the way'='doom and gloom'? Can you find even one speech at the DNC that focuses primarily on Bush or being negative about America?

This election should have been an easy win, but the Dems have chosen a candidate that inspires no one and focuses on irrelevant points such as what did or didn't happen 30 years ago.

I have met a lot of people that are inspired by Kerry, and I can also say that he does not spend much of his time focused on events of 30 years ago. If you go to a Kerry speech, you will hear him talk about healthcare, education, the environment, the economy, jobs, taxes, the budget, energy, and Iraq. He does have some Vietnam war buddies who campaign with him, but it seems that you hear a lot more about Vietnam from right wing media than you do from him.

deagleninja · 2004-09-05 06:55:45

Also lets not forget that Kerry is one of the few Democrats that can honestly boast a good military record. The Republicans are attacking his thrifty nature because they can't attack his record headon. (Lets also not forget that most of his nn votes on military spending were against cold war tech and programs that Republicans even wanted cut for the most part).

Weither you disagree on Iraq being a necessary war or not, the facts are that this president has spend way too little time on domestic issues. We have for the first time since Hoover (think great depression) a president who is going to leave office with a net job loss record. And they jobs that have been created are low paying jobs that are little better than unemployment benefits.

If we aren't even holding our ground, how can this president claim progress?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-05 09:23:34

For the portions that you did see, did you watch them on Fox?

No, all on the networks.

Since when does 'Help is on the way'='doom and gloom'? Can you find even one speech at the DNC that focuses primarily on Bush or being negative about America?

"Help is on the way" from the doom and gloom. The failing economy, failing war of a bully nation, all you poor saps that Bush duped into war before taking their jobs, just give us a chance and we'll make it all better. Government is the answer, that's the message.

I have met a lot of people that are inspired by Kerry, and I can also say that he does not spend much of his time focused on events of 30 years ago.

I know quite a few Democrats, some of them hardcore liberals, and not a one of them is "inspired" by Kerry. He was chosen out of a belief that he can beat Bush, nothing more. He's Al Gore redux, only not as exciting. ???
As for Vietnam, it seems that every time the man speaks it comes up, from the primaries on through. The DNC, at least the parts I saw, was a big love-fest toward Kerry-War Hero. An immoral war these people hated but a hero nonetheless. If he'd stop bringing it up no one would care and that would be the end of it, but he'd rather milk it. Fine, but doing so puts it on the table for discussion and for some veterans this is a discussion that's been on-hold for decades. He dredged up some old wounds, some people are understandably pissed off.

If you go to a Kerry speech, you will hear him talk about healthcare, education, the environment, the economy, jobs, taxes, the budget, energy, and Iraq.

Never been to Kerry rally, don't expect I ever will, but I've seen enough of his speeches in whole or in part. When he speaks about the economy, or environment, or any of the other issues you mention he either speaks in meaningless platitudes ("help is on the way", "we'll do it smarter", etc. ) or on the rare occasion that he actually lays out what could loosely be called a proposal it's ill-conveived. More "government is the answer" stuff. We need to "create" jobs, things of that sort. Nonsense.

(Lets also not forget that most of his nn votes on military spending were against cold war tech and programs that Republicans even wanted cut for the most part).

Some of them, absolutely. The Republicans are just as prone to spinning the facts. However Kerry has voted against other military spending as well, and has been a consistent opponent of funding intelligence services. His record is a legitimate topic of discussion.

Weither you disagree on Iraq being a necessary war or not, the facts are that this president has spend way too little time on domestic issues.

Oh, he spends time on domestic issues. He does the wrong thing, but he spends time on it. His domestic policies are my biggest objection to this Administration.

But I suspect you're referring to the economy. Again, the idea that a President can make the economy tank or thrive is fallacy, Presidential policy is one of many factors, most of the other factors being far more significant. A president can raise or lower taxes, and he can pressure the Federal Reserve on interest rates. That's about it. He can't stop inflation, he can't create jobs, he can't make everything better.

The problem many Americans have, and many Democrats in particular is that they seem to believe that government controls economics and the President controls government. Utter nonsense. Deagle, you're falling into the same trap. Vote for Kerry, it's a free country and may the best man win, but make sure you're voting for him for the right reasons. Too many people are following false hopes with bad logic and incorrect assumptions.

If we aren't even holding our ground, how can this president claim progress?

Ahh! Doom and gloom!

Euler · 2004-09-05 16:57:36

I know quite a few Democrats, some of them hardcore liberals, and not a one of them is "inspired" by Kerry. He was chosen out of a belief that he can beat Bush, nothing more. He's Al Gore redux, only not as exciting.

We don't need a president who is "exciting." We need a president who makes good decisions.

As for Vietnam, it seems that every time the man speaks it comes up, from the primaries on through. The DNC, at least the parts I saw, was a big love-fest toward Kerry-War Hero. An immoral war these people hated but a hero nonetheless.

He did talk about Vietnam at the DNC, but that is the only time I have heard him talk about it. In the speech he gave when he was in Portland he did not mention it, nor has he done so in the adds that have been running locally.

But I suspect you're referring to the economy. Again, the idea that a President can make the economy tank or thrive is fallacy, Presidential policy is one of many factors, most of the other factors being far more significant. A president can raise or lower taxes, and he can pressure the Federal Reserve on interest rates. That's about it. He can't stop inflation, he can't create jobs, he can't make everything better.

The president is not in complete control of the economy, but he can do some things that effect the economy. If he goes around the country telling everyone "be afraid; be very afraid," then that is bad for the economy. If he starts unnecessary wars, then that is bad for the economy. I would also argue that the tax policy of "trickle down economics" does not help the economy either. Running up record budget deficits is bad for the economy. We have the largest trade deficits ever (in both relative and absolute terms), and the president has not even acknowledged that this is a problem, much less done anything about it.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-05 20:11:31

I don't want to get into a discussion on economics here but I was reading that America's budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 will be on the order of $307.4 billion, or 2.8% of GDP.
Long term projections indicate America's economy will grow at an average rate of 3% over the next 25 years. This will more than double America's present GDP, presently at about $11 trillion, over that time period.
While everybody would no doubt prefer it if the U.S. could balance its budget, it seems to me that present deficit levels are not economically serious when seen in the context of GDP growth.

Jus a few thoughts to try and dispel any 'doom and gloom'.

Euler · 2004-09-05 20:39:59

I don't want to get into a discussion on economics here but I was reading that America's budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 will be on the order of $307.4 billion, or 2.8% of GDP.

The defficit was $395 billion through July, so it should be close to $500 billion by the end of the fiscal year. If the trade deficit continues at the current rate, it will be about $670 billion this year.

Long term projections indicate America's economy will grow at an average rate of 3% over the next 25 years. This will more than double America's present GDP, presently at about $11 trillion, over that time period.
While everybody would no doubt prefer it if the U.S. could balance its budget, it seems to me that present deficit levels are not economically serious when seen in the context of GDP growth.

You also have to keep in mind that the deficits are likely to get a lot worse when the baby boomers retire.

deagleninja · 2004-09-06 05:52:55

The biggest problem about trade deficits is that they weaken our stance in foreign policy. It really isn't a question of can we grow fast enough to afford this. Our deficit with China means they can do whatever they want with regards to us.

As far as domestic policy goes, Republicans have long supported privatizing many programs currently paid for by the government. While I don't automatically have a problem with some of these proposals, I do have a problem with us continuing to pay tax for these programs.

In fairness to Cobra, Kerry isn't laying out a lot of details but this is natural for a challenger. Should he lay out too many details can you guess what would happen? The Bush camp will spin the details to their liking and tell Americans that Kerry 'wants to tax you to death to pay for his outrageous programs!'. Will people believe him? Unfortunately, yes. This campaign has seen record spending from Democrats and it still can't match GOP spending.

Campaign spending is a real problem for Democrats. If they raise 100 million, then Reps will raise 200 million. And sadly it works. People don't question if what they hear is true or not, they accept it all too easily.

If four people say the economy is great and two people say it isn't, most believe the majority.

comstar03 · 2004-09-06 18:09:17

WHO GIVES A DAME !!!!!!

It doesn't matter what government gets in they both have the florida disasters then need to fix. Health care to fix, education to fix, Security to maintain and strengthen and other social factors across the country. The public doesn't care about anyone thing except themselves.

So, spending billions on boys with toys ( I'm playing with rockets ) some people would say. They don't see the importance to their futures and humanity's future.

So who cares what the democrats or republicans say on this or that or how their convention was or is, because at the end of the day space and space related activities are extremely low priority for the majority of the public.

wgc · 2004-09-06 21:52:07

I started this particular thread and I'm sorry I did, after reading all 269 posts its clear that we need a SETI program to find intellegence life on this planet and in this forum.

What troubles me is that we came pretty close to losing most of our only space filight capability from a hurricane, and little in my opinion was done to protect those assests. At the very least two of the shuttles not in the immediate return to flight schedule should of been moved to edwards temperarly for instance.

Lets stay focused on the issues here, neither of these candidates are very good. ???

deagleninja · 2004-09-06 22:02:45

Well comstar, for one, I give a damn (or dame if you prefer). Support for space activities is directly related to how intelligent people are. Polls show that the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to support NASA and be knowledgable about what NASA is doing. You gotta understand, the average American has little or no idea what NASA does, how they are funded, or why they are doing it.

If you don't see any difference between these two canidates then vote Kerry please. We need a president who is going to make domestic, not foreign spending a priority. We need a president who will wage costly wars only when needed. We need a leader who sees national greatness in programs besides military muscle flexing.

wgc · 2004-09-06 22:20:37

. We need a president who will wage costly wars only when needed. We need a leader who sees national greatness in programs besides military muscle flexing.

I'm still not sure what he means by this one, maybe you can explain it in 1000 words or less.

Should we have gotten into WW II earlier just because Hitler was exterminating 6 million Jews.

deagleninja · 2004-09-07 00:27:49

Hey, if you think this war has nothing to do with oil or awarding juicy contracts to a select few companies, then by all means, vote Bush and sleep easy. The rest of us will make sure Bush gets no second term.

We entered into WW2 when Germans began sinking out supply ships to England, murdered jews had nothing to do with it.

I will grant that WW2 was a just war and that Hitler was a real threat to our allies, but please don't try and compare some third rate dictator that we put in place to Hitler. There simply is no comparison.

comstar03 · 2004-09-07 01:33:54

deagleninja,

Then IF you take that position you look at all wars they have a economic component in them all, because you need or want resources that means people, or land or minerals, or agriculture or all, but at the end they also want power of their people. In every war that America has fought, including the wars in its on borders, all are based on economics and principles, the iraq conflict is the same, It's selfish for America to make sure that its oil price doesn't effect their economy , don't same it won't effect it, because it will, or its trading partners or customers. So it acted to balance the world crisis.

On the other hand terrorism, doesn't have that economic factor in its agenda, it is fundamentally just emotion based conflict, for ideas or beliefs or both. Most wars have a set of rules that govern each side, in terrorism they don't have any rules, So, the defending side should use whatever force is required to bring safety to its side on a permanent based, including all assult weapons. Then the world could get back to more meaningful explorartion and advancement of humanity without having the possibility of terrorism. This is a radical way to clean the issue but very effective.

Example in the Bible of people for and against the side of god at the 10 commandments they had a choice and then the ones that chose against the 10 commandments then got eliminate , the terrorist should be give one chance to choice to stop terrorism or be terminated. ( NOT COURTS )

Then we can move on, quickly

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2004-09-03 11:46:59

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

#252 2004-09-03 12:51:47

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

#253 2004-09-03 13:03:35

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

#254 2004-09-03 13:07:21

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

#255 2004-09-03 13:40:58

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

#256 2004-09-03 20:43:05

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

#257 2004-09-03 22:18:53

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

#258 2004-09-03 22:35:54

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

#259 2004-09-04 06:20:45

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

#260 2004-09-04 06:35:06

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

#261 2004-09-04 11:49:16

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

#262 2004-09-04 23:43:57

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

#263 2004-09-05 00:37:05

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

#264 2004-09-05 06:55:45

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

#265 2004-09-05 09:23:34

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

#266 2004-09-05 16:57:36

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

#267 2004-09-05 20:11:31

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

#268 2004-09-05 20:39:59

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

#269 2004-09-06 05:52:55

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

#270 2004-09-06 18:09:17

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

#271 2004-09-06 21:52:07

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

#272 2004-09-06 22:02:45

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

#273 2004-09-06 22:20:37

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

#274 2004-09-07 00:27:49

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

#275 2004-09-07 01:33:54

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

Board footer