Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-10 21:05:55

I'm 40 and grew up on classic science fiction. Remember grainy black & white pictures of someone walking around on the moon.

Remember Skylab. Remember thinking this new "Space Shuttle" idea was stupid and a waste of time. Wanted something more, bigger & better.

There's this line in "The White House" (or whatever that show is called) where the old man is complaining about how he felt gypped because he was raised on Buck Rogers and Rockets and Ray-Guns, all by the year 2000.

He was promised a Ray-Gun, and somehow got gypped out of it.

Me too. I got gypped out of real space travel and was handed the retarded booby-prize of unmanned missions and the Space Shuttle.

Then George Bush decided to invade Iraq. And VERY clearly, that at about the EXACT time I was looking at his first attempt and selling the idea of the War Against Iraq, Part 2, at the EXACT moment I was asking myself "Well, what do you think of this?" I remember CLEARLY (as I was reading his lips too) George Bush Part 2 said that we were going to go to Mars, and that we were going to do it within a decade.

I remember this because I clearly remember thinking "I KNEW John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy was a friend of mine. George Bush, Part 2, you're no John F. Kennedy.

But see, at the moment where I should have felt outrage, when I should have been tempted to take-up arms against the war-monger and imperialistic government of the the USA, I also remember thinking:

"Hey! We're finally going to Mars."

So with every report of dead US soldiers, with every allegation of deceit regarding the "Weapons of Mass Distraction", I have over the last few years kept clearly in mind what was MOST important.

We're finally going to Mars.

But you see, lately I've been sort of wondering about some things. Like, whatever happened to this promise of manned exploration of Mars.

I mean, he said it right ? I was hallucinating, having a PTSD episode or a psychotic break, right ? I'm not schizophrenic, so the issue of taking my meds isn't likely, but if I WAS schizophrenic, then the fact that I'm not taking my meds might be the explanation as to ...

WHY it is that I think that humanity is going to land on the surface of Mars, when I haven't heard a single word about the subject since the day I heard George Bush Part 2 make the promise.

I read George Orwell 1984, and so I understand the concept of the "memory hole". But it couldn't be REAL, could it? I mean, not with the book being published and everything.

But then why is everyone pretending that the President of the Entire Planet didn't promise all of humanity that we were going to explore Mars ?

Someone please help.

Palomar · 2006-01-10 21:13:04

*Hi, welcome to New Mars.

I'm 40 and grew up on classic science fiction. Remember grainy black & white pictures of someone walking around on the moon.
Remember Skylab. Remember thinking this new "Space Shuttle" idea was stupid and a waste of time. Wanted something more, bigger & better.

I can truly relate. As a kid I figured humans would have gone to Mars by 1990. Here we are, 2006 and ... ZzzzZZZzzzz

Sad, I know.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-11 05:57:52

Welcome RIZ4ROCKET.

I remember CLEARLY (as I was reading his lips too) George Bush Part 2 said that we were going to go to Mars, and that we were going to do it within a decade.

He said we were going, but never to my knowledge nor in any of the records available to me was the "within a decade" timeframe either stated or implied. From day one the "Vision" has entailed a Lunar detour followed by Mars missions sometime in the 2020-2030 range.

To that end, the program is going forward. Hardware is being designed, red tape being unfurled, and NASA is undergoing a much needed and long overdue shift back to being destination-driven. It's a mess and will be for awhile, but it is progress.

clark · 2006-01-11 06:50:57

You are misremembering.

Bush has never proclaimed, either in writing or in word, a time frame for a manned mission to Mars.

All those who speak for the president have never given an exact date either.

The only timeframe offered by Bush is for a return to the Moon by 2020. The idea being sold that doing so will pave the way for future space exploration missions. However, even that premise comes with a caveat- that the missions we undertake in the future, post-return to the Moon, be based solely on our capability and the financial costs/value.

I know it is not a popular idea around these parts, but going to Mars for the sake of it, like Apollo previously, will do more to retard future opportunity than going with the current game plan.

We need to return to the Moon, but more than that, we need to commit to manned space exploration in a serious, and in a big way. Going to Mars directly will not equip us for any greater exploits in the long term. We need the slow burn, not the hot flash.

Mars Direct is Apollo Redux- except with a red planet instead of a silver moon. If you look at the old plans for Apollo, they all called for follow up missions and building out infrastructure (just like Mars Direct). However, there is nothing on Mars that will keep the general publics attention for the length of time neccesary to ensure continual "Buck Roger" fantasies that we all grew up on.

In order to get what you really want, manned space exploration needs to go a little slower, but a little further out... bit by bit.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-11 09:55:07

I really don't remember it that way. I remember a lot of Public Discussion about Iraq being a bad idea as it would be "just like Vietnam", and I remember Bush saying something that sounded kind of just like Kennedy,

And I remember thinking that if Bush wanted to be like Kennedy and start a "war we couldn't win" (I don't think so, but many did and do) then at least we were going to Mars.

I guess I (like everyone else) am holding Bush responsible for what I think he said.

In order to get what you really want, manned space exploration needs to go a little slower, but a little further out... bit by bit.

While surfing for the actual transcripts of Bush's speech, I stumbled into another "Mars" web-site, and from there stumbled into some text where the Windbag-in-Charge posed the following question as a Straw Man:

"Why not spend that (Mars) funding on other things, like Social Programs"

And it doesn't really matter that he spent the rest of the boring article making the case in favor of (Mars) space exploration, as he had already forced the objective to take 3 giant leaps backwards by making the link between Space Exploration and the other Liberal Sacred Cow, Social (Welfare) Programs.

And there is a hard-wired limit of 2-medium-steps-forward to any written persuasive work; so the Windbag's objective was doomed even before it really began. And the damage is left behind for others to repair as best they can.

Because the only thing Liberals like more than Space Exploration is Social (Welfare) Programs.

I live with Mexicans. LOTS of Mexicans.

Not "Hispanics", or "Mexican-Americans", or "Latinos", but by-God Spanish-only speaking, tomato-picking Economic Refugees from the 3rd-world Disaster Area that is our "Neighbor to the South".

American Conservatives can't decide if they want to increase funding to shore-up our porous borders or if they want to take economic advantage of the Cheap Labor that cross them. American Liberals only want to educate the refugees from that failed Political System into Economic Self-Sufficiency.

And if we do THAT, we'll NEVER get to Mars. Because, like Jay Leno says, (and with the aid of the Catholic Church) "they'll just make more".

And frankly, I don't care about the welfare of the Mexican People and their inability to improve their own living conditions in their own country NEARLY as much as I do seeing humanity land on another planet before I die.

The "bit by bit" strategy provides a political opportunity to each administration to become distracted, and/or to compromise the goal, the timing, or both. And I don't want MY Mars money being spent on futile social endeavors like "Trying to Educate the Mexican Populace Faster than they can Cross Our Borders" everytime the Political Winds blow the smell of Mama's home-made tortillas northward.

One of the best educational experiences I ever had was my 8th grade Algebra teacher, (Mr. DeMuth) when he told us about how another way of looking at infinity was by perpetually dividing the distance between two points (such as the distance between yourself and a wall) in half. As long as you only moved halfway between yourself and the wall, you would NEVER actually get there.

Incrementalists NEVER point to political goals that were only started before they were abandoned (usually due to lack of funding); much like prophets don't talk about predictions that DON'T come true.

Personally, I think the best way to guarantee the exploration of Mars is not by Mar's Direct or Incrementally, or any other means I have ever heard of.

I think the best way to guarantee the exploration of the Planet Mars is by first sending a very large Armored Column of M1A1 Abrahms Tanks straight from Ft. Irwin, CA to Mexico City.

Conquer Mars by invading Mexico first.

If you consider every arguement in favor of the American Invasion of Iraq, you will almost always find a more-compelling arguement for the American Invasion of Mexico.

Time prohibits me from detailing those parallels right now, but folks can feel free to list their own until I have the time to provide my own.

The secondary benefits of using Military Force to establish a Stable Democracy that fulfills it's Primary Responsibilty of Caring for it's Own Citizens should free up enough funding to pay for the exploration of Mars several times over.

And it's a much better idea than fractionalizing the distance between Earth and Mars in increments of 1/infinity.

Viva Mars ! Viva !

SpaceNut · 2006-01-11 10:06:27

Maybe there was a statement for some time after 2030 but even still what has changed with Nasa in the last 2 years...
[url=http://www.spacecoalition.com/docs/news_release_011006.pdf]Coalition for Space exploration response:
VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION REMAINS ON COURSE GOING INTO YEAR 3[/url]

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-11 10:11:40

Just for the record, there's no such thing as an "unwinnable war" and George W. Bush is no John Kennedy.

Of course John Kennedy was no John Kennedy either, the man's legend is grossly overdone.

The current "Vision for Space Exploration" is just that, a vision. Not quite a plan but more than a musing. A policy shift. It is my hope that it won't result in a flags and footprints mission with no follow-up. If going to Mars big takes longer than we'd like, so be it. A base in twenty years is better than a mere landing in five, from my perspective.

But knowing government, they'll screw it up. If only there were some overwhelming profit motive. . .

In the meantime, I have no real objection to continuing the old American tradition of annexing Mexican land.

And don't worry about clark, now's about the time he'll verbally brutalize you a bit and argue you to a standstill. It's kind of an unofficial New Mars hazing.

clark · 2006-01-11 10:23:16

f-ing gringo's.

There is nothing in that asinine and infantile post worth rebutting. "Ooo, look at me, I'm a paranoid xenophobe with a hard on for space fantasy!"

Go read some more Honor Harrington and spend some quality time in the bathroom, jack ass.

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-11 11:00:01

It's great getting him all worked up like that.

clark · 2006-01-11 11:38:30

Boredom strikes, so lets bat around the new villiage idiot...

I really don't remember it that way. I remember a lot of Public Discussion about Iraq being a bad idea as it would be "just like Vietnam", and I remember Bush saying something that sounded kind of just like Kennedy,
And I remember thinking that if Bush wanted to be like Kennedy and start a "war we couldn't win" (I don't think so, but many did and do) then at least we were going to Mars.

You remember incorrectly. Your memory is shot. What relevance the politcal comparisons you make have in regards to a supposed "Mars Mission" are beyond my feeble mind. Regardless of what you think you heard, or what you obviously imagined, Bush never once set out a timeline for a manned mission to Mars. I myself waited for such a statement, but for entirely personal reasons.

I guess I (like everyone else) am holding Bush responsible for what I think he said.

That is just brilliant. Holding people responsible for what you can verify as faulty perception, and willingly accepting it as reasnoable strikes me as sign of mental retardation. But that is just me and my perception.

While surfing for the actual transcripts of Bush's speech, I stumbled into another "Mars" web-site, and from there stumbled into some text where the Windbag-in-Charge posed the following question as a Straw Man:
"Why not spend that (Mars) funding on other things, like Social Programs"
And it doesn't really matter that he spent the rest of the boring article making the case in favor of (Mars) space exploration, as he had already forced the objective to take 3 giant leaps backwards by making the link between Space Exploration and the other Liberal Sacred Cow, Social (Welfare) Programs.

Oh, I just love this part- where you demonstrate how important context is to you in making an informed judgement. I have no great love for Bush, but before I start going off on wild tangents just to support my preconceived and biased point of view, I try and get the full context of an issue or an idea.

What you are refrencing was actually Bush, et al, defending the funds being spent on Space Exploration- he was being rhetorical in positioning the argument. But hey, interpret it however you want. Afterall, you prefer perception to fact anyway.

I live with Mexicans. LOTS of Mexicans.
Not "Hispanics", or "Mexican-Americans", or "Latinos", but by-God Spanish-only speaking, tomato-picking Economic Refugees from the 3rd-world Disaster Area that is our "Neighbor to the South".

Okay cracker. Let me guess, the problem with going to foreign countries is that it is full of foreigners, right?

American Conservatives can't decide if they want to increase funding to shore-up our porous borders or if they want to take economic advantage of the Cheap Labor that cross them. American Liberals only want to educate the refugees from that failed Political System into Economic Self-Sufficiency.

And the relevance of any of this to the subject at hand is what? Are you suggesting that the reason space exploration has stalled is because of Mexican's?

And if we do THAT, we'll NEVER get to Mars. Because, like Jay Leno says, (and with the aid of the Catholic Church) "they'll just make more".

Ah, you ARE saying that. But at least you are on solid ground by refrencing Jay Leno. Well done.

One of the best educational experiences I ever had was my 8th grade Algebra teacher, (Mr. DeMuth) when he told us about how another way of looking at infinity was by perpetually dividing the distance between two points (such as the distance between yourself and a wall) in half. As long as you only moved halfway between yourself and the wall, you would NEVER actually get there.

Wow. A 40 year whose intellectual enlightenment peaked in the 8th grade. Try moving out of Mama's basement and you might have another encounter with intellectual stimulation.

Incrementalists NEVER point to political goals that were only started before they were abandoned (usually due to lack of funding); much like prophets don't talk about predictions that DON'T come true.

I've only had one prediction not come true. [shrug] I talk about that all the time.

I think the best way to guarantee the exploration of the Planet Mars is by first sending a very large Armored Column of M1A1 Abrahms Tanks straight from Ft. Irwin, CA to Mexico City.
Conquer Mars by invading Mexico first.

I think you are a misguided child pretending to be something they are not.

Commodore · 2006-01-11 13:22:06

I was of the impression that the reason we have a problem with illegal immigration on the Mexican border is because the border patrol was underfunded. That would indicate that Mars money was not going to the border patrol.

The answer to the Mexican border issue is instead a very long and tall wall, and enhanced options for immigration and migrant workers. The problem we face now is not so much that there are migrant workers and permenent immigrants, but that they are crossing the border at will, along with god knows what else. We have every right to say when, who, and how many cross the border, and we can't right now. And that must be rectified, no matter how much the folks in Mexico City whine. That said there is a need both for migrant workers and immigrant both in this country, and to remove them from Mexico. Let the alphas come here and pick our veggies. It serves their needs and ours. And it relieves pressure in Mexico. If you think Mexico is bad now, just imagine if there was no escape valve. The ensuing chaos would be far worse for both our coutries. Imagine a teapot welded shut, and set to boil. Can you see a Mars mission launching while we have to run a peacekeeping mission many times the size of our current engagement in Iraq?

If you want to know were your Mars money is, you have to look at the whole budget. The war is expensive, but far cheaper than the alternetive. Letting a bunch of people who think they have a devine right to rule the whole planet take over the worlds primary source of energy is unexceptible, and would torpedo any chance of going to Mars anyway. The road to Mars may very well go through Tehran, Riyadh, Damascus, and Islamabad.

Of course we spend far more more money on ourselves. We through away more and more money every year on welfare programs that breed dependance. Remember Katerina? All those horrible sights are symptoms of a failed system that spends money and produces nothing. Bush had, at one time something called a faith based inititive that would have put respondibility for rehabilitating capitalist misfits on the hands of local religious and social groups who donate their time. Theres an army of people who think the fate of their immortal souls depend on helping people for free. Back when it was still on the agenda, it was bashed for exposing hobos to religion, but it would have saved tens of billions of dollars.

But ultimately space exploration isn't just about Mars, or the moon, but each and every one of more than 100 substantial terrestrial bodies in the solar system, and countless smaller bodies. That means taking our time, and deciding what to do with a body to contribute to humanity and furthur exploration efforts. We could have done a Mars direct mission a decade ago, but it would have accomplished very little to enable long term exploration of the planet. Exploration can only really begin when carve out the resources we need from our destination. We only beginning to think about it on the Moon, and kicking and screaming the whole way.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-11 14:12:44

I was of the impression that the reason we have a problem with illegal immigration on the Mexican border is because the border patrol was underfunded. That would indicate that Mars money was not going to the border patrol.

A commonly-held oversimplification.

Any thought or discussion that is not first predicated on the notion that the Mexican Government's First (and possibly only) Responsibility is to Care for the Welfare of Their Own Citizens removes the only solution from consideration before even the Problem Itself can be detailed.

The consequences of welding the seams of the Mexican Teapot will hurt the Mexican Government much more than it will hurt the US, and will also provide impetus for Them to solve Their problem.

Not only is an "explosion" necessary, it might also be fun to watch.

And so if it is the US Government's responsibility to invade the country of Iraq (which is on the other side of the planet) to establish a stable and economically self-sufficient democracy in order to maintain the quality of life of the US population, then certainly it is also the US Government's responsibility to accomplish those same objectives by invading Mexico.

And, unlike their Iraqi counterparts, they LIKE us. Even LOVE us.

Unlike the true Paranoid Arabic Xenophobes we are "saving", Mexicans have absolutely NO problem with assimilating themsleves into American Culture (or assimilating American Culture into themselves.

No one LOVES this country more than Mexicans. No one defends her freedom more readily, no one gives their lives more freqently. No one works harder for less money and no one gives up their own "cultural identity" faster, when it becomes an impediment to becoming a successful Americans.

And no one would be grateful for formally incorporating the stinking cesspool that is Mexico into American Statehood.

And while I agree that it is true that (to a great extent) it is their "Alphas" that make the swim, it will also be at least 2 generations before the benefits of that gene-splicing will be felt.

While the consequences of the loss of those Mexican Alphas will be felt in perpetuity, both to Mexico and their Northern Sugar Daddy.

reddragon · 2006-01-11 17:08:39

One of the best educational experiences I ever had was my 8th grade Algebra teacher, (Mr. DeMuth) when he told us about how another way of looking at infinity was by perpetually dividing the distance between two points (such as the distance between yourself and a wall) in half. As long as you only moved halfway between yourself and the wall, you would NEVER actually get there.

Sounds kind of like Zeno's Paradox, but technically it doesn't work. I don't understand it exactly, but ultimately something like that has a finite sum. (I'm taking calculus next year and looking forward to it, so I'll hopefully understand this infinite series stuff better then.)

I could also turn the analogy around and say: You never get quite what you wanted, but if you keep trying hard and putting a bit more work into it you'll get most of what you were aiming for and it will be well worth the effort.

I agree that we should be moving a lot faster on space exploration and could be a lot farther by now, but I don't think Mexicans are the problem. There are a lot of things that eat up our government money, with perhaps the biggest of them being general bureucratic inefficiency.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-11 20:59:05

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/art … /index.asp

Zemo's paradox has more to do with rate than distance, but serves to illustrate my point better, in that:

The Tortoise ignores the simple reality that Achille's will beat him in a race, and instead constructs a hypothetical situation wherein he (the Tortoise) and only he can win.

In short, the Tortoise proposes that instead of actually racing, he and Achilles engage in a theoretical race where the only possible victory belongs to the Tortoise.

It's "Bait & Switch", and ignores the fact that the theoretical victory only belongs to a Victor that is THEORETICAL.

Which serves to make my point even better.

Political Incrementalists (like Clark) don't REALLY want to accomplish ANYTHING. They just want to be involved in the process to the extent that they first get to define the means of achieving the objective in terms of it's increments, and then they want to define the size of the increments, and the timetable in which to accomplish them. Or not, but the circumstances of THAT failure will never be placed upon them as they are not interested in actual success; only theoretical "progress" toward it.

Like the prophet that is unconcerned with his failed predictions, the Political Incrementalist is unconcerned with the failure of their plans. They get involved early on, demand to be put in charge at a point in the process when their future failure is as distant as their (theoretical) success.

They are as unconcerned about actually accomplishing the goal as Mr. DeMuth was about walking from one end of the room to the other. And (like the Tortoise and any-other "flim-flam" artists) they attempt to persuade others to accept their theoretical construct instead of the world as it actually IS, and could be.

Maybe this is what & who (the "obsessives") Palomar/Cindy is referring to in her signature/tag.

idiom · 2006-01-12 04:31:18

Zeno's problem was that he was trying to prove 'monism'. His arguments were demonstrably wrong but his rivals lacked the tools to disprove them a priori. We have them now and all they do is show that Zeno is still wrong

But hey, the Americans taking their sweet time to get to Mars allows the rest of us time to organise a race.

clark · 2006-01-12 06:49:12

Zeno's paradox is an example of sophistry in action. It is borrowed by mathmatics to segue into an example of 'infinity'.

I've been called a lot of things in my time, but a 'Politcal Incrementalist' is something new.

All I see here is some crying over an issue that isn't being handled precisely as someone wishes. "Mars NOW!" the pitiful lament. waaaah.

"They haven't done it soon enough. They aren't doing it fast enough. They're not doing it right." Waaaah.

And the basis for these complaints? Children who grew up on the premise that they would be living in the Buck Rogers future of Moon Colony 2001 and Blasto-Rays to save the Princess of Mars from the underground hoardes.

Cry. Me. A. River.

The obsessives are the ones that demand action only according to their preconceived ideas based on a fantasy timeline that is derived from, well, pure imagination.

Human history is one of incremental progress and development towards a point that has no end. In that way, Zeno's paradox applies. It is a race with only ourselves, not with anything else, or with anyone else.

But whatever, what do I know. Enjoy the ride.

Palomar · 2006-01-12 07:01:34

Maybe this is what & who (the "obsessives") Palomar/Cindy is referring to in her signature/tag.

*I changed the sig (because my cat is so adorable) roughly 6 hours prior to your post. The sig you're referring to read "There are two kinds of people at SE/A forums: The space exploration and astronomy advocates, and the parasitical obsessives to who feed off them."

Just something I've noticed over the years. And a certain retired doctor in Hawaii came to mind...

I suppose a few folks "here and there" (same sig in other forums as well) took it personally. My response? If the shoe fits, step in.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-12 07:21:35

I find it odd most times people decrying social programs fail to at the same time or at least with the same amount of energy, decry corporate welfare. NASA is inundated with corporate welfare. It's the reason a dang Space Shuttle tank costs an astronomical 60 million dollars (something logic dictates would be no more than $15 million).

clark is right that Bush didn't make a date to go to Mars, and in fact, his "vision" speech, if I recall correctly, mentions Mars three times, not ONCE without the Moon being part of the speech (ie, always "the Moon, Mars and beyond"). Kennedy-eqsue speech my butt.

The vision is nice, though, make no doubt about it. However, it's really not challenging enough. SDV is part of the overall vision, but it won't even be implemented until after 2010-2015. We could start on it tomorrow. The problem with the "vision" is that it wants to finish ISS (while scrapping all the science that was intended for ISS, which makes no sense right there), keep the Shuttle around (while keeping it grounded at the same time), and all in all giving people big paychecks for sitting on their butt doing pretty much nothing.

So clark, "Mars NOW!" isn't as unrealistic as you like to think, assuming the politicians and the porkbarreling corporations weren't in the picture. Then again, getting them out of the picture is pretty unrealistic. Still, worth bitching over.

clark · 2006-01-12 09:04:18

I don't think it is unrealistic. I think it is short sighted and does not serve to further greater ambitions in space.

Mars is just one place among many.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-12 10:45:40

Human history is one of incremental progress and development towards a point that has no end.

This definition is a Historian's perspective, and a half-assed Historian at that.

The BEST that the Half-Assed Historian (like Clark) can accomplish is to imagine standing in the shoes of those involved in history, and look forward into their uncertain future and try to imagine what it might have been like to actually have accomplished something.

People that really do accomplish things do not (and can not) do this. They look forward into the uncertain future and imagine what it is going to be like when they get there.

Then they go there.

The journey of a thousand miles does NOT begin with a single step; the journey begins when one decides to go somewhere.

clark · 2006-01-12 11:38:18

I would rather be a half-ass than a complete ass as my current friend here demonstrates.

Anyway, it appears that as I progress though life, I attain more and more labels! I suppose that as a Half-Assed Historian who is a Political Incrementalist (which by the way is categorization that here before has never exsisted!) I should be flattered that such a forward thinking individual such as yourself would even take the time from their obviously busy schedule of forward thinking and planning to point out my flaws. Thank you. Very much.

Now, with the pleasantries safely behind us, let us look forward towards this destination that I am apparently satisfied to watch happen from the side lines, yet determined to demand that such a future destination conform to my wild dictates!

People that really do accomplish things do not (and can not) do this. They look forward into the uncertain future and imagine what it is going to be like when they get there.
Then they go there.

Actually, people who accomplish things do so by planning on best how to get from point A to point B. Just wishing it doesn’t make it happen. But then, you wish for your sci-fi fantasy without actually taking the time to understand what is involved to get there. Like an infant, you simply cry out loud, “are we there yet?! are we there yet?!”

The journey of a thousand miles does NOT begin with a single step; the journey begins when one decides to go somewhere.

You are an idiot!

I mean you try to sound so profound, but end up sounding like a total tool. The journey begins when you decide to go somewhere? Did you learn nothing from Zeno’s paradox you pretended to understand?

Thought is not action. A journey outside your basement (which you are in obvious need of) does not begin when you think about going outside for some sun. It starts when you take action to go outside.

But that is all beside the point since you completely miss the point of the whole premise of, “a journey begins with the first step.”

The underlying lesson grasshopper is that goals, while seemingly daunting in the beginning, will not be overcome unless you begin.

But whatever. Come up with some more labels for me. I enjoy it. It shows you actually care.

C M Edwards · 2006-01-12 16:27:12

In the meantime, I have no real objection to continuing the old American tradition of annexing Mexican land.
And don't worry about clark, now's about the time he'll verbally brutalize you a bit and argue you to a standstill. It's kind of an unofficial New Mars hazing.

ROTFL!

*Sigh!* Okay, I finally stopped laughing long enough to type.

What we're seeing from Mexico is ultimately just another economically driven mass migration. Sure, the Mexican government is responsible for driving its people out of their own country, and we're going to suffer a little for it. So what? Contrary to the current propaganda, we can absorb the influx.

In the end, they're just the new Irish. In fifty years, their descendents will be running the country, and they'll be so assimilated that nobody will care.

Bienvenidos to America. 8)

Would God we might see such a migration to Mars some day....

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-12 18:21:01

What we're seeing from Mexico is ultimately just another economically driven mass migration.

Sure you say that HERE. Try and say it at work, to your hispanic-american supervisor.

In many respects it's a mess, what they hand us. First, Mexicans aren't a "race", but rather a hodge-podge mutt-mixture of indigenous people, former slaves and spaniards.

Mixing 3 races does not produce another race, no matter what the Mestisos may say.

We are exected to deal with their "racial" sensitivities with the same level of awareness as African-Americans, despite the fact that they weren't held slavery for 400 years and can now return to their "homeland" for the price of a $15.00 Greyhound ticket.

The Mexicans inability to govern and care for themselves in Mexico is directly reflective of how Mexican-Americans will be incapable of raising up Mexico, even if they pull on the bootstraps FOR them.

Instead, my prediction is that Americans will always be subsidizing their second-class cousins to the south for eternity, and we'll never get to Mars.

We'll be lucky to get to Ensenada, while New Zealanders are partying above us in geo-synchronus orbit.

The time to invade Mexico is now; before it is too late.

Commodore · 2006-01-12 18:42:42

For an American to call someone of any other nationality a mutt is absurd to the nth degree.

We're the biggest mutts of the them all. And proud of it.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-12 18:59:33

Well duh...

What other "mutt-mixture" gets to use allegations of "racism" ?

Yer working hard to miss the point, Commodore. Makes me wonder if the secondary effects of exposure to "clark" aren't starting to become manifest.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-10 21:05:55

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#2 2006-01-10 21:13:04

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#3 2006-01-11 05:57:52

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#4 2006-01-11 06:50:57

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#5 2006-01-11 09:55:07

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#6 2006-01-11 10:06:27

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#7 2006-01-11 10:11:40

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#8 2006-01-11 10:23:16

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#9 2006-01-11 11:00:01

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#10 2006-01-11 11:38:30

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#11 2006-01-11 13:22:06

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#12 2006-01-11 14:12:44

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#13 2006-01-11 17:08:39

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#14 2006-01-11 20:59:05

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#15 2006-01-12 04:31:18

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#16 2006-01-12 06:49:12

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#17 2006-01-12 07:01:34

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#18 2006-01-12 07:21:35

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#19 2006-01-12 09:04:18

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#20 2006-01-12 10:45:40

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#21 2006-01-12 11:38:18

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#22 2006-01-12 16:27:12

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#23 2006-01-12 18:21:01

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#24 2006-01-12 18:42:42

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#25 2006-01-12 18:59:33

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

Board footer