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

Rxke · 2004-08-20 16:53:37

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 7E.htm]Why no-one knows the real amount of oil-reserves...

Pretty weird place to find an article like this, no?

comstar03 · 2004-08-20 23:03:55

deagleninja,

I will tell you this , I was watching a recent ABC Program in Australia when I was visiting for business and I saw the media reporter ask why is the OPEC Leader allowing the value of oil up, and not opening supply and the answer was they are trying to pressure the usa people and government, At the same time their cash reserves are getting larger, good tactics, So don't think that the living expenses are not on american's mind and they are starting to equate that to the war on iraq and they had a negative impact on the current administration and president.

What I have say is the best interests of the country, My personal interests is that I hope kerry does get in , slow the space program down, so much that private enterprise says that the government can't do it and then they take over and expand into space for profitable reasons. and Disregard the treaties , because they didn't sign them .

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 23:50:37

I don't think Kerry will kill NASA anymore than other presidents have. It is already on a shoestring budget.

I just realized something! If you take the cost of this war and divide it by the number of americans it comes to $3,000 per person, sweet jesus, that's a lot of money.

We could cut our oil dependancy in half by buying cars that get 50+ miles to the gallon, and the government could make it a reality by offering $3,000 to anyone who buys one.

See, that's the kind of planning we need out of the government. Not some pie in the sky plan that won't take effect till decades after they leave office.

Vir Stellae · 2004-08-22 07:16:53

I just realized something! If you take the cost of this war and divide it by the number of americans it comes to $3,000 per person, sweet jesus, that's a lot of money.

..and if you add up all of the the State and federal welfare crap you get about $9000 per person *annually* !!!

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-08-22 10:58:51

There is not really all that much nuclear waste,

There may not be a lot of fuel-rod waste, but it is my understanding that each power station has to be shut down after about fifty years and then left alone for the next 500. Another reactor also has to be built to take its place.

Wouldn't a pure nuclear policy end up with ten dead power stations for every active one?

ANTIcarrot.
PS: And I believe NASA costs around $15 per person in America.

John Creighton · 2004-08-22 11:23:48

Why can't you build the new power station right on top of where the old one use to be.

deagleninja · 2004-08-23 04:54:52

LOL 9,000 a year, that's rich! Welfare recipients don't even get that much, let alone the average american pay that much.

Btw, more jobs means less welfare, so blame this lousy economy.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-08-23 07:09:05

Why can't you build the new power station right on top of where the old one use to be.

Because much of the power station itself counts as radioactive waste, and it's much easier to leave it where it is rather than knock it down and contain the resultant fallout.

ANTIcarrot.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 10:46:59

Lawyer Advising Vets Quits Bush Campaign Presidential Elections. Benjamin Ginsberg has been advising Bush on the veterans group TV ads running against Democrat John Kerry resigned Wednesday from Bush's campaign.

It is starting to look more like a dead heet than an election.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....up_bush

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-25 10:58:01

If this election is even remotely close we're gonna have chaos, just watch...

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 11:07:43

We will need to keep the media from pre-announcing state electorial status while polls are open for projected winners of each state.

deagleninja · 2004-08-25 11:16:36

Bush wins re-'election' in 2004

I'm afraid that if Bush does 'win' again, then there will be some nasty attempts on his life or those around him. Just think of all those angry Kerry supporters.....at least a few would think it their patriotic duty to assasinate the president and save democracy, dontcha think?

God, I just hope it doesn't come down to Florida....again

<---- "we have the p-resident in our sights...go, no-go?'

deagleninja · 2004-08-30 20:17:15

Ok why did all the posts stop? Was that last one of mine over the top? Sorry if anyone was offended, I was just being silly. I don't want to see anyone killed. I may disagree with darn near everything that comes out Bush's mouth. His space policy is a joke, so I'll take a chance on the unknown (kerry). If anything were to happen to him, god help us, Cheney would be the next p-resident*.

I know the Bush camp meant Kerry's goofy expression and appearance in the photos of his NASA tour to be uncomplimentary, however I see the most honest, unforced looking smile on his usually Lincolnesk, deadpan face. Does anyone else not see that as a plus?

* (I)My usage of the term 'p-resident' refers to anyone not voted for by the majority of Americans. We should have known we were in trouble when no one even suggested that Bush should honorably refuse the office since he was not in fact elected.

comstar03 · 2004-08-30 20:40:36

deagleninja,

Probably though that Bush or Kerry are not an issue with because both will screw up the space industry for their own game. So, It might be time to look at alternatives to politicans and start working on a campaign for the real money behind the government that is large business.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 05:23:25

Ok why did all the posts stop? Was that last one of mine over the top?

No, I'll be the first to acknowledge there's alot of loons out there. A domestically planned assassination attempt is not entirely outside the realm of possibility. Neither is civil war, for that matter, but we're at the beginning of an arc that we can't yet plot out.

But if this election is subject to the same sort of fiasco as 2000, the days of the Republic are numbered. And I'm serious.

* (I)My usage of the term 'p-resident' refers to anyone not voted for by the majority of Americans. We should have known we were in trouble when no one even suggested that Bush should honorably refuse the office since he was not in fact elected.

Then it's been awhile since we had a real President. Clinton was never elected by a majority of the people and I'm not sure of the totals for Bush 41. So by your reasoning we've had unelected "p-residents" since the end of Reagan's second term.

So the Soviets really won.

But again, popular vote means precisely nil, our elections aren't just a simple numbers game for good reason.

But hey, there's a growing chorus of voices calling for the abolition of the electoral college in favor of direct, popular votes. Okay, fine, if that's the will of the people... But one must then ask this: If Presidents are elected by direct citizen vote nationwide, and the Federal government has usurped many functions and funding control of state responsibilities... then why have state governments? It becomes a profound waste to have fifty mini-governments just to oversee Congressional districts.

Doing it halfway makes no sense. We are approaching the point where we have to collectively decide whether to actually adhere to the Constitution or quit pretending and just scrap it. I'm for the former myself, but many seem to feel otherwise.

Which may be the problem, too much "feel" and not enough "think."

Our neighbors to the North might be in for a hell of a show at any rate. ???

deagleninja · 2004-08-31 07:49:48

Well by majority vote I meant a majority of the votes. I understand that a very small group of Americans actually vote. Creating a law that requires people to vote (as in Australia) isn't the answer either. History has shown that when you force someone to do something they don't give it much thought, they just do it. The last thing we need is a bigger group of zombies heading to the polls.

(Dear God! Paris Hilton or P Diddy could get elected!)

I'm glad you brought up the electoral college Cobra, I've been doing some research on it. I originally thought that it was created as a result of our growth, but actually it has been around since the beginning. I understand its reasons for existence back then, but I can't fathom why it is still around. Eliminating it would do a heck of a lot towards increasing voter participation. Let me give you an example.

In the 2000 election I almost didn't vote. I had to be dragged to the polls. Why is that? Don't I love politics? Well, yes I do. However, I live in a southern state that always goes for the Republican. Because the winner of the state (GOP) always gets all the electoral votes, there seems no point in my voting.

Now lets take the same situation but instead of the electoral college lets say we choose our next president by popular vote. It wouldn't matter if everyone in the state voted different than me, my vote would still count towards a total and could help my choice win.

Btw, states do a lot more than choose a president. I may be misunderstanding you Cobra, but we really do need state governments to do all the things they do.

John Creighton · 2004-08-31 08:06:55

This thread seems to be getting off topic. Anyway, what would getting rid of electoral collage mean. I think it would mean a lot more campaigning in texis and a lot less campaigning in Rode Island. Smaller states could get trampled on by the tyranny of the majority. Oh, well it is not my country.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-31 08:07:41

The second part of the electoral college was due to delay from the remote voting sites to pass there voters information directly to the congress. The third part was a weighting system to compensate state size to population.

But in a state like NH which predominately vote republican we get only 2 votes in the college when other state have 50. Some would ask how far is that. These like you noted do not take into account voter apathy for any further weighting of the populas vote tieing back to head counts turn out.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 10:03:28

Well by majority vote I meant a majority of the votes. I understand that a very small group of Americans actually vote.

I mean people who actually voted, Bush 43 didn't get 50%, Clinton never got 50%.

Eliminating it would do a heck of a lot towards increasing voter participation.

So we're assuming that's a good thing? Seriously, how much participation do we want? Should people be informed or are a million ignorant fools wiser than a thousand informed citizens? Legitimate questions...

Now lets take the same situation but instead of the electoral college lets say we choose our next president by popular vote. It wouldn't matter if everyone in the state voted different than me, my vote would still count towards a total and could help my choice win.

Which would have two big effects. First, no one would bother addressing the concerns of small states because they just won't matter. We'll in effect be junking the federal aspect of elections, California, New York and Texas provide enough to lock it up. Everyone else is gravy.

Secondly, our current system forces a degree of moderation. Our parties try to pick candidates that appeal to more than their base, candidates acceptable to more than the Party faithful. If we change the game to every man for himself, highest total wins, we open the path for kook wackos of every stripe to jump in and actually have a chance to win. Then we're stuck with coalition governments, run-offs and a slew of other headaches. Extremists politics, rampant fraud, legal chaos...

Irrelevant because it would entail such drastic changes to the Constitution as to be almost unthinkable. It's not just a question of adding a "popular vote" amendment, it draws into question the entire federalist premise on which our government is based.

Bringing us to the next point, state governments. States were initially sovereign entities for all practical purposes, joined in a federation with a few narrowly defined powers. Presidents were selected by vote of the sovereign member states.

Since then the federal government has assumed, directly or otherwise some of the functions of the state governments, enacted laws outside the original intent, and created new powers for itself while the states have in turn reformed themselves toward a more democratic (as opposed to republican, small "d" and "r") system, we now elect Senators directly, electors now rubber-stamp popular choices for President etc.

So if we scrap the electoral college, we no longer have a federation of states, but a single massive nation. States cease to be sovereign players in the process while their functions are eroded and could easily be replaced by federal equivalents. So if we're going to seriously consider dumping electoral college why not really get into the meat of it and dump states entirely? One America, every peon voting directly from sea to shining sea, one law, one nation, one people.

On a more basic level, direct democracy, popular votes if you prefer, are a poor way of governing. Despite the claims of its supporters, it isn't fair. Five wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Which is why we have a republic, to balance the tyranny of the masses.

deagleninja · 2004-08-31 10:25:30

I keep hearing that the electoral college protects small states from big states.....seems little campaigning is going on in California.....why is that? Oh because polls suggest that Kerry has already won it.

Let us not forget that states shouldn't be choosing our president, we should. When a state chooses a president it makes its decision on how much a canidate is going to help the state. Will this canidate close military bases? Will he invest in NASA and help Florida?

Am I alone in the belief that this system is greatly responcible for why we get such watered down politicains like Kerry and Bush?

We have a real problem here. Months before elections, politicians are choosing what states to campaign in and which to ignore. Shouldn't they be trying to win the minds and hearts of the people that live in those states instead of contractors?

I will grant that if we switch to a popular voting system that we may get some choices we don't like, but is that any different than now? I firmly believe that if you want people to act like adults you can't treat them like children. After a few years people will feel more in control of their representatives and make wiser choices. Perhaps......just perhaps the next time a president lies to them, they will know it.

A smarter population means smarter politicians (or they won't be in office for long).

SpaceNut · 2004-08-31 10:41:41

It seems like a best 2 out of 3 race might be in order.
So we would have the populas vote of the people, then the electorial but what would the third one be?

Palomar · 2004-08-31 10:47:10

*Popular vote doesn't count, as we all know. Gore won that in 2000.

Jeb Bush is still Florida governor so of course there'll be a big hassle and mixup, panedomium and confusion in FL again (not necessarily the fault of voters themselves)...and of course GWB will "win" the Presidency again.

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." (Joseph Stalin?)

But we've got international rights groups watching this time.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 10:49:23

Let us not forget that states shouldn't be choosing our president, we should.

We are, through our elected state governments. At least that was the plan, now the state clears whatever we choose no questions asked. To advocate changing the entire system because "we should" is to ignore the reasons for having it in place and the legal implications of changing it.

Am I alone in the belief that this system is greatly responcible for why we get such watered down politicains like Kerry and Bush?

That's part of the effect, intentionally. Everyone bitches and moans about the bland candidates we get, but think of the alternative. Neither of us really want Bush or Kerry, let's be honest. But if the choice was between Dean and Buchanan... gets a little more dicey don't it? You may really like one and shudder in horror at the thought of the other winning, as happens in Europe from time to time when a quasi-'halfascist' like le Pen or some old communist retread gets a big protest vote boost. We'd end up with either a candidate worming through the sea of loons to become President with 10% or so of the total, or face a series of run-offs with no Constitutional basis.

We have a real problem here. Months before elections, politicians are choosing what states to campaign in and which to ignore. Shouldn't they be trying to win the minds and hearts of the people that live in those states instead of contractors?

Contractors are people too.

I firmly believe that if you want people to act like adults you can't treat them like children.

Oh, I was under the impression you vote Democrat. :laugh:

Essentially right, but that doesn't address the real issues here. The electoral college is a result of the underlying structure of our nation, it's not just some plug-in that some old guy in a whig (bad pun) thought would be cool to try out.

After a few years people will feel more in control of their representatives and make wiser choices. Perhaps......just perhaps the next time a president lies to them, they will know it.

Here we go again...

A smarter population means smarter politicians (or they won't be in office for long).

Yes. Now how does a popular vote create a smarter population?

The short answer is it doesn't.

Ah well, if the people want to raze the Republic to its foundations out of some misguided ideal who am I to stand in their way?

But others will be waiting in the shadows...

RobertDyck · 2004-08-31 11:54:18

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." (Joseph Stalin?)

I read a news article from Florida that bragged about their new voting machines. They're entirely electronic so there won't be any bent cards or holes only dented rather than punched through. However, how do you do a recount with an electronic machine? I have been a computer professional for 23½ years, either programmer, systems analyst, technical architect, one year I was a collage instructor teaching introduction to computer programming. One fundamental is maintaining an audit trail, a record of the raw data from which reports are derived. A paper audit trail used to be required, but electronic is now permitted as long as you have sufficient detail. For example, an accounting system requires the original receipts: what was purchased on which date for how much. You also require purchase orders, bank statements including cancelled cheques, etc. Even the general journal is a derivation that has to be supported by receipts. But how do you keep an audit trail of secret ballot? With paper ballots you can go back and examine the individual ballots. You can't keep a record of who voted for which candidate at which time. That's how an electronic audit trail normally works, but that would violate secrecy and permit elected officials to refuse to serve those constituents who didn't vote for them or otherwise punish voters who didn't vote for them. That would completely invalidate the secret ballot and fundamentally undermine the democratic process. So how do you provide an audit trail for an electronic voting machine? It appears a recount is not possible. We're left to blindly trust those who count the votes.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-31 12:02:59

The electronic voting machine I believe does not record the name of the individual and unless a record of when you enter a specific booth then there is no correlation between the votes that you would cast and mine would be possible. So simply a paper printed with a scan able bar that records that machines votes cast can be scanned later for the purpose of a recall.
Something like a check out slip from the new electronic cash registers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-08-20 16:53:37

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

#177 2004-08-20 23:03:55

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

#178 2004-08-20 23:50:37

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

#179 2004-08-22 07:16:53

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

#180 2004-08-22 10:58:51

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

#181 2004-08-22 11:23:48

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

#182 2004-08-23 04:54:52

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

#183 2004-08-23 07:09:05

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

#184 2004-08-25 10:46:59

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

#185 2004-08-25 10:58:01

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

#186 2004-08-25 11:07:43

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

#187 2004-08-25 11:16:36

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

#188 2004-08-30 20:17:15

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

#189 2004-08-30 20:40:36

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

#190 2004-08-31 05:23:25

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

#191 2004-08-31 07:49:48

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

#192 2004-08-31 08:06:55

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

#193 2004-08-31 08:07:41

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

#194 2004-08-31 10:03:28

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

#195 2004-08-31 10:25:30

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

#196 2004-08-31 10:41:41

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

#197 2004-08-31 10:47:10

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

#198 2004-08-31 10:49:23

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

#199 2004-08-31 11:54:18

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

#200 2004-08-31 12:02:59

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

Board footer