Re: TCF's Vote on the Republican Nomination

by **CivBase** on Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:01 am

Gauz wrote:Sanatorum is a goddamn moron.

I keep hearing this without seeing any support for it.

I doubt Romney and Gingrich will make things much worse but I also doubt they'll make it much better. More of the same. Issues come and go and both parties love to fight about them. The real problems, though, go completely untouched.

I tend to like Romney and Gingrich's stances on issues better than Obama's, but they all have the same political character. They love playing games and abusing the system to better themselves.

Honestly, I think even George W. Bush would be better than any of the three. Even if people didn't like some of the things he did (a fair amount I'd agree with), he got to the point and had principals that weren't dependent on his political party.

by KristallNacht on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:30 am

Ron Paul, still the best.

by Vtrooper on Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:20 am

Also, Gingrich is a fucking idiot.

Build a moon colony in 8 years? i know the plan is to set up an outpost there is set for 2020, but not a fucking colony.

idiot wants the NASA/Nerd vote even though most of us are smart enough to know we don't have the money for it right now.

by KristallNacht on Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:25 am

and that NASA is garbage...

by laxspartan007 on Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:01 pm

it is suppose to be the 51st state, the moon, tololololololollollolllolloolololol...

by **BBJynne** on Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:18 am

Gingrich is my roommate.

by **Angatar** on Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:03 pm

Vtrooper wrote:Also, Gingrich is a fucking idiot.

Build a moon colony in 8 years? i know the plan is to set up an outpost there is set for 2020, but not a fucking colony.

idiot wants the NASA/Nerd vote even though most of us are smart enough to know we don't have the money for it right now.

What's NASA's budget right now? 15 billion? 20 billion, max. How many hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on the military?

We have plenty of money for the job, you just want to keep it for something else.

by KristallNacht on Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:54 am

Except NASA can't even do shit with the budget they have.

by **Angatar** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:19 am

Because they have such a low budget compared to everything else. During the Sixties their budget was atleast double what it is now, and look at what they accomplished.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:21 am

Angatar wrote:Because they have such a low budget compared to everything else. During the Sixties their budget was atleast double what it is now, and look at what they accomplished.

Doubt that's taking into account the difference of the worth of the dollar.

by **Angatar** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:27 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:
Angatar wrote:Because they have such a low budget compared to everything else. During the Sixties their budget was atleast double what it is now, and look at what they accomplished.

Doubt that's taking into account the difference of the worth of the dollar.

The worth of the dollar has gone down, so if anything it's more than double their budget now.

by **KrAzY** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:29 am

actually, during the 60s counting for inflation their budget was 1/3 less than it is now, and military spending was relatively higher than ours is now.

NASA doesn't have anything to work twoards, they don't plan on having a new space ship for several years... nasa is good at science, but space stuff is better left to private companies, who do more for MUCH less money.

at the moment the only thing that NASA does is provide jobs for scientists to do science. giving more money wouldn't benefit our country at all, as the SAME work would be done for the same budgets.... they would just try to tack on a new space program that in the end wouldn't go anywhere.

I love NASA, but they don't need a bigger budget

by **Lord Pheonix** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:34 am

$5,000 dollars in 1960 would have the same buying power as $38,000 dollars and you could buy a brand new car for $2,000, buy a house for $12,700, and a dollar would get you a double-decker hamburger with French fries, salad, and ice cream for dessert.

So no, their look at the dollar was quite different.

by Nocbl2 on Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:13 pm

@Krazy

Yeah, it seems like the plan is to advance the science and have the scientists invent the spacecraft/colony ideas/etc., and THEN proceed and actually make the shit.

by **Rotaretilbo** on Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:17 am

NASA's budget in 1960 was pitiful, even after factoring in inflation. But their budget between 1964 and 1966 was practically double what it currently is, factoring in inflation.