Please realize I'm partially joking

[Euthanatos]

I don't understand the problem here. Deacon and Martin Blank both showcase something interesting: the ability to not be a Democrat while not being a raving suck-up Republican. No President is perfect, and this one maybe isn't the best recently.
However, consider some other sides of this: Just as you feel entitled to your opinion, realize that others are the same way. The Dixie Chicks screwed up their comment, essentially insulting Texas when they wished to insult Bush. Problem is, conservatives saw the letters but not the intent, and liberals saw the intent but failed to see the failure of the wording. What is so insanely divisive about politics that it sucks away your ability to examine anything?
The libertarian/LaRouche-y nutballs are just exploiting the Democratic sentiments to gain support. As with evolution/creationism, just because you disprove the other guy doesn't make you right, it just makes him wrong. You have to prove your ideas, and focus on power through your beliefs and platform, rather than pulling everyone else's down. The thread was started by a stupid idea (Bush doesn't make anyone act crazy, Scientology does that) and continued by fucking libertarian backstabbing bullshit.

[Rileyrat]

Just FYI about waiting to send in the troops, it isn't as easy to just up and move federal troops into non-combat situations. Most soldiers are not trained in policing the general populous. The National Guard is state controlled, most of the time anyhow, and generally are responsible for such things. The LA NG was gone, the Texas NG was handleing it for them but they themselves are stretched a bit thin, as the NG normally is.

Also, when a blizzard hit Colorado Springs round abouts 1997, trapping people in many public places that didn't have much food, it took 3 days to get the local federal troops out and to many of these placed to deliver food and water. Never mind that many of the vehicles were able to move on day one. Then again that wasn't in the mainstream media. You also have to consider that tose sme federal troops had thier own problems to deal with. Basically, for federal troops to respond in the time frame they did, was reasonable.

[SunTzu]

BTW am i the only one who cant understand how people can be demanding lower gas prices in the US? I mean, demanding it from your president?

We've got whats called "The gas rebellion", a petition that has close to a million signatures. But i live in a country where the majority of money you pay for gas is going straight to the government. We *can* lower your prices, but IMO, you cant. So what are they thinking Bush will do? Piss oil?!

[Euthanatos]

Further, do people realize that most of Europe is coughing up over $6.00 a gallon?

[Springy]

I saw that on the news a few weeks ago. They showed gas prices around the world in $ per litre so us canucks would understand how high it is in Europe. In some places it had reached over $3/litre. I have no idea what that is in gallons but this was when gas here was around 80cents a litre.

[The Cid]

Concerning gas prices, I have one REALLY BIG PROBLEM with the way it's being handled.

Alright, so how much money do you think the government is spending on alternative fuels they promised to research? Not much, right?

Now, at the same time, how much money are they paying the rocket scientists of NASA to get us back to the moon?

We've got some of the best and brightest in this country working on space travel. Doesn't that bother anyone else? What if they told NASA to try and figure out a way to get ourselves off of fossil fuels? Personally, I think that if you told some of the smartest men in the country to spend the billions of dollars we give them on something PRACTICAL, we'd be better off.

NASA is like the neighbor who blows his entire paycheck on something impractical every other week. If we actually wanted to lower the price of gas, or find an alternative, why aren't we asking rocket scientists to look into it?

[tankkisankari]

[quote="Rileyrat";p="540244"]
Also, when a blizzard hit Colorado Springs round abouts 1997, trapping people in many public places that didn't have much food, it took 3 days to get the local federal troops out and to many of these placed to deliver food and water. Never mind that many of the vehicles were able to move on day one. Then again that wasn't in the mainstream media. You also have to consider that tose sme federal troops had thier own problems to deal with. Basically, for federal troops to respond in the time frame they did, was reasonable.[/quote]
Are there military troops in US that are in readiness to help local authorities?
During my service, there was a rotation of two groups taken from the brigade personnel, one was on a two hour ready-state and the other was on 30 minute state.
If let's say some grand mom got lost into the woods or there was forest fire, we would have been called to help. Luckily we didn't get real calls.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="SunTzu";p="540307"]BTW am i the only one who cant understand how people can be demanding lower gas prices in the US? I mean, demanding it from your president?[/quote]
Some people don't understand how economics works. Hawaii is instituting a cap on prices, which isn't going to work well when companies start going under because they can't purchase anything.

[quote="The Cid";p="540361"]Concerning gas prices, I have one REALLY BIG PROBLEM with the way it's being handled.

Alright, so how much money do you think the government is spending on alternative fuels they promised to research? Not much, right?[/quote]
How much is being spent? Do tell.

Now, at the same time, how much money are they paying the rocket scientists of NASA to get us back to the moon?

That would be about $1.1B in the coming budget year, if you count the monies spent on CEV Spiral 1 as being part of it. Spiral 1 is for Earth orbit; Spiral 2 will be returning to the moon.

What if they told NASA to try and figure out a way to get ourselves off of fossil fuels?

That's not NASA's mission. NASA is short for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They focus on things above-ground.

To that extent, there is actually a lot of research that goes into making aircraft more efficient. NASA is also at the head of the pack in researching hypersonic aircraft.

Personally, I think that if you told some of the smartest men in the country to spend the billions of dollars we give them on something PRACTICAL, we'd be better off.

Would you rather we scrap the entire space program to work on alternative fuels?

NASA is like the neighbor who blows his entire paycheck on something impractical every other week. If we actually wanted to lower the price of gas, or find an alternative, why aren't we asking rocket scientists to look into it?

Because "rocket scientists" largely aren't trained in that field. It's worth noting that most of the rocket scientists to which you refer actually work for private subcontractors like Boeing and Lockheed.

Posted 04 Sep 2005 14:01:

[quote="tankkisankari";p="540371"]Are there military troops in US that are in readiness to help local authorities?[/quote]
Generally, no. The federal armed forces are largely not permitted to do things inside the US unless some state of emergency is granted. For example, the army cannot conduct law enforcement activities. When it comes to things like SAR or forest fire fighting, the National Guard, which is attached at the state level but which can be called up for active duty, is deployed instead, as they are seen as state and not federal forces. They are under the command of the governor of their state.

[The Cid]

MB, I see your point. However, there are a lot of resources being wasted on space exploration. Yes, wasted is an appropriate word for it.

Let's make it clear: WE are not going into space anytime soon. A select few people go, largely for the sake of saying "we put a man on _______."

These are some of the greatest engineers in the country. Many of them have mechanical engineering backgrounds. So yes, I do believe that some of the people working on the Space Shuttle are capable of helping us in the fuel crisis.

Put it another way: would you rather see a man walk on Mars in twenty years, or would it be better to see us kick our reliance on fossil fuel in the same timespan?

We want to go to space? Cool. Downright righteous. But it seems to me that there are more pressing matters.

Or do people honestly believe we'll accomplish more by sending a dozen or so men into space from time to time?

[Calus]

So, getting our eggs into more then one basket isn't a good idea?

[The Cid]

See though Calus, I don't hear any plans for normal people ever going anywhere but Earth.

None. No colonies, nothing. We're all staying HERE.

Put it this way: would you spend a big chunk of your budget to take a vacation to Australia, get there, set a few feet on the ground, turn around and go home?

So why is the COUNTRY doing that?

[Skuzzo]

The rest is an internal argument for Americans to sort out... but these bits...huh?

[quote="EznocDOTcom";p="539952"]And I'm not too sure if england likes us.. and is not just.. frightened of us.[/quote]
Interesting...try comparing the strength of the European Union to the American Union. I'm not sure the US would attack Europe, so this comment makes for strange reading. England plays the US for good political and economic reasons - and does it well.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="539985"]just because anti-US sentiment gets a lot of media coverage doesnt mean that country's government doesn't support us. also, england isn't a country, ass. [/quote]

Can you just explain why England isn't a country? I suggest you check up on the difference between England, Great Britian, and the United Kingdom before answering.

[Martin Blank]

England is closer to a state, in US terms. It's a part of the UK, and the terms 'nation' and 'country' are largely treated as interchangeable in the US. What he meant in his trolling was that England is not a separate nation, unlike France or Sweden or Russia.

Posted 04 Sep 2005 17:14:

[quote="The Cid";p="540405"]Let's make it clear: WE are not going into space anytime soon. A select few people go, largely for the sake of saying "we put a man on _______."[/quote]
Someone has to go first. It was a half-century or more between the Wright Flyer and successful mass use of aircraft by civilians. I'm sure that at one point, there were only a select few people who went to sea (well, onto the lake or river in all likelihood). It takes a while.

These are some of the greatest engineers in the country. Many of them have mechanical engineering backgrounds. So yes, I do believe that some of the people working on the Space Shuttle are capable of helping us in the fuel crisis.

Some, yes. But would you force them to do this work?

Put it another way: would you rather see a man walk on Mars in twenty years, or would it be better to see us kick our reliance on fossil fuel in the same timespan?

Yes, because even an all-out push would not remove our reliance on fossil fuels. It would be a decade or more before anything significant would even begin to happen, and then another 10-20 years for a conversion to get well underway.

We want to go to space? Cool. Downright righteous. But it seems to me that there are more pressing matters.

There are always matters more pressing. But sometimes we have to do the less-pressing things because focusing on the more pressing things gets depressing after a while.

Or do people honestly believe we'll accomplish more by sending a dozen or so men into space from time to time?

What about the people that shoot for speed records? Or those that attempt to write code that looks like a fire truck? What about the attempts a few years ago to sail around the world in a balloon?

[Rileyrat]

[quote="Springy";p="540358"]I saw that on the news a few weeks ago. They showed gas prices around the world in $ per litre so us canucks would understand how high it is in Europe. In some places it had reached over $3/litre. I have no idea what that is in gallons but this was when gas here was around 80cents a litre.[/quote]

Are you ready for this? 1US gallon is roughly 3.78 liters. You were paying $3.024 (roughly) per US gallon back when your price was $0.80 a liter. The countries paying $3.00 a liter comes out to be $11.34 a US gallon. The problem comes when you consider that we do't have alot of tax on our fuel. Then you have to consider that we have had a very enduring trend of out gas getting cheaper and cheaper matched against inflation. When you raise the price dramatically it puts a big hurt on alot of Americans as they have to rebudget for this new fuel price.

[workmad3]

Back to the topic of the thread. The celebrities making political statements in order to gain votes for a party. I have one question about this? How is it different to celebrities advertising goods and services in order to influence what we buy? Other than it (possibly) being off their own back rather than being paid huges sums of money to say/do/wear something as advertising, I fail to see a difference. Political parties get their advertising by getting celebrities that are part of their party to say they vote for such and such. If people go and vote based solely on this, then its about the same standard as seeing a celebrity wearing a pair of shoes for advertising and then going out and buying those exact same shoes just because they were worn by such and such.