Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[oggsmash]

I remember old Drumpf had asked NASA, when he started, if they could do a manned lunar flyby by late 2018. They said no. That was two years he gave them. Of course, it's been another two years since. Four years in all. By contrast, consider what the US achieved from JFK's speech in May 1961 to May 1965. Let's not speak of 1965-69. Ahem.

Fifty years on, the US is unable to do what it did fifty years ago. It's like the contrast between Afghanistan and Vietnam - it takes you longer and costs you more money to lose a war than it used to.

It's sad, really.

Well, thats because those 200 dollar kinetic impact wood fastener drivers the government buys from their bestest friend contractors need long projects so that you can buy more than one of them.

[Mistwell]

There is no reason for NASA to be involved in 'Muslim outreach'. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only reason to implement such imbecilic 'duhversity' systems is to infect and cannibalize the organization until it is nothing more than a shell of its former self.

Non sequitur. You're not even referring to anything Biden said. That Muslim Outreach thing was not even this year for fuck's sake! We're talking about the claim that Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected to President. This Muslim Outreach bullshit has nothing to do with that.

Bitching about how 'oh well that's not scrapping' is pointless semantics, and you know it, because I can't imagine a reason otherwise for you to plant your flag on this hill. If this status quo persists, NASA will no longer exist as a force for space exploration and development. It'll limp along for a while, continuing its mission of 'duhversity' until some bean counter with more sense than you puts it out of its misery.

So why don't you just get back to slobbering Biden's knob like a good little bitch? It's all you're good at.

Show me where Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected to the Presidency. Stop spinning bullshit and show me where Biden made a promise to scrap NASA if elected. This should be super simple. It should be a sentence you can find to quote Biden where he says something along the lines of "If elected, I will end NASA." Or even something vaguely similar to that. Not "I will change some of it's priorities" show me a PROMISE to SCRAP NASA in the FUTURE (as in "If elected").

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/jwtwvm/sorry_steve_carrell_biden_pressured_to_scrap/
links to: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/18/joe-biden-pressured-scrap-space-force/
Just in case you forgot what a link is...
I've also read somewhere that the same people want NASA scrapped as well. So... resume with your incoherent rant please. It makes me laugh! (And heavens knows we all need a good laugh!)

Space Force is not NASA. Like not figuratively. It's literally not NASA.

SHOW ME WHERE BIDEN PROMISED TO SCRAP NASA IF ELECTED.

Nothing incoherent about that. Noting ranty. He lied, and you guys are lying to try and deflect from him being held accountable for his lie. Which has ramifications for the rest of your political posts - because now we know you will lie to protect your tribe.

[Mistwell]

There is no reason for NASA to be involved in 'Muslim outreach'. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only reason to implement such imbecilic 'duhversity' systems is to infect and cannibalize the organization until it is nothing more than a shell of its former self.

Non sequitur. You're not even referring to anything Biden said. That Muslim Outreach thing was not even this year for fuck's sake! We're talking about the claim that Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected to President. This Muslim Outreach bullshit has nothing to do with that.

Bitching about how 'oh well that's not scrapping' is pointless semantics, and you know it, because I can't imagine a reason otherwise for you to plant your flag on this hill. If this status quo persists, NASA will no longer exist as a force for space exploration and development. It'll limp along for a while, continuing its mission of 'duhversity' until some bean counter with more sense than you puts it out of its misery.

So why don't you just get back to slobbering Biden's knob like a good little bitch? It's all you're good at.

Show me where Biden promised to scrap NASA if elected to the Presidency. Stop spinning bullshit and show me where Biden made a promise to scrap NASA if elected. This should be super simple. It should be a sentence you can find to quote Biden where he says something along the lines of "If elected, I will end NASA." Or even something vaguely similar to that. Not "I will change some of it's priorities" show me a PROMISE to SCRAP NASA in the FUTURE (as in "If elected").

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/jwtwvm/sorry_steve_carrell_biden_pressured_to_scrap/
links to: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/18/joe-biden-pressured-scrap-space-force/
Just in case you forgot what a link is...
I've also read somewhere that the same people want NASA scrapped as well. So... resume with your incoherent rant please. It makes me laugh! (And heavens knows we all need a good laugh!)

He's flailing and desperately trying to narrow the scope down so he can declare victory.

I wonder if it's dawned on him that it's the results I give a shit about, not the declarations or intentions.

What "narrow"? I've never said or implied, from the very first time the claim was made, anything other than repeating the clam and demanding you guys provide proof to back up the claim. You guys keep posting bullshit which isn't about Biden promising to scrap NASA if elected, I keep pointing out you're posting shit that isn't that, and you keep pretending like the claim was somehow more broad than what was said.

Maybe you wish he had said something different than what he said? Maybe you wish he said "Biden will reduce NASA's budget" or wish he had said "Biden will change NASA's priorities" but that's not what he said. That's just you guys hoping to broaden his claim as if we didn't all see what he said.

[DocJones]

Every year, thousands die from the normal flu. Question: Why is it only now that we are wearing masks? Wasn't the lives of millions of people over the last 100 years important?

I was in the hospital 18 months ago for 10 days.  The only time I saw anyone wear a mask was in an operating room. 
And the only reason they wore them was NOT because of viruses, but because bodily fluids frequently splatter about.

[Pat]

SHOW ME WHERE BIDEN PROMISED TO SCRAP NASA IF ELECTED.

You're technically correct. Biden doesn't appear to ever explicitly said he'd scrap NASA. Or even implied it, for that matter.

The other posters like Ghostmaker and consolcwby are correct in the more general sense that there are a lot of things Biden has said or implied that don't seem promising for the future of space development under a Biden administration, including NASA but also extending to other areas like the Space Force.

You're all wrong because you're all refusing to acknowledge what the other side has said, and pretending there's this great dispute when you're not even contradicting each other.

[Ghostmaker]

SHOW ME WHERE BIDEN PROMISED TO SCRAP NASA IF ELECTED.

You're technically correct. Biden doesn't appear to ever explicitly said he'd scrap NASA. Or even implied it, for that matter.

The other posters like Ghostmaker and consolcwby are correct in the more general sense that there are a lot of things Biden has said or implied that don't seem promising for the future of space development under a Biden administration, including NASA but also extending to other areas like the Space Force.

You're all wrong because you're all refusing to acknowledge what the other side has said, and pretending there's this great dispute when you're not even contradicting each other.

My point has been that Mistwell fixates on exact words while being completely unwilling to admit that there might be some truth to the complaints.

Which is very typical for leftists.

[Pat]

My point has been that Mistwell fixates on exact words while being completely unwilling to admit that there might be some truth to the complaints.

Which is very typical for leftists.

It's very typical of everyone. Mistwell said one thing, you're pretending he said other things. That basically stalls a conversation. The best approach is to admit that Mistwell is correct on that point, and then expand the discussion to the other related points. That closes off that one point, and allows the conversation to move to broader topics. But if you don't do that, then it'll keep coming back to that one point.

[VisionStorm]

You guys are missing the bigger picture...

After Biden is done grinding whatever is left of the economy to the ground with a hundred more days of was mask-wearing suffocation and society reverts to the Dark Ages he won't need to scrap NASA because the country will be so incapable of funding a space program, the problem will sort itself out. 

[jhkim]

I'd think the best measure would be the verifiable results of what happened to NASA under the Obama-Biden administration. Not select quotes of what some Obama official said, but the actual results. I wasn't actually sure about this, so I looked up some out of curiosity.

https://www.space.com/35394-president-obama-spaceflight-exploration-legacy.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Looks like there's some criticism of scrapping plans of more Moon missions, but there was also development of the HLV and accelerated plans to get to asteroids and Mars. The NASA budget rose in 2010, but did shrink from 2012 to 2014, and then grew again in the last two years. The budget did grow under Trump, so I'll buy that Trump was better for NASA in that sense -- but that is not at all the same as saying Biden would scrap the whole thing.

There's a lot of -plans-, and budgetary fun. But how many launches? How many new footprints, how many new satellites and probes?

The budget in general isn't a good metric to judge by. If they pour the money into stupid shit, it doesn't make any difference.

But number of launches has much the same problem, it seems to me. Just launching a bunch of stupid shit doesn't make any difference. What one really wants to measure is the amount of good science and engineering, but that's a subjective judgement - not an easily-compared metric.

There is one reason why budget might be considered a good proxy. While there is a politically-appointed head, there is a low turnover rate at NASA (under 4% annually). So most of the people actually doing stuff have been the same. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on the view.

I'm hesitant to make much opinions about NASA under either administration, because nowadays, the work is very specialized. It's not just about the race to achieve a given metric, like landing on the Moon. It's about building infrastructure and doing research. Most of the public won't understand the significance of a lot of that work. It seems to me that Obama's strategy for NASA has been well-received by Elon Musk, and people seem well impressed by SpaceX's work. I also note that George W. Bush's head of NASA had praise for NASA under Obama. In 2015, he wrote:

Current U.S. Space Policy represents a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to meeting our deep-space exploration needs. Continued development of the SLS allows NASA the capability to focus on a variety of missions needed to explore space, advance our knowledge of our solar system, learn more about the history of our own planet, and inspire future generations.

As we reflect upon, and celebrate, both the first human lunar landing 46 years ago and the more recent successful Orion flight test, it is important to focus on the path forward for human space exploration. That path is best followed by developing the fully capable version of the SLS.

Source: https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/former_top_nasa_administrators.html

At the same time, there has also been praise for NASA under Trump, like this:

https://www.space.com/39055-trump-space-policy-moon-return-reactions.html

In short, it's hard to tell which is better - but that suggests to me that the difference hasn't been that big.

[Ghostmaker]

My point has been that Mistwell fixates on exact words while being completely unwilling to admit that there might be some truth to the complaints.

Which is very typical for leftists.

It's very typical of everyone. Mistwell said one thing, you're pretending he said other things. That basically stalls a conversation. The best approach is to admit that Mistwell is correct on that point, and then expand the discussion to the other related points. That closes off that one point, and allows the conversation to move to broader topics. But if you don't do that, then it'll keep coming back to that one point.

Not true. My point has been that Mistwell is not honest enough to admit that the left (through its sockpuppet, Sleepy Joe) is not going to do space exploration any favors. The whining about 'shutting down/not shutting down NASA' is a smokescreen.

Meanwhile, Mistwell is completely unwilling to admit that yes, the left is chasing identity politics to appease focus groups while forgetting what NASA's actual job is supposed to be.

But then, you're right about inability to reach common ground. Constrained versus unconstrained vision.

[Pat]

Not true. My point has been that Mistwell is not honest enough to admit that the left (through its sockpuppet, Sleepy Joe) is not going to do space exploration any favors. The whining about 'shutting down/not shutting down NASA' is a smokescreen.

Meanwhile, Mistwell is completely unwilling to admit that yes, the left is chasing identity politics to appease focus groups while forgetting what NASA's actual job is supposed to be.

But then, you're right about inability to reach common ground. Constrained versus unconstrained vision.

By that standard, you're the one in the wrong, because you're not being honest enough to admit that Mistwell is correct that Biden never said he'd scrap NASA. Instead, you've changed the topic to how Biden would be bad for space exploration in general. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with moving the discussion to broader issues. But you can't legitimately say someone is wrong when you haven't addressed what they actually said.

To state it in more general terms, if somebody says A, and you reply that that they're wrong, but only refute B, the conversation is always going to end up in an endless loop because they'll keep insisting (correctly) that you haven't refuted A, while you keep providing examples that refute B. It's a lot more useful to say they're right about A, but that you think B is a more important issue, and you want to talk about that. That doesn't create an endless loop, so you might get a useful reply.

[Ghostmaker]

Not true. My point has been that Mistwell is not honest enough to admit that the left (through its sockpuppet, Sleepy Joe) is not going to do space exploration any favors. The whining about 'shutting down/not shutting down NASA' is a smokescreen.

Meanwhile, Mistwell is completely unwilling to admit that yes, the left is chasing identity politics to appease focus groups while forgetting what NASA's actual job is supposed to be.

But then, you're right about inability to reach common ground. Constrained versus unconstrained vision.

By that standard, you're the one in the wrong, because you're not being honest enough to admit that Mistwell is correct that Biden never said he'd scrap NASA. Instead, you've changed the topic to how Biden would be bad for space exploration in general. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with moving the discussion to broader issues. But you can't legitimately say someone is wrong when you haven't addressed what they actually said.

To state it in more general terms, if somebody says A, and you reply that that they're wrong, but only refute B, the conversation is always going to end up in an endless loop because they'll keep insisting (correctly) that you haven't refuted A, while you keep providing examples that refute B. It's a lot more useful to say they're right about A, but that you think B is a more important issue, and you want to talk about that. That doesn't create an endless loop, so you might get a useful reply.

Really? So because I point out an inconvenient truth, this is me being 'dishonest'?

My point has been that the whole argument over 'Biden's going to shut down NASA' is pointless because NASA is already infested with leftist idpol idiocy. And that the damage is already done. Biden won't need to shut it down because it's not going to be doing space exploration.

I can't tell if you're just moving things around because you genuinely think this kind of semantics is important, or you're just as dishonest.

Maybe you'll be happier when the U.S. is a shithole. You're certainly doing your part for that.

[HappyDaze]

Not true. My point has been that Mistwell is not honest enough to admit that the left (through its sockpuppet, Sleepy Joe) is not going to do space exploration any favors. The whining about 'shutting down/not shutting down NASA' is a smokescreen.

Meanwhile, Mistwell is completely unwilling to admit that yes, the left is chasing identity politics to appease focus groups while forgetting what NASA's actual job is supposed to be.

But then, you're right about inability to reach common ground. Constrained versus unconstrained vision.

By that standard, you're the one in the wrong, because you're not being honest enough to admit that Mistwell is correct that Biden never said he'd scrap NASA. Instead, you've changed the topic to how Biden would be bad for space exploration in general. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with moving the discussion to broader issues. But you can't legitimately say someone is wrong when you haven't addressed what they actually said.

To state it in more general terms, if somebody says A, and you reply that that they're wrong, but only refute B, the conversation is always going to end up in an endless loop because they'll keep insisting (correctly) that you haven't refuted A, while you keep providing examples that refute B. It's a lot more useful to say they're right about A, but that you think B is a more important issue, and you want to talk about that. That doesn't create an endless loop, so you might get a useful reply.

Really? So because I point out an inconvenient truth, this is me being 'dishonest'?

My point has been that the whole argument over 'Biden's going to shut down NASA' is pointless because NASA is already infested with leftist idpol idiocy. And that the damage is already done. Biden won't need to shut it down because it's not going to be doing space exploration.

I can't tell if you're just moving things around because you genuinely think this kind of semantics is important, or you're just as dishonest.

Maybe you'll be happier when the U.S. is a shithole. You're certainly doing your part for that.

Damn, you sure do like to call others dishonest while being completely blind to your own dishonesty. Face it Ghosty, you"re a sad  lying liar that lies so much that you can't even tell what's the truth anymore.

[Ghostmaker]

Stay in your homes, proles.

Meanwhile, Garcetti goes out of his way to wreck the local economy while letting his Hollywood buddies play all they want.

As much as I want to grind these LA idiots' noses in their own poop (they elected this piece of trash), I can't help but feel some sympathy here.

[Shasarak]

Damn, you sure do like to call others dishonest while being completely blind to your own dishonesty. Face it Ghosty, you"re a sad  lying liar that lies so much that you can't even tell what's the truth anymore.

Come on, it is not Ghostmakers fault.  It was Martin Luther!