Tendo City

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...bush_space

A step in the right direction , Well Bush did somthing good this time.

The idea of a Lunar base like off austin powers is kind of funny, It would actually be a better enviroment then the space station due to low gravity. I hope they revisit the armstrong shin dig and give those old rusty lunar scooters a try (if they still work).

also why not form a north american space agency ! The U.S would have canadian financial bonus and technology, We gave that big arm on the space shuttle and a few astronauts.

I think it's cool that they're thinking about another moon mission.

Yeah, I've gotten really interested in space lately with all the talk about going back to the moon, and those pictures from Mars are incredible. Kind of makes me wish I had become an astronomer (or astronaut) which was one of many of my childhood dream jobs.

Cool! NASA definitely needed to move past just the shuttles... I don't know if it's a good idea now, with this economy, but science is always a good thing. As long as we fund it well enough that is... but a moon base? Starting work on that is long overdue, I think. The shuttle was a good idea but it let NASA stagnate pretty badly. They also need to really work on that replacement for the shuttle...

Hopefully this will silence those silly rumors about us never going in the first place.

Those conspirousy theorist are full of crap their claims entirely have been debunked. They even claimed the Apollo 1 astronauts were assinated not the victims of a tragic accident.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

thats a interesting site and you can learn alot of science by debunking bad science.

Quote:Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

Right, those people are too stupid for words...

Holy shit, this is the greates thing ever! Words cannot express my excitement. This'll be the biggest thing any of us ever live to see; the mission to mars.

Mission to Mars...I kind of liked that movie.

Bad astronomy.com Debunked that movie pretty hard , (not that it was bad)Armageddon is worse hit for being the most scientifically inaccurate.

Like I care if they are accurate or not.

Although it's interesting, I just knew he'd do it.

Seeing about how interested Americans are in the rover and its pictures, it is obvious that Bush is saying this for political gain. What do you want when you're running for office again? You want to get the public's eye. It's exactly what he's doing.

Someone was going to say it, and he finally did. Hooray.

*likes the idea, but still hates bush*

We should send an ape to Mars first. Hmm.. let's see.. president Bush anyone?

Your face wont turn too Ice instantly if you take your space mask off, Its not like you turn to ice if you put your head in a freezer.

Red planet was given good grades for accuracy though.(Val Keilmoore)

This isn't changing my opinion on Bush, but I'll have a tough time choosing who to vote for if Dean gets chosen by the Dems because I don't like him too much either.

it is obvious that Bush is saying this for political gain.

So what you're saying is that any GOOD thing that Bush does is for publicity alone. I suppose that, by comparison, any GOOD thing a Democrat would do wouldn't be politically motivated, but out of the goodness of his heart.

Bush saves the world = that bastard, only did it for attention! He's only concerned with getting re-elected.

Dean/Clark/Clinton/Gore save the world=God bless them! Those gods amongst men, why would anyone not vote for them!

Bush and Iraq.
Do you think you can honestly make a true democracy out of a country that has three different groups of people living in it? How is that possible? Not to mention he wasted over 287 BILLION dollars on it. He's an idiot. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It's all about the oil my friend. You should try to step out of the country once in a while, Darunia... maybe even step out of the supermarket you once worked at (me too!!) but got fired for stealing 33 cents of turkey. You need to look at reality.

He should have held his focus more towards North Korea and Kim Jong. Jong is a lunatic and a half.

Back on topic.. it's a good idea.. but believe me, because it's election time, it's the reason why he's saying it now and not 3 years ago. next thing you know we're going to find Osama Bin Fuckin Laden (I agree with the Afghan mission... but Iraq? Please) and the Chimp is going to get elected again.

Oh, this doesn't change my opinion of Bush at all. For one, I'm sure he will underfund this like every other good program he has supported, starting with education. He'll talk big and not just underpreform but do so in a big way. Like usual. And he'll use the money not doing what he said he would to give more corporate kickbacks to the companies who funded his campaign. Or to weaken governmental regulations, whichever is easier at the minuite...

It really is amazing what this administration has done. It's the worst administration on the environment in decades and decades. It turned a large surplus into the biggest deficit ever in two simple tax cuts. ... the list is just so insanely long ... but I could mention also how he has a education policy vastly underfunded and specifically designed so that it's impossible to pass (over time) too...

And yes, this is a campaign thing. Just like Iraq was. I mean, sure, he also wanted the oil and the contracts to give to his buddies, but getting that boost in the polls was at least as important...

And the biggest problem is that he based it all on lies. WMD? Iraq had none. Not one. Nothing. Exactly as the UN inspectors said before the war. Making the administration look like the liars they are. Sadaam? No connections between Sadaam and 9/11. No proven connections between Sadaam and Al Quaida except for safe haven to one Al Quaida-friendly terrorist group. Mass graves? Mostly from the '80s and early '90s... when we were either giving him strong support or were turning a blind eye while he massacred his people... or sometimes, taking pictures with him, like Donald Rumsfeld's famous pic with Sadaam...

^agrees^
well said! let us join forces against Darunia.

That Clark guy looks like a good choice for president, In canada were having a election too.

Quote:Originally posted by -iLluSiON-
^agrees^
well said! let us join forces against Darunia.

*activates Goron-Weltall alliance*

Bring it on :love:

Do you think you can honestly make a true democracy out of a country that has three different groups of people living in it?

"True democracy" does not exist. A quasi-democracy will work though, as it does in America.

*Activates 650,000 Goron conscripts; signs Double-Entente with Weltall. Mobilizes Goron 1rst, 3rd and 7th armies. Orders all Goron outposts around the globe to be put on full alert.*

Any form of government in Iraq will be hard to establish. It's not that easy to establish a new form of government right after the fall of another... Even "quasi-democracy". The fact remains, there's always going to be political squabbles and fights over everything. Iraq is a place that has barely any unity within; the groups that live there have different views on life and practice different religions. We're trying to modernize a country that is full of tradition and rituals. It's going to take years for the government to be fully effective. By then, fossil fuels are going to be useless to us.

Bush = idiot
Darunia = inconsiderate asshole who declares war because he can't do anything else
Black Falcon = better than Darunia.

Woo! I want to live on the moon!

Maybe we should leave in a great exodus to the Moon , We can call ourselves the Lunar Nation! The capital is Armstrong City!
We will have to create artificial gravity somtime if its possible.

There's an Asyrian journalist who's saying that Syria is storing Iraq's WMDs in underground bases. I don't how reliable this journalist is, but that's what he said.

If its true maybe we should put saunctions on them.

Or maybe the missiles are on the moon!!

To the moon!!

*puts on goggles*

All set!

Wooo!! On the Moon Party!!

I'm there!!

Having a party on the moon would be cool!

You know it!

But we don't have space suits... or goggles...

Inside a space ship !

Yea-- uh, yeah... muh.... wha?

Quote:Any form of government in Iraq will be hard to establish. It's not that easy to establish a new form of government right after the fall of another... Even "quasi-democracy". The fact remains, there's always going to be political squabbles and fights over everything. Iraq is a place that has barely any unity within; the groups that live there have different views on life and practice different religions. We're trying to modernize a country that is full of tradition and rituals. It's going to take years for the government to be fully effective. By then, fossil fuels are going to be useless to us.

Bush = idiot
Darunia = inconsiderate asshole who declares war because he can't do anything else
Black Falcon = better than Darunia.

Doesn't take much to be better than Darunia... :)

And you're right, it'll be years until the major problems in Iraq are dealt with. It is a people with not just no history of democracy, but with no history of unity except under a strongman. That is a major problem. The main comparisons here are Germany and Japan. Germany had already had an experiment with democracy and was united. Japan was autocratic, but had a very strong tradition of following orders and when told that the militarists were bad and democracy is the new thing people followed. Iraq doesn't have either of those... it's got disunity and autocracy instead. That means that it will take a long time to do it right. Six or seven years like we were in Germany and Japan? Minimum. And then you need to factor in how the longer we are there alone the more they will hate us... that is the opposite of Germany and Japan, where it got better as it went along. That will also be a major problem. What we need to do is bring in the international community. There is no other way to do this in a way that will truly work. Bringing in the international community in a meaningful way... it means not just asking for troops, but giving international organizations power in Iraq. Staying in the current 'just us' system will not work. Iraqis will realize more and more how it's just an occupation and how we are exploiting them with fat contracts to American companies who gave lots of money to the administration. And they already see it... they see us occupying their land and not letting in the international community. I know Bush hates the rest of the world, but the Iraqis don't... they like most of the world more than they like us, for sure. We need to realize that! Sure, we can put enough troops in to lessen attacks, but they won't be stopped until we both bring in international control, and troops... not just to present more targets, but to show skeptical Iraqis that we are not being unilateral. It's an absolutely vital step and without it we will not have nearly as much success in Iraq and there'll be a lot more violence lasting longer.

Oh yeah, and we need to focus on Afghanistan! We are ignoring it! That nation desperately, desperately needs serious help, and only we can give the push that gets it... most importantly it needs peacekeepers in the capitol. But it also needs adaquate funding...

And finally we just need to realize that because of realities in Iraq it'll be dangerous for American troops for many years to come. Especially with the very slow pace of political progress being made. A lot of Iraqis won't believe us until we actually give power to an Iraqi government... but that requires a lot of time consuming steps first. There is no good solution here, but we should do what we can starting with international control.

Cutting off the french and germans just because they oppposed the war is rash, Why was canada also excluded from reconstruction maybe it is because of the little shit Chreitein and his big mouth,But Chreitien is gone now and canada has had a change of leadership that is more pro unity between the U.S.

Canada just felt that going in with the U.S was too risky and we had alot at stake so we stayed neutral. But canada would love to help Iraq for the sake of the iraqis and we dont care about profiting off of this war like so many other countries that went.
We have had years of country building experience and we would lend a hand.

Bush would rather reward big campaign donors than stupid foreign countries.

A Canadian who is so proud of his country, and he can't even spell his leader's name. Chreitien; Chreitein?

Crechien "retired" so spelling his name isn't as much of an issue anymore. His replacement has a English name, but I don't remember it... :)

Doesn't make sense to me that Darunia claims to be an all-out Athiest but is a hard-nosed Conservative assbutt. He should be a liberal. Let's convert.

Yeah, conservative atheists are rare, but Darunia fits more with conservatives... see his racism, which is normal for them...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, conservative atheists are rare, but Darunia fits more with conservatives... see his racism, which is normal for them...

All Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Farrakhan, Julian Bond, Kwesi Mfume? Affirmative action quotas? The reparations movement?

Last I heard, these major sources of racism were quite to the left of center.

Oh wait, it's against white people. That's okay. That kind of racism is acceptable... no, encouraged. Racism only exists against black people, from white conservatives. Silly me for forgetting that little detail.

:topic:

Affirmative action isn't racism. As for the rest of those people, some are worse than others... and yes some black leaders do go too far. But when there's as long a history of discrimination against their people as there is against the blacks, they have some cause to be worried about the issue...

A Black Falcon Wrote:Affirmative action isn't racism. As for the rest of those people, some are worse than others... and yes some black leaders do go too far. But when there's as long a history of discrimination against their people as there is against the blacks, they have some cause to be worried about the issue...

Which is exactly what I was saying about the left's thinking: It's okay for them to be racist. They have the right to be racist. It's okay for me to be discriminated against because other people who had roughly the same amount of melanin in their skin did the same thing long before I was even born. Those people aren't 'concerned' about the issue. Racism and segregation are perfectly simpatico with them, just so long as it's not them on the recieving end of it. And they are far more active, influential and virulent racists than any white conservative out there.

And any program that favors one person over another based on skin color is racist. That's what racism is, if you didn't know. That's what Dr. King died trying to end. His message was equality, not "some people are more equal than others".

No, supporting one group over another isn't racism when that group is clearly disadvantaged and can't be brought to a level equal with the main group unless you give it some advantages. And that's what affirmative action does.

And if you think that racism against blacks is something that only happened in the past you are insane...

alien space marine Wrote::topic:

Darunia is black.