Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2005

The old bait and switch.  Refresh everyone's and the thousands of dead and their
grieving family members' memories about who was responsible for 9/11??  Bush
didn't *once* mention Bin Laden in his State of the Union speech.

Put down your crack pipe and think about what you're saying for a change.  
We'd have huge amounts of scientific accomplishment to show for it.  We
would have conducted enough space missions to truly justify manned
outposts on mars or the moon.    

But saddam had chemical weapons in the first gulf war and he didn't use them.  
Most idiot republicans, like yourself, consistently forget that we even
fought a first gulf war and that the enormous amounts of chemical weapons
the UN found and disposed of were never used against us.  
Furthermore, China and Russia have had miniature nukes that they could
have smuggled into this country for decades.  Should we nuke them first
to prevent that possibility?  That is the mentality that morons like
Curtis LeMay almost succeeded in using to destroy all of civilization.  

Grow up, you fool.  Stop being afraid of something you obviously don't
understand.  A low yield nuclear device would do far less damage than the
hiroshima bomb and cost many billions to develop.  Hint, there are
still people living in Hiroshima.  Saddam never would have used it
against us because (1) it would have done only tiny damage from a ground
burst, if it worked at all and (2) he needs it to defend himself against
Israel and Iran, both of which probably have nukes and hate his guts.  
All you goosestepping neo-fascist, neo-cons have done is to exploit
mindless fear and tragedy so that your cadre of  clueless, cowardly,
authoritarian right-wingers could undertake bellicose actions
unprecedented in American history.  We've now spent $1 billion hunting
for WMDs and we've come up with absolutely zip.  There was no threat of
the type you've described.  Saddam wasn't even working on restoring a
nuke program.  You're obviously just not honest enough or man enough to
admit that you were wrong and that wasted hundreds of billions of
dollars, not to mention hundreds of american lives and thousands of
casualties for nothing.

We've been through 40 years of a cold war with thousands of real ICBMs
pointed at our cities and now you want us to quake in fear about any tiny
nation that might develop a 1 kiloton nuke.  Why not take out pakistan,
which has larger nukes than that?  Iran probably has nukes and hates us,
but strangely they don't seem deadset on attacking NYC.  If you're
worried about NYC then we should have spent some of the nearly $200
billion  

Nobody asked you, moron.  

Exactly.  You had the wrong ones and the evidence shows it.  We spent
hundreds of billions on a second Iraqi war based on demonstrably false
and manipulated intelligence reports.  Now we have nothing but a quagmire
and a mess to show for it.  We could have financed a huge number of grand
space projects for the some we frittered away here.  For that matter, for
the two trillion in tax bribes george bush stole from the public
treasury, we could have afforded a mars mission and a moon base.  Now we
can't even afford to pay for bush "no child left behind" program.  

Sure it does.  McCain is still a republican and he has agreed with the
administration on many things.  

He has supported Bush on a great many things.  I'm aware that he ran
against Bush, however.  I guess you thought that was some kind of secret.  

How about Paul O'Neill?  How about Michael "weiner boy" Savage who has
said that he would vote against Bush?  Many republican, from jeffords on
up have been repelled by Bush's heavy-handed, fiscally irresponsible
policies.    

Spare me the Ronald Reagan impersonation, you f.cking idiot.  The
president signed his name on every one of those spending bills to make
them law and could have vetoed them instead.  Therefore, bush "voted" for
those bills and spent that money just as much as any representative did.  
In fact, Bush's vote counts for as much of 2/3rds of both houses.  Bush
proposed the budget, signed the bill and carried out the bill.  Therefore
he definitely spent that money.

Try improving your understanding of american government beyond the third
grade level.  Then you might not be a moronic republican any more.  

Like nabbing Osama first. More and more analysts, like *real soldier*
(not chickenhawk) Joseph Galloway (We Were Soldiers Once..) are saying
that. We didn't find WMD or advanced programs anyway, so the only
benefit was the altruistic, Wilsonian *Democrat* policy of helpful
nation building.

But they are loyalists still in his employ. Are you naive? What
matters is that independent conservatives like Buchanan are outraged
at everything from nation building to extreme spending to immigration
capitulation, and libertarians are outraged at government intrusion,
suppression of private affairs (including denying legal pot even to
the dying), etc. No one except neo-cons and corporate wheeler-dealers
(who still get away with murder since Bush cuts the labor, FDA, SEC
enforcement, etc.) have any rational self-interest reason to vote for
this guy and his cabal, but he smirks his way into so many naive
citizen's hearts. I hope it ends November 2004.
 

Technically, yes, but: Now, presidents have so much power, and their
congressional allies work with them so closely as party hacks, that
presidents can get their proposals effected. Why does the SOTU address
bristle with spending initiatives? But since both houses are
controlled by Republicans too, you can't hide behind that to cover for
the party anyway.

Who do you mean, McCain the "turncoat" McCain the "traitor" is that the man
you mean??? PS; Learn to spell, in english!!!!!!

--
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(Pop, Pop Pop, or Ed) whichever is appropriate.---

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Of course, so
does falling down a flight of stairs.