Political Issues

War and Security (specific wars, terrorism, as well as a general view of armed forces and its theories):
In a ideal world war wouldnt be necessary but unfortunately the world isnt a ideal place. The current wars America are engaged in I would doubt the validity of but at the same time I do believe islamic extremism needs to be counter balanced though I dont for one second believe the rhetoric and stuff the american people where spoon fed in order to vote favourably for the war cause it was about money and oil. If said administration was all that concerned you would be in alot of other places and you would have enjoyed more european support. Just unfortunate most of europe didnt see eye to eye with bush but tony did because tony was a idealist and would have went in anyway. Oh yea afghanistan being the doorway to russia and major strategic importance has nothing to do with it either for the brits😛

Civil Rights (marriage, abortion, age of consent, voting, etc.):
- All adults should be entitled to vote and have all the rights of any other citizen in there nation state regardless of gender, creed, race and religion
- Women should have the right to decide on abortion though having said that care should be taken about at what stage a foetus can only be aborted at, for example being very developed would mean thats a little human and quite unconscionable
- Age of consent varies from country to country and to be honest isnt something I think about...I havent been with any minors and I lost my virginity below the age of consent in the UK anyway just like probably everyone else. I think this will be adhered to or ignored depending on the persons involved and the situation. hmm actually on proof read of this I just realised this may seem decadent and immoral to some lol. My only rebundle is I dont think its really that big of a deal between two consenting adults, and that waiting for marriage is a choice you are entitled to but so also is outside of marriage and in my own opinion the waiting for marriage thing is obsolete and quite dated and has very little standing in most liberal thinking societies bar extremist or fundamentalists of some sort which saddens me all the more when you see women spout such things for they sure as hell arent looking after women's rights.

Economic Issues (free trade/protectionism, taxes, etc.):
I would be against protectionism like most people outside the USA because it wouldnt be good for europe but before you think about european self interest you should first realise that works both ways, no country is self sufficient well not entirely and protectionism wouldnt benefit any parties involved in trade agreements, no on the contrary it would encourage *** for tat tariff wars

Immigration and Foreign Relations (international groups, diplomacy, immigration legislation, etc.):
Recently Northern Ireland has had to get used to immigration as in alot of polish coming to northern ireland and I have to say I see no problem with it..Some come work for a while and go home while some stay and in effect become northern irish citizens, UK citizens or whatever you wish to associate yourself with. Northern ireland has its own complex issues lol.

Other Issues You Find Important:

What country are you citizen of/do you live in?
Northern Ireland. UK
What political ideology do you identify yourself with?
Mostly liberal but I could probably be considered conservative or right wing on some issues. Yea quite the contradiction.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
👆 👆 👆 👆 👆 👆

Awesome! 😄

Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]Other Issues You Find Important:

On the whole a lot of bureaucracy and government spending has to be cut. NASA for example should not be so heavily funded for no apparent reason. [/B]

I agree...however, they are underfunded and have been since that jerk Nixon. Some of the world's best or precursor technologies came from the space race. We should drastically reduce spending on some programs and even dissolve others. We should then poor just a little bit of money in scientific and technology development. NASA and communications are the two I had in mind.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awesome! 😄

I agree...however, they are underfunded and have been since that jerk Nixon. Some of the world's best or precursor technologies came from the space race. We should drastically reduce spending on some programs and even dissolve others. We should then poor just a little bit of money in scientific and technology development. NASA and communications are the two I had in mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sorry but 17 billion dollars a month for the fun of thinking maybe the US will be the first to put a man on Mars is stupid. Private endeavors already are put forward, and it will be the way to go. And for the people who think I just get my political issues and opinions from Penn and Teller I say....well....yeah, but **** you people!

very few scientists at nasa have any interest in putting people on mars

I don't know of any private robotic landing missions. Virgin wants to make money off of launching people just out of the atmosphere, not explore the origins of the universe

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sorry but 17 billion dollars a month for the fun of thinking maybe the US will be the first to put a man on Mars is stupid. Private endeavors already are put forward, and it will be the way to go. And for the people who think I just get my political issues and opinions from Penn and Teller I say....well....yeah, but **** you people!

Where are you getting your numbers, bardie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget

And, no, private endeavors are absurdly far and away from being able to match even the currently underfunded NASA program. 😐 If you actually knew what you were talking about in this matter, you'd know that. 😐

Edit- I admit that I am not thinking objectively about this. My former career path selection was physics with the eventual hope of working at NASA. (They paid better than most Professorships.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where are you getting your numbers, bardie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget

And, no, private endeavors are absurdly far and away from being able to match even the currently underfunded NASA program. 😐 If you actually knew what you were talking about in this matter, you'd know that. 😐

Edit- I admit that I am not thinking objectively about this. My former career path selection was physics with the eventual hope of working at NASA. (They paid better than most Professorships.)

And insanely far away means what in your terms? What is it even that you are wishing for? Do you want a Station on Mars, what is it that NASA is close to and gets 17 billion Dollars for? Oh, and there are a few plans for certain projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#Private_orbital_spaceflight.2C_space_stations and http://www.virgingalactic.com/

And though I agree it will take some time (just like NASA will take a lot more time and a lot more money), it is pretty apparent that it is what the future will hold.

Don't get me wrong, NASA is much better than some other Government shit, but it's still part of the problem.

[edit] Oh ****, you are right, I accidentally said "per month" I meant per year. My bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...exactly there. 17 billion dollars, right?

And insanely far away means what in your terms? What is it even that you are wishing for? Do you want a Station on Mars, what is it that NASA is close to and gets 17 billion Dollars for? Oh, and there are a few plans for certain projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#Private_orbital_spaceflight.2C_space_stations and http://www.virgingalactic.com/

And though I agree it will take some time (just like NASA will take a lot more time and a lot more money), it is pretty apparent that it is what the future will hold.

Don't get me wrong, NASA is much better than some other Government shit, but it's still part of the problem.

[edit] Oh ****, you are right, I accidentally said "per month" I meant per year. My bad.

Don't have time...very busy at work.

cool beans on admitting your error. I apologize for being a smartass about it. 😄

do some researching on nasa programs...compare them to civilian programs. there's your answer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't have time...very busy at work.

cool beans on admitting your error. I apologize for being a smartass about it. 😄

do some researching on nasa programs...compare them to civilian programs. there's your answer.

Again, what is it you want NASA to do?

-exploratory robotic lander missions

-long range stellar probes

-observational satellites

I'm sure the profit motive will do some great things for space and our knowledge of such, however, private industry is not as interested in the basic, less applied side of research, where the real ground work for breakthroughs is done.

I think it is like the military in a lot of ways. Sure, there are probably parts that can be privatized, but the overall service of a space program is not to generate profit (though, I'd way rather have a research-industrial complex than a military or prison-industrial one) and honestly, unless you propose restricting access to research via financial access, I can't see how something like the Mars rover mission could possibly generate profit. The rovers are certainly not looking for stuff to mine or for habitable locations for real estate.

Originally posted by inimalist
-exploratory robotic lander missions

-long range stellar probes

-observational satellites

I'm sure the profit motive will do some great things for space and our knowledge of such, however, private industry is not as interested in the basic, less applied side of research, where the real ground work for breakthroughs is done.

I think it is like the military in a lot of ways. Sure, there are probably parts that can be privatized, but the overall service of a space program is not to generate profit (though, I'd way rather have a research-industrial complex than a military or prison-industrial one) and honestly, unless you propose restricting access to research via financial access, I can't see how something like the Mars rover mission could possibly generate profit. The rovers are certainly not looking for stuff to mine or for habitable locations for real estate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, what are the things you think the public should pay 17 billion per year for and why. What advantages will it have. And do you think that the public should be taxed to give the government power over comparatively ineffective scientific research. Why 17 billion for Bureacratized Space Exploration...why not instead for...I don't know Medical Research? Or something else?

I'm sure most tax dollars could be better spent in general, and that most government programs could be run more efficiently.

Even in things like medical research, it is only that more applied and profit motivated research that is done by private companies. I'm not trying to put it down, I'm more trying to point out that basic, non-applied research is at least as important, though the risk is it wont pan out or that any applied benefit wont be seen for years.

The advantage of having a space program vs not having one or relying on corporations for research is, mainly, that research that wouldn't otherwise be done is getting done, not to mention there is always an extra layer of potential bias in research done for profit motive. If you don't feel there is any intrinsic benefit to the human race in knowing the chemical composition of the surface dust on Mars, I'm probably not going to be able to sell it to you. However, inter-planetary commerce will depend upon that research, and while Virgin is making a fleet of 747s on steroids, they don't seem to be invested in the base level research that necessarily underpins their ability to profit from space travel.

I don't know where you get the idea that NASA does comparatively ineffective research. They are global leaders in space, climate, geographical and many other types of science. If you want my personal beliefs about what should be done with their budget, I'd say cut all manned space flights, focus on miniaturization, prevent the continued decay of the Hubble telescope and other orbiting instruments.

lol, why space over medicine, with how little of a percentage science funding makes up, why not both. I'm sure the American government doesn't need 600 new tanks this year, 599 might do.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure most tax dollars could be better spent in general, and that most government programs could be run more efficiently.

Even in things like medical research, it is only that more applied and profit motivated research that is done by private companies. I'm not trying to put it down, I'm more trying to point out that basic, non-applied research is at least as important, though the risk is it wont pan out or that any applied benefit wont be seen for years.

The advantage of having a space program vs not having one or relying on corporations for research is, mainly, that research that wouldn't otherwise be done is getting done, not to mention there is always an extra layer of potential bias in research done for profit motive. If you don't feel there is any intrinsic benefit to the human race in knowing the chemical composition of the surface dust on Mars, I'm probably not going to be able to sell it to you. However, inter-planetary commerce will depend upon that research, and while Virgin is making a fleet of 747s on steroids, they don't seem to be invested in the base level research that necessarily underpins their ability to profit from space travel.

I don't know where you get the idea that NASA does comparatively ineffective research. They are global leaders in space, climate, geographical and many other types of science. If you want my personal beliefs about what should be done with their budget, I'd say cut all manned space flights, focus on miniaturization, prevent the continued decay of the Hubble telescope and other orbiting instruments.

lol, why space over medicine, with how little of a percentage science funding makes up, why not both. I'm sure the American government doesn't need 600 new tanks this year, 599 might do.

Well, my only problem with NASA is that it is a) over funded and b) a government program. I certainly prefer it to many others, but at the time of writing it was the only I could think of that I knew is splittered all over the country.

I agree that I'd rather have the money spend on NASA's scientific research than ridiculous amounts of Military funding (I addressed that already in my post), but I don't agree with the reasoning "well at least it is not as shit as other programs".

It has done good, but we don't really know what the 500 billion it cost over the years could have achieved in private hands...

And just like private markets have their bias, so does the government. They arbitrarily choose what to spend money on, which isn't theirs. And maybe it might take longer, but once the private markets will start to care for the profit they might make (and there are many ways in inter planetary travel) it will work faster and better and safer and cheaper.

we just saw what 700b did in private hands...

I'm sure industry could have done much of what NASA did, however, I can't fathom a reason why they would have designed a Mars rover mission. It would be a hemorrhage of funds, and their shareholders would likely pursue more applied space research (so, maybe there is commercial tourism to the moon instead of the ISS) if they pursued space research at all (as 500b in the private sector can be spent on whatever the private sector wants, many things are more profitable than space travel).

On an issue like medicine, I think your argument holds a lot of water. There is money to be made curing old people's erectile dysfunction, so the private sector took care of it. I don't think there is that incentive for private industry with space, nor do I think that space will become any more profitable of an investment without government funded basic research.

Science funding is something I feel could be one of the few valid uses of government power. I'd gladly accept something that was comparable, but I honestly don't see private industry as being suited to promote open, unbiased, basic level research.

EDIT: do you think America would have put people on the moon were it not for the federal government?

Originally posted by inimalist
we just saw what 700b did in private hands...

I'm sure industry could have done much of what NASA did, however, I can't fathom a reason why they would have designed a Mars rover mission. It would be a hemorrhage of funds, and their shareholders would likely pursue more applied space research (so, maybe there is commercial tourism to the moon instead of the ISS) if they pursued space research at all (as 500b in the private sector can be spent on whatever the private sector wants, many things are more profitable than space travel).

On an issue like medicine, I think your argument holds a lot of water. There is money to be made curing old people's erectile dysfunction, so the private sector took care of it. I don't think there is that incentive for private industry with space, nor do I think that space will become any more profitable of an investment without government funded basic research.

Science funding is something I feel could be one of the few valid uses of government power. I'd gladly accept something that was comparable, but I honestly don't see private industry as being suited to promote open, unbiased, basic level research.

EDIT: do you think America would have put people on the moon were it not for the federal government?

And true, good point about 500 billion in private hands being spend however they want. Now, I love non stick pans as much as the next, but a cure for cancer or AIDS, I think I'd value more (also, might be more profitable, I'd imagine).

[edit]And, no, they probably wouldn't have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well I guess we just disagree on that point then. And it's also not so much that I don't see the use of the research they do, I very much enjoy the Science Fiction feel of NASA, I just, above that, believe that even if I think that the research is awesome and should be funded I don't think that everyone should be made to pay for it. I agree with you that if you need to necessarily spend government money on something you might as well do it on scientific research, but that gives government such a powerful position, that I am not really all that comfortable with. Yeah, private research is biased to search for profit, but government research is biased just as much and not for profit, but for random political whims.

And true, good point about 500 billion in private hands being spend however they want. Now, I love non stick pans as much as the next, but a cure for cancer or AIDS, I think I'd value more (also, might be more profitable, I'd imagine).

unfortunately AIDS is a little trickier than non-stick pans

no, I get your point. I'd love a solution where all research was paid for voluntarily, and had less bias, and was still directed toward basic research.

You mentioned a while back something about government being the size of Jupiter and it being no wonder that they are necessary for some things. This probably falls into that category. Government is sort of the only option for basic and non-profit based research, because they allocated to themselves the power to be the funding agency.

I can cite numerous example of the bias you are talking about, the current American administration's stance on climate change being one of the most salient, so I'll give you that too. I guess my point is that, given there are few, in any, other options, government is necessary at this moment for space research.

Originally posted by Bardock42
[edit]And, no, they probably wouldn't have.

EDIT: win=me

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately AIDS is a little trickier than non-stick pans

no, I get your point. I'd love a solution where all research was paid for voluntarily, and had less bias, and was still directed toward basic research.

You mentioned a while back something about government being the size of Jupiter and it being no wonder that they are necessary for some things. This probably falls into that category. Government is sort of the only option for basic and non-profit based research, because they allocated to themselves the power to be the funding agency.

I can cite numerous example of the bias you are talking about, the current American administration's stance on climate change being one of the most salient, so I'll give you that too. I guess my point is that, given there are few, in any, other options, government is necessary at this moment for space research.

EDIT: win=me

Well, I might even agree that the government is necessary for the kind of research you are talking about (I am not 100%, I don't know the specifics, or am absolutely informed on private ventures into the area), but my point is more "so what"? Lets say the research can only be done by the government, what we need to discuss then (as you obviously agree, having talked about some of the cuts you think should take place) is do we need the research and do we really want to pay the amount we have to pay (we, obviously referring to Americans, since I don't pay shit, I just profit). And on that I am not sure. I know there is research done privately into getting to the ISS, that's something I guess.

Re: "Edit:" if you count man on the moon as the ultimate pinnacle of human achievement, worthy of the rather large price tag.

Continue our political discussion here. We left off with my mentioning lobbyists and corrupt contracting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]War and Security (specific wars, terrorism, as well as a general view of armed forces and its theories):

Civil Rights (marriage, abortion, age of consent, voting, etc.):

Economic Issues (free trade/protectionism, taxes, etc.):

Immigration and Foreign Relations (international groups, diplomacy, immigration legislation, etc.):

Other Issues You Find Important:

What country are you a citizen of/do you live in?

What political ideology do you identify yourself with?

Comments: [/B]

War and Secrity: How much is too much and how much is not enough? As a nation the US sticks it's fingers into so many pies that it has to spend trillions of dollars on defense so the pie doesn't come back to bite us in the ass. As it stands in America these days, we have what can logically be called the illusion of security. This isn't to say that there aren't groups of people out there that intend us harm, it's meant to incite the notion that not everyone out there means us harm...and not everyone out there that means us harm are not partially justified in that ideology. To many americans, especially those who live in the "real America", that sounds like I'm blaming America first rather than just hating the "other side" for simply being the other side. But I think that asking someone why they hate me is a pretty significant step towards understanding why the hate me. (As long as it's not France)

Civil Rights: I doubt I have to explain my position on this topic. Abuse is abuse and many want to reconcile the difference with the reality. A lot of people want to say that gay rights are a first step onto a slippery slope where the abuse of minors, women, multiple people and animals is easily compared. This week a huge number of minorities walked into the voting booth, knowing that their rights were at one time subject to the superstitions, paranoia and hatered of another group and pulled the proverbial lever in favor of doing exactly the same to another group; a group about which they know nothing beyond the stereotypes to which they adhere most likely out of a sheer ignorance that group that likely exists in their lives. Beyond that topic, I fear that this election was not the huge step forward for African Americans that they desperately want to wish it was. If that had been the case then Obama's ethnicity would not have allowed the republicans the opportunity to make the associations they did during the campaign and this election would not be the "historic" deal it has been made out to be. I don't want to cast a negative outlook on an election that marked a significant turning point, but I am also forced to accept the reality that it is also reaffirming an old and still very real notion. But, the media is selling it way over market value.

Immigration and Foreign Relations: End this useless and totally economic-based war, bring our troops home and simply ask why they hate us. Once we do that, we can look at the situation and decide what we can do, what we should do and what we should be willing to do. Oh, and take Frau Palin of the line so that we don't have to worry that some godless Russian terrorist can sneak into our country and poison our toys and blow up congress by pulling the "What's that behind you!?" tactic

Other Issues I find important: Don't allow the oil industry to sell us green, clean technology as though it weren't the reason a solution hasn't already been found and that they aren't part of the reason we need it.

What country: America

What ideology: liberal, socialist, communist, elitist, f*gg*t who reads a book before I burn it to heat the home where I keep the guns I won't have after January.

Comments: Non-God save Emperor/Messiah Barack Obama the First and thank you to the lizard people who made this possible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sorry but 17 billion dollars a month for the fun of thinking maybe the US will be the first to put a man on Mars is stupid. Private endeavors already are put forward, and it will be the way to go.

On one hand I disagree and on another I agree. On the disagree side, I am not looking forward to renaming Mars Planet Starbucks. On the agree side, I realize that government, public spending is no less bought or sold by a corrupt political machine that will sell Terry Schaivo's remains to the highest bidder. But, at least with public funding, we're served by the illusion of common well-being and progress. Also, there is so little regulation of "private" endeavors that the betterment of everyone isn't served. But we're both familiar with our disagreement over the free, self regulating market dillusion.

War and Security: Give up on Osama, and let's not get involved in any more wars unless we're forced to. WW2 should've been the last American war.

Civil Rights: I think we're doing good; we have a black president-elect.

Immigration and Foreign Relations: I'll support one that isn't so blatantly aimed at Hispanics.

Other Issues I find important: Legalize weed.

What country: US

What ideology: The center, and I really love capitalism.

Comments: The US always needs an enemy, whether its Southern Rebels, Krauts, Japs, Commies, or Arabs. We're like a damn comicbook superhero; a new villain every week. This century, let's try to not attract any more "others".