Originally posted by Robtard
You've gone full retard.
It's been more than 10 years of me arguing about this, including pages and pages with inimalist, and you still can't remember that I've never supported the bullshit "climate change" agenda?
Amazing! Aren't you supposed to have a legendary memory about this?
Also, before you try to strawman me, not supporting the woke climate change money grab political agenda is not the same thing as being a climate change denier. The best you can do to my position is point out when I question the pro-climate change science when it is too extreme or of terrible quality.
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems Trumpers don't know what NASA stands for, it's not just "space".
Love it. When someone disagrees with you they are "Trumpers".
Originally posted by Robtard
HYG, NASA stands for: The National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAeronautics is the science or art involved with the study, design, and manufacturing of air flight–capable machines, and the techniques of operating aircraft and rockets within the atmosphere -snip
So you've proved yourself that NASA is not the right agency for combating climate change?
They're dedicated to research involving space and aircraft not looking into alternative sources of energy or improving fuel burning ones. They can and do research the change in climate/atmosphere, but turning them into a "climate change fighting machine" is a terrible idea. That's well outside their purview.
Originally posted by Wonder Man"Put your hand on the Bible and promise to tell the truth so help you god"
Historically 2 or more people choose to talk about God is what the Presidency and Vice Presidency stand for.
Err, can I put my hand on a Winnie the Pooh book and swear to tell the truth so help me piglet?"
Originally posted by Raptor22
"WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he supports drawing down troops in the Middle East but if elected president would keep a small force there to prevent extremists from posing a threat to the United States and its allies.""He said the force in Afghanistan will drop from about 8,600 to 4,500 by November, as President Trump seeks to fulfill a key campaign promise to end “endless wars.”
“I think we need special ops capacity to coordinate with our allies,” Biden said, adding there should be a maximum of “1,500 to 2,000” on the ground, a smaller force that what he would likely inherit from Trump.
"However, Biden said the military should not meddle in the political dynamics of the countries where they operate. He said U.S. forces must be able to coordinate with allies to train and lead to “take out terrorist groups who are going to continue to emerge.”
“I don’t think [budget cuts] are inevitable, but we need priorities in the budget,” Biden said."
"Biden said, however, that the Defense Department desperately needs to innovate in emerging technology such as beefing up its cyberwarfare capabilities and unmanned aircraft."
“We have to focus more on unmanned capacity, cyber and IT, in a very modern world that is changing rapidly,” Biden said. “I’ve met with a number of my advisors and some have suggested in certain areas the budget is going to have to be increased.”
"He has vowed to better equip the National Guard, which often trains and deploys with outdated equipment"
Which part is the bad part?
Reducing the number of troops in the middle east?
Keeping a small force to help prevent threats to the country?
Or prioritising parts of the defense budget towards more modern technologies and equipment?
Maybe you missed the part where he’s wasting money that could be spent on domestic needs instead of a 2 decade war that has killed 750K+ of people for a non existent threat. But Biden like Trump has no interest in gutting our horrendously bloated military budget
I don’t get that joke. Can you, or someone elaborate?
Originally posted by ares834
Love it. When someone disagrees with you they are "Trumpers".So you've proved yourself that NASA is not the right agency for combating climate change?
They're dedicated to research involving space and aircraft not looking into alternative sources of energy or improving fuel burning ones. They can and do research the change in climate/atmosphere, but turning them into a "climate change fighting machine" is a terrible idea. That's well outside their purview.
.............. Okay, a few things.
Rockets need fuel which may or may not harm the environment. Space crafts can access the world at an efficient rate.... That's why we have satellites. It's downright necessary for NASA to look after the environment for their own sake, let alone all humans. You people are stupid!
Originally posted by Blakemore
.............. Okay, a few things.Rockets need fuel which may or may not harm the environment. Space crafts can access the world at an efficient rate.... That's why we have satellites. It's downright necessary for NASA to look after the environment for their own sake, let alone all humans. You people are stupid!
^This is why parents need to be extra careful not to drop newborns on their heads.