Re: Hillary needs to quit

J. Clarke wrote:
> Dano wrote:
>> Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-7C0265.08263404042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Anim8rFSK  <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> [Obama] Wants to shut down NASA for 5 years, maintaining
>>>> only the bureaucrats, use the money to fix education, and
>>>> then start NASA right back up again without missing a beat.
>>>
>>> Good grief. Now, if he said he wanted to fire all the
>>> bureaucrats and keep the part of NASA that actually does
>>> stuff, I might be convinced to vote for him. If he said shut
>>> it down and get rid of the bureaucrats too, then, OK, he'd be
>>> consistent.
>>>
>>> But to fire all the people who actually accomplish real
>>> things, and keep all the useless paper-shuffling bureaucrats
>>> when there's not even a pretense of them having anything to
>>> do, and to have this bizarre delusion that after five years,
>>> all the people with the technical knowledge and skills
>>> would just be waiting to be called back to work, their
>>> skills unforgotten, and their equipment, looked over only by
>>> bureaucrats, working just as it was when they left it...
>>>
>>> Anyone who says anything like that is either a moron or a
>>> liar who things his audience is all morons.
>>>
>>> Please tell me Obama didn't really propose anything so mindless.
>>
>> I'm betting he didn't.  I've yet to see a cite to back up this
>> garbage.  Or even a bogus quote attributed to him.  Don't be so
>> freaking gullible.
>
> Well, if you google "Obama NASA" you'll find numerous links to
> newspaper re****ts of a New Hamp****re speech concerning his education
> plan in which he proposes to raid the NASA budget to sup****t his
> education plan--funny that he can't find any fat in the defense or
> social services budgets that make up the bulk of government spending
> and instead has to raid the budget of an agency that has always been
> chronically underfunded for the mission it was assigned.
>

I found numerous articles.  I read a few.  I don't have the time or
interest 
to read them all.  I did *not find what I responded to...the notion that
he 
was simply "maintaining only the bureaucrats".  This is the plan...to 
postpone an 18 *billion* dollar program, while "he would maintain the $500

million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and 
technology base..."

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/11/obama_wants_to.html

That's how one attributes their facts to back up one's point.  Feel free
to 
do the same.  I'm sick of these types of arguments where people try to 
discredit without evidence...now back to the issue.

Do you think we have a bottomless reserve of tax dollars?  We are nearly
in 
fiscal crisis right now...thanks mainly to this horible, immoral, probably

illegal and ridiculously costly war we can't seem to pull ourselves out
of. 
Deficit spending is already at an all time high...over 9 *trillion*
dollars. 
Education has been taking a back seeat for a long time.  Obama is showing 
some fiscal responsibility and restraint, showing exactly how he would be 
paying for his education initiative.  I don't understand how that should
get 
him lambasted for it.  If we don't improve our education system *now*, we 
will need to hire all our scientists for NASA from foriegn countries...you

now...the ones who actually teach their young people well enough to come
to 
this country and enroll at MIT and Caltech.

This is a proposal.  None of this is etched in stone BTW.  Thgis man seems

clearly able to work with others and I suppose there is a possibility to 
change the plan.  But right now, the way things are going, it seems like a

frugal and wise thing to at least consider...and shows a determination to 
find ways to accomplish goals without spending wildly...as has been going
on 
far too long.

> He doesn't say that he's going to keep the bureaucrats and stop the
> real work but one does wonder what exactly he plans on NASA doing for
> the 5 years that the budget is slashed.
>

They'll still have half a billion dollars to figure that out.  Here's a 
thought.  Find ways to make that investment pay off in other ways...maybe 
find economic partners with the private sector who might like to profit
off 
discoveries and technological improvements made by NASA in the long run.

> But he's since flip-flopped on that, so it's clear that he doesn't
> really have a policy, he's just saying anything he thinks the public
> wants to hear.
>

Oh please with the "flip-flops"!  Show me a politician who doesn't 
"flip-flop" and I'll show you an intractable fool who neither thinks or
can 
be reasoned with.  I wish Bush had "flip-flopped" yeaers ago on Iraq
myself. 
When something doesn't work, do you not try something else?  Isn't that 
flip-flopping???

> His web site (that makes you "join his campaign" before it shows any
> information) doesn't have any of this information, which suggests that
> he's trying to sweep it under the rug.  Or are you suggesting that the
> Wa****ngton Post lied?
> --

I'm suggesting ideas and proposals are just that.  An indication of the 
direction a candidate plans to take us.  I certainly don't expect every
one 
of these will come to fruition or work.  Politics and life itself are
works 
in progress.  One thing leads to another.  One cannot predict how things 
will turn out according to political platforms and plans.  If one is too 
specific *or* too general they will be slammed by opponents looking to
score 
debating points.  Please show me one presidential platform prior to a 
presidency that perfectly predicted how that administration would perform.