GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
Jerseygirl Jen

A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.

A moon colony has nothing to do with a real or imagined missile defense system. I'm in the business and while I'd love to see it happen I doubt it will at least not in 8 years, because yes, it will be expensive. What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.

WOW that's a major spin on Reagans stars wars defence system
But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?
oh wait i guess that paid for the weapons sent to Iran that Oliver North was the patsy for
by the by Russia didn't go bankrupt because of trying to make an anti star wars system it was the war in Afgan that bankrupted em
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?

SDI research. But it wasn't the mass infusion of money that you imply. It was just $5 billion/year. That's $2 billion more than cash for clunkers. A drop in the bucket. Nothing like the hundreds of billions it would take to actually implement it.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.

Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes. If New Hampshire needs a bridge, let's promise a bridge! Florida lost jobs in the space industry, so let's promise more space industry jobs!

He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?" The taxpayers you can be certain. Pretty odd talk coming from a politician who alleges to be for cutting the size of government and government spending.

Further, comparing the $5 billion/year on Star Wars spending to the $2 billion spent on cash for clunkers is really an apples to oranges comparison because you're not adjusting 1980's dollars for inflation. $5 billion was worth a LOT more back then than it'd be worth today.

[ila]

Originally Posted by GRH

...I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes...

You're right that he is pandering for votes, but that's what the majority of policticians do.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida.

Not sure what the attitude is all about but whatever. Newt has been known to have a higher than average interest in space, and many if the ideas he's proposed in Florida has been mentioned by him repeatedly long before he even started campaigning.

Originally Posted by GRH

He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?"

Who pays airlines after the aviation infrastructure had finally been put in place? Customers. Yes, it does take seed money from the government to get it started. Unfortunately the way it's been running is very inefficient with each new president wanting to play rocket scientist. But this time it's going to require a president with some interest in space to undo the damage Obama has done to our manned space program.

[TracyCoxx]

p.s. I am rather surprised by a move that Romney made. He's always struck me as someone who couldn't give a crap about space. In response to Newt's speeches on space he's said he's going to put together a team and study it. And I'm thinking, oh no, here we go again with another think tank to tell us what we all know, that Nasa should be X Y & Z but that Nasa is underfunded, but this time we're going to fund it, but then it never really gets funded and we're back to square one again.

You don't need another space commission to figure it out. The Aldridge Commission got it exactly right. They put together a plan for a space program that wasn't just about putting foot prints on the moon, or attempting to inspire kids with visions of astronauts floating around in the space station slurping up floating balls of tang. They saw the solar system as a place full of resources that could be tapped and put together a plan to build up our capabilities in space to live off the land and get it done. Obama had another commission, which concluded the Aldridge commission was right, but that it would cost more money. Unfortunately at that time Obama was done giving out trillion dollar bills, and the extra 3 billion was just too much. And I wasn't interested in Romney's commission doing the same thing over again and coming up with the same answer again while wasting another few years and more money.

Then I heard who his advisers are: Robert Crippen, Gene Cernan, and Michael Griffin. Three people... well maybe two (Robert Crippen's a great guy who was in the right place at the right time, but I'm talking about the elites) of probably around 10 who really could do this right. The best of the best. And Romney has them? He couldn't possibly know what to do with them.

[transjen]

So Mitt admits he can care less about poor people no surpise there after all he's GOP
then comes the lie he quickly states the poor have safetynets so they are fine
Excuss me but the GOP have for decades wanted and do everything they can to ripe to shreds any safenets that help the poor after all safenets that help the poor is socialism
So the poor have safetynets which he and the rest of the GOP have stated time and time agian there goal is to do away with all safety nets
Just a anoter from the GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

ps remember that an aborted baby can't grow up to become a died solider

[randolph]

The GOPers know the poor don't vote.

[randolph]

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.
Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.
In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted.
What do you think? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent? Or is this just political opinion masquerading as science?