Republican nominations - Page 372

On January 28 2012 04:36 Chaosvuistje wrote:


But wait for it... it won't be Sovie-err... whats the country we're campaigning against? Oh right, Chinese roaches. But they will be AMERICAN roaches with a great living standard and it will be RIGHTEOUS.

Sure it would boost the economy a little by having the government spend on this rediculous project. But what happens after the investment? What resources are actually on the moon that we need that would be cost-effective to return back to Earth, where the rest of the people live? I haven't heard of any atleast. And I think it would be a pretty big gamble to guess for a drilling space for resource X.
+ Show Spoiler +.

On January 28 2012 04:44 Falling wrote:
But why a moon colony? You read these old elementary science text books about dreaming about starting a moon colony and yet we're no closer to getting there. Why would this promise be any different as what is the point? The fact that there's been no manned moon landings since the 70's tells me something. There's nothing there. Or at least nothing worth spending all that money just to get there. It'd just be a giant money sink when supposedly the government is trying to cutback on spending.

On January 28 2012 05:01 zalz wrote:


Maybe when energy becomes cheaper.

Right now, you simply cannot justify the costs of shipping resources back and forth.


Well, not entirely true, you can justify it from a scientific point of view. But to pretend that there are vast fortunes waiting on the moon, no that's not true.

Mars is similar, but more exciting imo.

On January 28 2012 05:05 Hider wrote:


Well from a scientifical pov, alot of stuff is very interesting. But what is interesting or not is a subjectiv value. IMO it shouldn't be people in Washington that decided what other people are supposed to think is interesting.
If stuff really is interesting, government financing, shouldn't be nessacary. If stuff is really interesting, private people og companies would support it. If they dont support it (in a free market) it probably isn't that interesting compared to its cost.

On January 28 2012 05:15 forgottendreams wrote:


I think long-term survival is interesting but no private backing is going to come anytime soon for space colonization. Humans currently have one home that in the future could be obliterated by a nuclear winter, an asteroid strike, overpopulation or even more freak event like a supervolcanic eruption. When we see our demise coming and lack the means or permission to escape it (if we allow one or two countries a monopoly over space colonies who logically could provide shelter to only so many people, probably their own) are we going to just throw up our hands and say "Ah well, should've saw it coming".

I mean landing on the moon had absolutely no private gain, but it was a progression of humanity itself and a step towards even being able to think about space colonization.

On January 28 2012 05:19 Hider wrote:


Yeh thats the point. If peole are interested in the progression of humanity, then they will donate to the project. If no people are interest in that, the progression of humanity has no value in it self. Their is no objective value. People give things value.

On January 28 2012 05:19 Hider wrote:


Yeh thats the point. If peole are interested in the progression of humanity, then they will donate to the project. If no people are interest in that, the progression of humanity has no value in it self. Their is no objective value. People give things value.

On January 28 2012 05:41 Derez wrote:


That's a ridiculous argument.

Just look at how well private sector environmental protection is going. People don't give a shit about what happens after they die. Indivuduals and companies think short term. The spaceprogram has, in the past, been a drive for technological change at hardly any cost to the taxpayer, and has led to a substantial increase in the standard of living for pretty much everyone. It is proof that smart government spending actually works and that things have value beyond their direct application. Remember that the medium you're currently using to spread your libertarian nonsense was created by 'wasteful government spending' too, and it too has led to tremendous economical benefits.

That doesn't mean that every government program is succesful, but it does mean that governments can invest in things where the market sees no value. One of the main reasons the US is the world leader in R&D is because of the amount of money the government spends subsidizing and stimulating it.

(That said, I'm inclined to agree that a 'moon colony' without any actual purpose would be as useless as the ISS currently is.)

On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:


What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position?

On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:


Maybe because Obama is a warmonger?

On January 28 2012 04:44 Falling wrote:
But why a moon colony? You read these old elementary science text books about dreaming about starting a moon colony and yet we're no closer to getting there. Why would this promise be any different as what is the point? The fact that there's been no manned moon landings since the 70's tells me something. There's nothing there. Or at least nothing worth spending all that money just to get there. It'd just be a giant money sink when supposedly the government is trying to cutback on spending.

On January 28 2012 06:59 nam nam wrote:
It was a joke you know. ;(

On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:

because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.>