Trumped

[UndertheHalo]

It’s definitely an effective way to demonstrate a saline nasal sprays effect via art. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[the dude abides]

I'm partial to one of these logos:

 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Uranas

bottom left logo

[Rico]

 

[Spirit]

It's always amusing when the Red and Blue teams trade playbooks.  Now the Blue team is anti investing in science.

 

 

[arch stanton]

7 minutes ago, Geoff said:

It's always amusing when the Red and Blue teams trade playbooks.  Now the Blue team is anti investing in science.

 

 

No. They are anti investing in science beaurocracy which seems even less blue

[Spirit]

6 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

No. They are anti investing in science beaurocracy which seems even less blue

 

Is that the story they're going with?

 

 

[Thomas]

31 minutes ago, Rico said:

 

I wonder if he could even name three things AFSPC does?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

It's always amusing when the Red and Blue teams trade playbooks.  Now the Blue team is anti investing in science.

 

 

This proposal is all about increasing military spending. As proposed, it would be under the Department of Defense. I could see the Republicans completely defunding NASA once it is in place.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

I wonder if he could even name three things AFSPC does?

I can't name three of the acronyms.

[Thomas]

8 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

This proposal is all about increasing military spending. As proposed, it would be under the Department of Defense. I could see the Republicans completely defunding NASA once it is in place.

I get Trump stole this is as an apparently brilliant noise maker. Especially as people in this country are generally unfamiliar with this country's existing missions in space. However this idea predates him by years. Trump however hijacked the argument and made it sound like a joke. 

There has been considerable dissatisfaction in Congress with the USAF's leadership of the space program which has been going through numerous leadership reorganizations. Including yanking Cyber from AFSPC earlier this year. As I mentioned earlier regarding the A-10, the USAF tends to be laser focused on specific missions to the detriment of others. This has been a constant criticism of the branch. There is concern that compared to potential adversaries, the USAF hasn't done enough to stay in the lead. There was an excellent 60 minutes piece on this a few years ago that is unfortunately now behind a paywall.

Given the already incredible importance of the existing and future missions, it's fair for there to be concerns. That it's a mistake to have this mission led by leaders who consider space their third or fourth highest priority. It's also fair to question whether this administration and DoD plan to fix this is a good one. But it isn't fair to simply call this a cash grab. There are legitimate concerns and great importance of getting it right.

You also can't conflate NASA with the existing military space program. They are already quite distinct. Congress could easily kill NASA funding without affecting the military program. Also to be fair to Republicans, NASA saw its biggest cuts from B. Clinton and Obama. 

[mtangelsfan]

Wait, are you saying the media talking points may be a tad misleading?

 

Hmmmmmmmmm

[arch stanton]

It's no secret to anyone who's been involved that the Air Force is owned and operated by fighter pilots. It'll be tough to break their stranglehold but maybe if they do it won't be necessary to break up the whole band

[Thomas]

11 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

It's no secret to anyone who's been involved that the Air Force is owned and operated by fighter pilots. It'll be tough to break their stranglehold but maybe if they do it won't be necessary to break up the whole band

Absolutely but sometimes it takes a good wake up call for one to reassess priorities.

[Thomas]

8 hours ago, Blarg said:

I can't name three of the acronyms.

There are times at work I swear people are just making up acronyms.

[Spirit]

9 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

This proposal is all about increasing military spending. As proposed, it would be under the Department of Defense. I could see the Republicans completely defunding NASA once it is in place.

 

No advancements in science have ever come out of the Dept. of Defense?  Interesting.

 

[gotbeer]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

I get Trump stole this is as an apparently brilliant noise maker. Especially as people in this country are generally unfamiliar with this country's existing missions in space. However this idea predates him by years. Trump however hijacked the argument and made it sound like a joke. 

There has been considerable dissatisfaction in Congress with the USAF's leadership of the space program which has been going through numerous leadership reorganizations. Including yanking Cyber from AFSPC earlier this year. As I mentioned earlier regarding the A-10, the USAF tends to be laser focused on specific missions to the detriment of others. This has been a constant criticism of the branch. There is concern that compared to potential adversaries, the USAF hasn't done enough to stay in the lead. There was an excellent 60 minutes piece on this a few years ago that is unfortunately now behind a paywall.

Given the already incredible importance of the existing and future missions, it's fair for there to be concerns. That it's a mistake to have this mission led by leaders who consider space their third or fourth highest priority. It's also fair to question whether this administration and DoD plan to fix this is a good one. But it isn't fair to simply call this a cash grab. There are legitimate concerns and great importance of getting it right.

You also can't conflate NASA with the existing military space program. They are already quite distinct. Congress could easily kill NASA funding without affecting the military program. Also to be fair to Republicans, NASA saw its biggest cuts from B. Clinton and Obama. 

Doesn't this go back to Star Wars, and the huge vulnerability that North Korea exposed.  An ICBM long range launched from Korea at the US would mean we could destroy it by either destroying it on takeoff, which unless you know the exact location and time is near impossible.  Or as it's about to hit the target, which the US military also said is very difficult.  I think they said 1 in 10 shot that it would be successful.  ICBM's due to the altitude they get to, is impossible to hit midflight currently, because all our deterrents are land based.  

I think Trump has it right on this one, but because it's from Trump, it's already hated by the left automatically.  This is one vulnerability we need to shut down.  As short round showed that long range missle capability is a big vulnerability to the US since attacks of that nature, due to distance has to go into space where it becomes untouchable.  

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Doesn't this go back to Star Wars, and the huge vulnerability that North Korea exposed.  An ICBM long range launched from Korea at the US would mean we could destroy it by either destroying it on takeoff, which unless you know the exact location and time is near impossible.  Or as it's about to hit the target, which the US military also said is very difficult.  I think they said 1 in 10 shot that it would be successful.  ICBM's due to the altitude they get to, is impossible to hit midflight currently, because all our deterrents are land based.  

I think Trump has it right on this one, but because it's from Trump, it's already hated by the left automatically.  This is one vulnerability we need to shut down.  As short round showed that long range missle capability is a big vulnerability to the US since attacks of that nature, due to distance has to go into space where it becomes untouchable.  

Space Force isn't about whether or not we work toward deterrents. It's about whether we create a whole new branch of the military to deal with it

[Thomas]

29 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Doesn't this go back to Star Wars, and the huge vulnerability that North Korea exposed.  

You could argue this goes back to the argument between USAF and USN about whose missles would be loaded with nukes and later people.

24 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Space Force isn't about whether or not we work toward deterrents. It's about whether we create a whole new branch of the military to deal with it

But this is quite right.

[Tank]

On 8/8/2018 at 9:39 PM, MuellerTime said:

You dipshits voted for a reality TV star who pays for sex with adult film stars. 

so he's been on tv and has sex with porn stars? sounds like the life goals of many people here.

[Lou]

LOL

[tdawg87]

45 minutes ago, yvangelfan said:

I have drops of Jupiter in my hair..

We have a new contender for Gayest Post Ever.

[Rico]

2 hours ago, yvangelfan said:

We won.

And America lost. 

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, yvangelfan said:

So because Clinton & O cut NASA's budget you assume Repubs will, too?

No, I was literally countering VHF's assertion that Republicans more likely than Democrats to do so by pointing out that history didn't bear that out. Had someone in my family laid off from NASA during Obama's first term so I certainly heard all about it.

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, yvangelfan said:

You're right. I misread your post. It was long.

Don't be too hard on yourself. Reading is hard.