<p>So I noticed that a lot of interesting debates ('Americans through Chinese Eyes,' and 'An Inconvenient Truth'-a film I just watched) have been buried. Rather than resurrect them, lets start a series of debates here, starting with George Bush Jr's ideas with space exploration.</p>
<p>First of all, I don't believe humans can land on Mars during the next 30 years. It's too far away (months as opposed to days with the Lunar missions) and thats assuming the shortest trip to Mars. A return would take even longer since the planets would have moved....</p>
<p>Secondly, I also don't like his idea of letting the Hubble crash into the ocean and I don't see how he intends to funnel money into his space projects. This whole, "Revive Space Exploration!" It seems like the whole cape, smoke and mirrors trick used to distract the audience from the other problems in his administration. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>I don't see any progress heading NASA's way. What with the whole Space Shuttle hype (right, we launch how many of them into space with no problems, one blows up and now we have a huge problem?...) and the fact that NASA has been losing tons of money since this administration took over.</p>
<p>And you're right, letting the Hubble die is just retarded.</p>
<p>I also don't see anything else in the near future. I see Iraq, immigration and gun control in the future (GOOD PICKS DEMOCRATS). Because we all know we solved Social Security, the Patriot Act, and education.</p>
<p>I think we should move the debate towards the upcoming election and Iraq. I "know" that this nation is going to elect a democrat, and I never thought I would say I am unhappy. Neither Obama nor Hillary should be elected. Obama has done **** and Hillary is well...full of ****. I would love to see McCain or Giulliany take the presidency, but that won't happen.</p>
<p>As for pulling out of Iraq... (the ... is my answer to that)</p>
<p>charizardpal, are you an astrophysicist? or an astronaut? or an engineer? if you are, you have reason behind what you say. if not, you have none.</p>
<p>red06: Don't hyperbolize for dramatic purposes. First of all, he has at least some kind of reason behind what he's saying; whether he's completely qualified to intricately assess space exploration policy or not I don't know, but do you think the current administration is much better on an individual basis? He has his opinions from reading other people's opinions, among other sources, I'm sure, so it's not quite as simple as "if you're not one of thee three professions, you can't speak on the issue with any authority". As an analogy, just because I'm not a professional medical ethicist doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about the stem cell debate (although my Dad is an ethicist, so maybe my opinion is more informed than most non-ethicists'...).</p>
<p>Yes, just like how you don't have to be trained in Jazz to be able to critisize a bad piece. A bad piece is a bad piece...you don't have to know how to play Jazz to remark that a peice you heard was the worse you've heard in your life.</p>
<p>Anyway, O'Reily is on the Fox News now. Man that guy annoys me-he shouts at other people, and always interrupts them and tries to talk over them. Then if they're winning the arguement he snaps, "We're out of time, good-bye!" and cuts them off! His pathos is his defense, not his reason!</p>