The entire conservative ideology is based around cutting the size of government. Government shouldn't be supporting people etc blah blah blah take care of yourself blah blah blah.

My post is dead on 100% accurate but you just don't like what is says. Here is what I said: you are essentially saying that the government should be responsible for employing these people. By expressing opposition to government cutting these jobs you are indirectly saying the government should be responsible for employing them. There is no other way to interpret that.

I actually agree with your sentiment but I'm refusing to let conservative hypocrisy slide these days because it is just to out of control. The Eric Cantor example posted above is another great example. When you have some consistency in your ideas, I will not come down on you so hard.

__________________
Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got blacks the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. They opposed health care reform but failed. Keep up the good work guys.

*drinks his mornin' grog and clears his throat*

hail JDJarvis!

matey, if the free market decides that R&D folks are unemployable, shouldn't they search fer other, more humble kinds 'o work?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

All Matt did was remark on existing facts. Nothing more, nothing less...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings...

I don't find a constitutional basis for NASA beyond keeping our technological edge over Russia and China. So if you can argue that robotic missions for scientific purposes give us vital expertise in a potential military space battle/race, then you could justify it. I agree its a stretch, but that at least is why NASA was first formed .... the russians were kicking our ass in space.

I actually agree with Matt 100% being a huge NASA fan myself. The dividends of space exploration are well worth the cost in my view.

__________________
Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got blacks the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. They opposed health care reform but failed. Keep up the good work guys.

I disagree with the premise that all Matt did was state a fact, and his post doesn't imply support for NASA funding.

If someone bemoans the fact that NASA cuts will lead to more unemployment, then that implies they would support the prospect of NASA not cutting jobs -- otherwise they wouldn't be bemoaning the job losses.

You are falsely attributing to me things I did not say. And then you call me a liar when I disclaim your version of my post.

We do agree on one thing - I don't care for it.

Danny, the bottom line here is that I made absolutely no direct or implied suggestion that the government is responsible for employing these people. You are dishonestly claiming I have, when I have expressly told you I have not.

What I said was Florida has a high unemployment rate and doesn't need more job losses. Nothing more, nothing less. I WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME THING IF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT WERE FROM A LARGE PRIVATE EMPLOYER.

Now, can you stop making shit up and claiming I said it? The old Danny would never have stopped so low to sling partisan shit.

Matt

Please read my post to Danny above.

I never realized we have such a thriving community of psychics here, so amazingly talented that they can know better what someone is thinking that the person themselves.

Matt

I agree with you here. I support the work that NASA does. I think there are probably many other federal programs we could cut instead.

But that's immaterial to the fact that my comment about job loss was simply because of the shit state of employment in Florida, despite what you and Disillusioned_1 imagine and falsely attribute to me.

Matt

You are a master of the obvious.

But Matt was critical of only one thing: job losses. I don't get the impression that he would prefer they come from one entity or another...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings...

So all you were essentially saying was:

Floride is going to lose jobs. That's bad. But I'm not for or against the actual topic discussed here.

I must apologize for seemingly jumping down your throat at the topic. I saw an opening to expose what I thought was a veiled drift from the usual conservative response and I exploited it into something bigger which is what I chastasize Republicans for doing all the time. It was not constructive so I'm sorry. My kid pissed in my Corn Flakes this morn and I'm a little jumpy.

I think we can all agree the news sucks.

__________________
Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got blacks the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. They opposed health care reform but failed. Keep up the good work guys.

aye Vincent me bucko, that does seem to be the position that MattinFla says he's takin' here.

when i read that, it seemed to be read differently. a bit like a protest against government withdrawin' funds that would keep folks in florida employed. 'course if MattinFla had said this, perhaps, it woulda been a bit more clear;

"I agree that government spending has to be reigned in. Its too bad that the cutting is in my state and will result in job losses, but if we conservatives are going to rail about government spending, then its a start. I commend this administration for finally introducing some fiscal sanity into the equation."

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Cutting the NASA budget is not going to solve the budgetary problems. It is like you buying a 60 inch LCD TV for $2000 and it is on sale for $19999.99. That is not much. Nor is it about the ideology of what should and should not belong in the budget.

The main problem and why everyone is not talking about is how the non discretionary spending affects the budget and the economy as a whole. Until Social Security and Medicare, along with a few other programs, the future of the budget will not look good and we will have to start cutting something like the military and national security directly.

I dont see how else to interpret this:

Implying that you are against the cuts because it will cause more unemployment. But since you said that not what you meant, then fine. Just be more clear next time.