I found that statement kinda' interesting.

What do you consider "sustainable"?

100 years?

1,000?

100,000 years; is that "sustainable?

Humans have been around for a while. Would you consider the length of time that humans have been on this planet represents a period of time which would line up with "sustainable"? How much longer do we need to be here to satisfy the requirements of "sustainable"?

What are those requirements, anyway?

The problem with your point is that "sustainable" is both vague and immeasurable.

Oh, and by the way, you can bet your last dollar that, if there is other life out there, they think they're the center of the universe, too...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Not to nitpick, but Tang wasn't a product of NASA. Tang has been around since 1957 and NASA just thought it was a good drink for them to have. General Foods came out with the stuff.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Learn somethin' new every day.

Still... velcro...

Nomsain'??

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Wellll, actually.

Nope. Trust me on this.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Huh... I'd always heard otherwise.

Now this stuff; THIS stuff can't be argued with:

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Trust me. Magazine fact-checkers are a VERY picky lot, so I have to be right the first time.Bingo! They sell that stuff in the gift shop at the Air and Space Museum.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

An opinion can't be "correct" because it's an opinion.Thanks, but I think I'd rather have the money used to fund the program.And I understand that you aren't going to provide any rational argument (and no, "you can drink Tang" is not one) due to an inability to do so or perhaps a much more serious malfunction. So why are you still replying?What impact does your posting here have? Other than to troll, I mean.Why? I have been arguing the topic for quite a while, and rationally, too. You have been mostly trolling.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

So by asking you to substantiate why you think something is the case, I am being ignorant? Should I argue for everyone on the forum, too?So only the government can organize very bright people together?Then maybe the government needs to stop taxing private business to death.Yeah, you'd provide me with those, for the cost of that titanium AND THE COST OF BUYING THOSE THINGS! It's not like I get free cell phones and GPS navigation systems from the government everyone once in a while.Why do you assume those could not have been discovered in a more efficient manner? Maybe if you didn't tax those "very bright minds" and then give then back some of their money in exchange for work, they could be doing the same or better in a private firm. Are you saying that the most efficient way to discover smoke detectors and microwave ovens is to send a man to the moon while you're at it?Really? Do they require a special resource found only in space and on the moon?It's would be an interesting read, but hardly worth what was spend on the space program.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I honestly don't believe that's why you're ignorant...

No, you get them from Mom and Dad...

This will likely be difficult for you to digest, but people who are a fuck of a lot smarter than you determined that...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

And once again, Steve shows that he couldn't post a rational argument to save his life, and instead continues to waste time on someone he thinks is not significant enough to waste time on.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

And once again, you don't take issue with the facts in my post, that being that someone else, who's a lot smarter than you, made the determinations that you now disagree with.

Slon, I can accept that you don't think we should've gone to the moon. Why are you unable to accept the fact that I think we should've?

It's wildly immature to want to continue arguing when the argument, really, is moot...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Why do you think they chose it for its effectiveness? They could just as well have chosen it because it was the most popular among stupid American voters, because it could easily be promoted by politicians or perhaps because it would earn the researchers the most money.Why do you assume I am unable to or haven't accepted that? Knowing what your opinion is doesn't stop someone from arguing his own.So stop arguing with me. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. What do you think about the maturity of arguing in a thread and simultaneously saying there is no point in continuing the argument? I think it's childish. What about you?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I have no idea. Perhaps you could write to NASA to get answers.

By the way, American voters don't dictate policy at NASA...

Of course not, but it still makes you look silly...

Since the obvious is so often lost on you, I'll let you in on it: I'm no longer arguing the point with you. I'm just enjoying watching you make yourself look foolish..

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

I'm glad you accept that effectiveness is not necessarily the reason they chose the method. Thus, your earlier claim that "someone else, who's a lot smarter than you, made the determinations that you now disagree with" is refuted.But the voters elect the politicians, who control the government, who fund NASA.So it's silly to argue with someone whose opinion is different? Does that mean it is smart to "argue" with someone whose opinion is the same?Even though I am refuting your points, and you are incapable of coming up with a rational thought, I am the silly one?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

It's not refuted until you can show that effectiveness definitely isn't the reason...

First, you've refuted nothing.

Second, yes, you are the silly one...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":