[mathew_m]

I'm sure there are a lot of American people who are shaking their heads at the thought of spending billions to go back to the moon.

"We're already in debt, why go further just to collect some moon dust."

I disagree. It has been over 25 years since the last American man stepped on the moon. In the time that has passed the space program has had too many setbacks. The current shuttle program is null and void which is good. Why? Nobody cares except when one explodes. We're turning into a society of cynics. We just assume the worst. If we do not go back to the moon there will be a time very soon that people will just assume that we never went. People will start to believe that we never put a man on the moon..."there's nothing to believe, nothing that's true" to borrow a lyric.

When people stop believing in the achivements of mankind they will turn to those of the unproveable and accept them as reality.

[Lerkfish]

wow. I'm utterly convinced.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
I'm sure there are a lot of American people who are shaking their heads at the thought of spending billions to go back to the moon.

"We're already in debt, why go further just to collect some moon dust."

I disagree. It has been over 25 years since the last American man stepped on the moon. In the time that has passed the space program has had too many setbacks. The current shuttle program is null and void which is good. Why? Nobody cares except when one explodes. We're turning into a society of cynics. We just assume the worst. If we do not go back to the moon there will be a time very soon that people will just assume that we never went. People will start to believe that we never put a man on the moon..."there's nothing to believe, nothing that's true" to borrow a lyric.

When people stop believing in the achivements of mankind they will turn to those of the unproveable and accept them as reality.

We've never been to the moon in the first place as it was a hoax to crush the Russian effort. Do some research for yourself, and Google it.

[effgee]

Call me naive - I'm all for space exploration but the timing of this particular announcement is just a tad bit wacky - therefore:

[gorickey]

Why can't we just pay the Russians to wear some groovy red/white/blue suits, hang out on the moon for awhile, take a few pictures of them using their iPods, and all of this while eating a McD's hamburger?

Now, that my friend is patriotic and money well spent...AND, we get all the "research" we could ever want...

[Turias]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We've never been to the moon in the first place as it was a hoax to crush the Russian effort. Do some research for yourself, and Google it.

You speak as if this were common knowledge. Please tell me you are joking.

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We've never been to the moon in the first place as it was a hoax to crush the Russian effort. Do some research for yourself, and Google it.

Google it and discover the moon hoax is itself a hoax. Or should I say bad science to reach an untrue conclusion.

We went to the moon. It was a barren rock. That's why we haven't gone back. We have rocks here.

Send Bush to Mars. The Martians will know what to do with him (anal probe?).

[John B. Smith]

It's perfectly fine to gripe about how underfunded NASA is.

However, if President Bush proposes to reinvigorate NASA with increased funding, we must start complaining that this move is too expensive, too dangerous, and that the proposed budgetary increase is not enough to get us to Mars anyways.

With this sort of criticism, we can hope to kill public interest in this initiative. With the money we save from not going to Mars, we can continue to increase Social Security provisions and thereby perpetuate poverty, which is more important than space exploration.

[Misanthrope]

Basically, it's quite trendy these days to hate the President. Hell, I'm quite sure that if tomorrow he rolled out some mystical plan for immediate world peace and infinite knowledge, a large portion of this silly/stupid culture would say "OH WELL HE JUST HAD TO GO OUT AND RUIN IT ALL FOR US, DIDN'T HE!!!"

Listen, anything that helps get humanity up and beyond our cradle-rock is a excellent move, regardless of cost or risk (that last part is solely my opinion.)

As I said in a slightly more concise manner in another thread, with modern governments, money can appear when it needs to, and disappear just as quickly for whatever reasons.

[Spheric Harlot]

The moon hoax hoax: http://www.starstuff.org/Articles/957.asp

[Demonhood]

i think expanding the space program is great.

that doesn't mean that any of this that Bush is proposing is actually going to happen. in an election year i'm more inclined to believe it's all talk to get more votes, rather than an actual desire to conquer the red planet.

[Zimmerman]

I agree with misathrope. As a species we are stuck in a rut, concentrating almsot soley on consumerism and personal freedom. And don't you dare presume that I said either of those are completely undesireable. Its just that we don't have any faith in ourselves anymore, or in what we can do. It'd be nice to once again have something that can captivate the world like the moon shot did.

[kmkkid]

Has anyone actually taken pictures via telescope of the flag and lander on the moon? If not, how do we know they actually made it there?



Chris

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by kmkkid:
Has anyone actually taken pictures via telescope of the flag and lander on the moon? If not, how do we know they actually made it there?

a) read the link I posted above.

b) you can bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon's surface at known coordinates by one of the Apollo missions. Anyone can do this, and it is done regularly to measure variations in distance to the moon.

-s*

[Earth Mk. II]

I know NASA has been (very informally) looking at another manned moon mission, in preparation for a Mars mission for a while now. But I don't think it can be done in 4 years time (meaning, regardless of the '04 election results, Bush won't be in office to see it's completion), and I think it needs the support of more than one nation's research, industrial, and personal efforts.

Probably the biggest problem they have to solve is how to go about putting 4-6 people in a room together for several months with little contact with the outside world without them killing each other.

That said, the space program has so much more to offer the private sector than Tang. I think we gain a lot in the way of spin-off products and technologies with a reinvigorated space program. Pure science is great and all... but sometimes you need an application to push it along.

If NASA can actually piece together a feasible plan, and they can get the funding to do it, I think the obvious political maneuvering of the announcement can be overlooked. After all, JFK's push for the first moon missions was a political maneuver too.

[John B. Smith]

First of all, let me state that I believe the moon landing was all just a conspiracy, the purpose of which was to win a symbolic victory over the USSR. But very little about this conspiracy is actually known, because all the canaries where silenced, if you know what I mean. A shocking documentary I saw on BET last night revealed that the conspiracy goes even deeper than we had imagined. So deep, in fact, as to suggest that the MOON ITSELF is a conspiracy that began when the Roman Emperor Nero hung a big rock up in the tree to deceive the Jews. His aides hung it very high up though, and for the next 2 thousand years, people just assumed it was real.

But one day, a professor of Art History noticed something suspicious in this painting:



If you look closely, you can see a man hanging the moon from the tallest tree in the background. Clearly, the "moon" was planted there, and Leonardo Da Vinci had some secret knowledge of the conspiracy during the creation of this painting. Perhaps aliens told him, we may never know. One thing we know for sure though; we cannot trust the government.

[mathew_m]

There are those who only percieve this as political calculation on the Bush administration.

Let's remove politics from the issue.

As ghost_flash pointed out there are many and it is a growing number of people who believe that we never went to the moon. It is an interesting hypothesis, one that I've done research on. It is also akin to the backwards thinking of those who said that the world is flat.

It is this backwards thinking that creates the myopic view of mankind.

[mathew_m]

We need more of John B. style of cynicism and less of Lerkfish's.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow. I'm utterly convinced.

To be honost I don't expect to convince you.

I do appreciate the fact however that you decided to read and post in my thread even if it were for trolling reasons. I guess I'm off your ignore list. Some honor.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
We need more of John B. style of cynicism and less of Lerkfish's.

Good god no.

Weren't you here when he tried to be serious? It was a disaster of epic proportions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
To be honost I don't expect to convince you.

I do appreciate the fact however that you decided to read and post in my thread even if it were for trolling reasons. I guess I'm off your ignore list. Some honor.

your justification for the program is so that people wouldn't forget we actually went to the moon in 1969, or that it would prove to them we did.
I found that an odd argument logically that would do nothing to convince me.


FWIW, I'm a big supporter of the space program, I just don't think this is the shot in the arm it needs. Just like Bush's research on alternative energy (hydrogen), its a political ploy to act like you're addressing something while being free to completely ignore it.

As I understand it, the plan involves scrapping the shuttle program and going back to the Atlas rocket program, something unused for nearly 40 years.
The eventual goals of the plan are murky at best, and the exorbitant costs, much like the amazing deficit, will serve to strangle the space program once and for all rather than give it the transfusion it needs.

Even with all its flaws, the shuttle program has yielded untold benefits, both civilian and military. Abandoning the bird in hand for one in the bush is odd strategy, and one I'm suspicious of.

If Bush had simply said he was going to increase funding by the same amount, but not outlined the jettisoning of the present shuttle program and the vague directive of manned missions to mars, I probably would have been very much in support of it.

People accuse me of gainsaying anything Bush does, but by the same token, I don't think its right to just swallow everything he does at face value, either. Evaluate these things and decide if they really will accomplish what they're supposed to.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
First of all, let me state that I believe the moon landing was all just a conspiracy, the purpose of which was to win a symbolic victory over the USSR. But very little about this conspiracy is actually known, because all the canaries where silenced, if you know what I mean. A shocking documentary I saw on BET last night revealed that the conspiracy goes even deeper than we had imagined. So deep, in fact, as to suggest that the MOON ITSELF is a conspiracy that began when the Roman Emperor Nero hung a big rock up in the tree to deceive the Jews. His aides hung it very high up though, and for the next 2 thousand years, people just assumed it was real.

But one day, a professor of Art History noticed something suspicious in this painting:



If you look closely, you can see a man hanging the moon from the tallest tree in the background. Clearly, the "moon" was planted there, and Leonardo Da Vinci had some secret knowledge of the conspiracy during the creation of this painting. Perhaps aliens told him, we may never know. One thing we know for sure though; we cannot trust the government.

Death rolls his eyes into the back of his head in response to your lack of functioning synapses for useful conversation.

[WinsOBoogi]

Why it's important that we do NOT go back to the moon:

Faced with the largest deficit in history, rising costs of living, the poor getting poorer, jobs going overseas, money oozing, wars, terrorist threats, global warming on the rise, corporate scandals.....should I go on....

Back in 1969, going to the moon was something unimaginable. It make somethign so distant a little closer to home. The significane of that, at that time, was amazing.

Here in 2004, going to the moon would be a distraction. It's merely an attempt to blindfold America of their own domestic problems. This new trip to the moon wouldn't inspire. Hell, I love the space program, and my personal opinion is, "okay...big deal...we've done that already."

Getting a man on Mars, however, is a completely different story, as it does something that we have NOT accomplished.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it's a simple cost/benefit ratio. The benefits of going to the moon are not worth it. It would not inspire. It would not solve any of our problems. It wouldn't make problems at home any better.

We need to solve our domsetic issues. You can go to the moon again, but it's not going to give a child healthcare, solve our debt problems, stop our jobs from moving overseas...

See what I mean?

A-thank you.

[effgee]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
We need more of John B. style of cynicism and less of Lerkfish's.

Dear god ... beati pauperes spiritu ... Seriously, though:

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Let's remove politics from the issue.

I don't think that this is possible as long as we're referring to the announcements made recently - it should be obvious to everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, that these were not made in the spirit of furthering our knowledge but only to help secure a second term for George W. Bush.

Compared to the general spectrum of tactics employed by politicians - it is a rather harmless one - but it's still a charade.

[Misanthrope]

WIIIIIIIIIIINSAABOOGY!!!!!!!!!!!

Swear to god that makes me laugh every time I say it.

Thank you.

[Kilbey]

Feel the space program should be expanded simply for the scientific and technological benefits. We know what we could do 30 years ago with basic calculators... imagine what we can do with today's computers.

Here is a page listing some benefits of the Space Program.

[osiris]

I heard the same Moon sales pitch a lifetime ago.
Same with Mars. Now that we have a barely operational Space Station and no Space Shuttles in operation, with no clear plan for manned exploration, the time is always now. But backing things up with a paltry $1B is almost a slap in the face. (Especially with $1.5B going for marriage counseling???!!)

If we made it to the Moon in the 60's (and within 9 years of conception), we should be able to launch a Soyez in a week with today's technology.
We need brave explorers to search the heavens, not pansies afraid of the unknown or death.
A mission could bring hope and mystery to people's lives, something we need now.

Then we could build hotels and resorts and mine the crap out of the heavenly bodies .

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by Misanthrope:
WIIIIIIIIIIINSAABOOGY!!!!!!!!!!!

Swear to god that makes me laugh every time I say it.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Anytime I can make people laugh at my user name and inspire them with my words at the same time...is quite a day for me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
There are those who only percieve this as political calculation on the Bush administration.

Let's remove politics from the issue.

If you could remove politics from the issue, you'd have to remove Bush from the whole equation.

And then, you have nobody making a speech, and nobody rallying for support of something that is terrifically expensive at a time where your country is essentially broke.

Fact is, matt, that the post-9/11 "united we stand and kill" is starting to wear badly, and Bush knows this, and needs another patriotic wave of "unity" feeling and celebration to get himself re-elected before the sh�t he's been doing really hits the fan domestically.

If you *seriously* believe that this would even have been *considered* if that weren't the situation, and it weren't election year, well then - hey! I have an election to sell you cheap!

Hang on, it's right over here...by my bridge...

-s*

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Back in 1969, going to the moon was something unimaginable. It make somethign so distant a little closer to home. The significane of that, at that time, was amazing.

Here in 2004, going to the moon would be a distraction. It's merely an attempt to blindfold America of their own domestic problems. This new trip to the moon wouldn't inspire. Hell, I love the space program, and my personal opinion is, "okay...big deal...we've done that already."

Getting a man on Mars, however, is a completely different story, as it does something that we have NOT accomplished.

In the '60s we went into orbit and flew around the Moon to test our equipment before actually landing on the Moon.

I would imagine a moon mission now would have a similar value: make sure this stuff works when there's only a few seconds worth communication's lag instead of a few minutes worth of lag. A lot more can go wrong in a few minutes then can go wrong in a second or two.

And there's still the issue of packing a team into a sardine can for a few months while they get there. And that's the easy part - now, how do we get them back that fast?

[mathew_m]

My lord lerk,

Can we just leave the political crap alone. I think your motivation is to get this thread moved to the politcal lounge for you and your cronies to belittle it to death and where I've been banned to defend it.

Hydrogen power is a wonderful technology that unfortunately still relies heavily on natural gas to be produced. Therefore it is non-renewable. I'm all for alternative sources of power. I seriously looked at purchasing a hybrid car this last summer. I had to pass because I need something bigger than what's out there now. However in 5-7 years I fully expect to buy whatever hybrid vehicle exists.

That is off topic but at least I answered a question raised.

BOT:
The reason that the shuttle missions are being put on hold are the numerous safety reasons raised over the last disaster. There are many people who feel that the money would be better spent on going in a different direction. Also as I said the space program heavily relies on public support. Why try to keep selling them on a shuttle that just circles the earth repairing broken satellites and dumping space garbage. This is simplifing the issue but it is the general consensus of the tax paying public.



Here's a conspiracy theory for you to wrap your tenticles around: The last shuttle disaster was planned. The Bush administration was concerned that the Iraq war (which was originally planned by Prescott Bush and Mr. Adolf Hitler 60 years ealier) would not be a big enough ploy to ge re-elected. They were concerned that people would soon forget 9/11 ever happend (another Bush con that was planned 500 years ealier by Prescott Bush the 1st and the bin laden tribal clan). With that said they decided that they needed another shuttle disaster. Why? To rally the American people so the Neocons could instill a hegemony on the moon and from there...Mars. The tinfoils are not stupid. They are currently relaying this information to the Martians who none to pleased with the news. Word from the underground is that we should be prepared for an Orson Wellian "War of Worlds" attack that could destroy all of mankind. Of course it will all be Bush's fault.

[John B. Smith]

I wonder what kind of people could survive such a long trip in space... I bet Michael Jackson could.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
In the '60s we went into orbit and flew around the Moon to test our equipment before actually landing on the Moon.

I would imagine a moon mission now would have a similar value: make sure this stuff works when there's only a few seconds worth communication's lag instead of a few minutes worth of lag. A lot more can go wrong in a few minutes then can go wrong in a second or two.

So, you're saying, we should go to the moon just to test out the idea that lagtime's now only seconds, instead of minutes?

This is what you get:

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
I wonder what kind of people could survive such a long trip in space...

Three months is a long time?

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Here's a conspiracy theory for you to wrap your tenticles around: The last shuttle disaster was planned. The Bush administration was concerned that the Iraq war (which was originally planned by Prescott Bush and Mr. Adolf Hitler 60 years ealier) would not be a big enough ploy to ge re-elected. They were concerned that people would soon forget 9/11 ever happend (another Bush con that was planned 500 years ealier by Prescott Bush the 1st and the bin laden tribal clan). With that said they decided that they needed another shuttle disaster. Why? To rally the American people so the Neocons could instill a hegemony on the moon and from there...Mars. The tinfoils are not stupid. They are currently relaying this information to the Martians who none to pleased with the news. Word from the underground is that we should be prepared for an Orson Wellian "War of Worlds" attack that could destroy all of mankind. Of course it will all be Bush's fault.

Here's my conspiracy theory: Bush watched Wag The Dog, and thought, "hey, why don't I do everything that was in that movie, because HE got re-elected!"

[John B. Smith]

Originally posted by Misanthrope:
Three months is a long time?

I was under the impression that a trip to the moon, and then beyond to Mars, would take a bit longer than that. I'm not sure though.

[osiris]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
I was under the impression that a trip to the moon, and then beyond to Mars, would take a bit longer than that. I'm not sure though.

The most recent Mars trip took under 7 months. The moon is about a day or two away.

I'm packed.

[effgee]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
I wonder what kind of people could survive such a long trip in space...

• ankle_brains
• Insecure Bone
• John B. Smith

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
So, you're saying, we should go to the moon just to test out the idea that lagtime's now only seconds, instead of minutes?

This is what you get:

no, I'm saying that in exploration we shouldn't be reckless. The moon isn't a goal, it's a step.

And I'm not suggesting we test communications lag - that's easily predictable and modeled. But rather, have a full-scale test of all the systems to ensure they work properly and we don't loose the ship and crew before "Huston, we have a problem" even reaches home. It's possible that, in this hypothetical space-ship, a problem occurs that could be fixed (or worked around) with ground support. However, because of the high latency between here and halfway to mars, the small problem cascades into a larger one and the hypothetical ship is now really gone by the time NASA responds.

Besides, it's good engineering sense. Before you deploy a design, you test it. A 'dress rehearsal' on the moon seems like a good way to test the whole program - unless you have a better idea.

[york28]

The estimate for a manned flight to Mars is 6 months.

I fully support a mission to to Mars, and further space exploration. However, just like the sudden new immigration laws (that aren't what they at first appear to be), I think this is just a ploy for votes.

We've seen what Bush did in office already. All these promises are just ways for him to show us for another four years. I don't dislike Bush because it's cool; I dispise him for the actions his administration has taken.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Here's my conspiracy theory: Bush watched Wag The Dog, and thought, "hey, why don't I do everything that was in that movie, because HE got re-elected!"

That's the sad thing. You've become so entangled with this dogma of conspiracy.

What if the only thing you believe in are conspiracies? Who do you believe?

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by york28:
I fully support a mission to to Mars, and further space exploration. However, just like the sudden new immigration laws (that aren't what they at first appear to be), I think this is just a ploy for votes.

Agreed. Like I said before, only if NASA actually comes up with a solid plan for the mission and congress gives them the necessary cash do I think the politics can be overlooked.

Until then, I think it's a good concept and something we probably should be doing - but an obviously political move, and will be treated as such.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

f*ck space

have you seen the taxes i pay?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
My lord lerk,

Can we just leave the political crap alone. I think your motivation is to get this thread moved to the politcal lounge for you and your cronies to belittle it to death and where I've been banned to defend it.

no, I was unaware until just now you'd been banned there. News to me.

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Hydrogen power is a wonderful technology that unfortunately still relies heavily on natural gas to be produced. Therefore it is non-renewable. I'm all for alternative sources of power. I seriously looked at purchasing a hybrid car this last summer. I had to pass because I need something bigger than what's out there now. However in 5-7 years I fully expect to buy whatever hybrid vehicle exists.

right, and I'm ALSO all for alternate fuels. But my point was that that program was to placate a certain element of voters without actually making any progress...it was to fund a study that wouldn't be over for ten years. It was actually delaying the research on alternative fuels while pretending to be supporting that research. In other words, one has to look at the end result of these programs, aside from politics, and see whether the cost/benefit ratio is desirable. I was comparing that program to this one.

Originally posted by mathew_m:
The reason that the shuttle missions are being put on hold are the numerous safety reasons raised over the last disaster. There are many people who feel that the money would be better spent on going in a different direction. Also as I said the space program heavily relies on public support. Why try to keep selling them on a shuttle that just circles the earth repairing broken satellites and dumping space garbage. This is simplifing the issue but it is the general consensus of the tax paying public.

And my point was that going back to a technology that is over 40 years old and has not been used since then on a consistent basis is not the fix for the more modern system having problems. You don't throw away your car and get a horse when your car breaks down. You buy a better car or fix the present one. You don't take a step backwards in technology unless there is a compelling reason to do so. And you especially don't throw away the car BEFORE you have the horse in hand.

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Here's a conspiracy theory for you to wrap your tenticles around: The last shuttle disaster was planned. The Bush administration was concerned that the Iraq war (which was originally planned by Prescott Bush and Mr. Adolf Hitler 60 years ealier) would not be a big enough ploy to ge re-elected. They were concerned that people would soon forget 9/11 ever happend (another Bush con that was planned 500 years ealier by Prescott Bush the 1st and the bin laden tribal clan). With that said they decided that they needed another shuttle disaster. Why? To rally the American people so the Neocons could instill a hegemony on the moon and from there...Mars. The tinfoils are not stupid. They are currently relaying this information to the Martians who none to pleased with the news. Word from the underground is that we should be prepared for an Orson Wellian "War of Worlds" attack that could destroy all of mankind. Of course it will all be Bush's fault.

Oh, I get it, its a sarcastic attempt to humiliate me. See, this is why I put on ignore previously.
This was completely unnecessary.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
That's the sad thing. You've become so entangled with this dogma of conspiracy.

What if the only thing you believe in are conspiracies? Who do you believe?

I was being sarcastic. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, unless you count Bush's plan to rid of Saddam pre-9/11.

[wolfen]

Well, honey...I have bad news and good news. The bad news: I can't find work, our children are receiving less of an education than most of the developed world, the nation's in debt to its ears, states are going bankrupt, and we're going further in debt to rebuild a nation thousands of miles away.


The good news? NASA just saved a ton of money on their space shuttle insurance by switching to Geico.


wolfen

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Oh, I get it, its a sarcastic attempt to humiliate me.

No sh*t sherlock.

Like

Lerkfish the Hypocrite said:
wow. I'm utterly convinced.

I think we both get a kick out of insulting each other. So suck it up. You set yourself up by posting in this thread.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
I think we both get a kick out of insulting each other. So suck it up. You set yourself up by posting in this thread.

no, I don't consider our posts on the same level. Sarcasm in both, yes, but mine was against your argument, and yours was as always pointlessly personal.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, unless you count Bush's plan to rid of Saddam pre-9/11.

No that's just you being a Deannie Weennie.

Question is however: If Howard Dean tommorrow put on a crown, raised his scepter and declared himself President of United States; would you believe him?

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I don't consider our posts on the same level. Sarcasm in both, yes, but mine was against your argument, and yours was as always pointlessly personal.

Dude, not to turn this thread into a therapy session or anything but you take everything personally. Which in turn leads to you accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you. It's like you say that you put people on ignore yet you still reply. I think you are just looking for attention. Like letting everyone know that Demonhood PM'd you to quit belittling Simey. Who cares?

Your arguements are not all that great; it's mostly a lot of leftist dogma which makes you sound phoney. It's hard to debate you again because within a couple of posts it turns into Ask anyone who has tried. I just see you for who you are and let it rip.