NationStates Jolt Archive

Lori Garver from DFI International, was a former NASA Associate Administrator and the former Executive Director of the National Space Society, and has been working for the Kerry campaign for about eight months. In recent weeks Garver has made it very clear to a number of people in the aerospace community that she is deeply interested in - and, indeed, is pushing for - the nod to be the next Administrator of NASA - should John Kerry win, of course.

When asked to reconcile all that she has said about Kerry’s purported positive views on space with a voting record wherein he repeatedly voted to cut or cancel various NASA activities including the ISS, Garver noted that she was not all that concerned about this - and that one should not consider Kerry’s Senate voting record as being indicative of how Kerry would view NASA as President.

Another example of how Kerry tells us to disregard his record because he's going to somehow be "different" when we blindly elect him president.

John Kerry's voting record on space issues:

In 1991, Kerry Voted To “Reduce Funding For The Space Station From $2 Billion To $100 Million,” And Transfer Funds To Other Programs. (H.R. 2519, Congressional Quarterly Vote #132: Rejected 35-64: R 3-40; D 32-24, July 17, 1991, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1992, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station “Freedom” Project. (H.R. 5679, Congressional Quarterly Vote #194: Rejected 34-63: R 4-39; D 30-24, September 9, 1992, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Kerry Voted “To Terminate The Space Station Program.” (H.R. 2491, Congressional Quarterly Vote #272: Motion Agreed To 59-40: R 36-8; D 23-32, September 21, 1993, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station Program And Divert Funds To Tax Cuts. (H.R. 3167, Congressional Quarterly Vote #335: Motion rejected 36-61: R 10-32; D 26-29, October 27, 1993, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1994, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.9 Billion From Space Station Program, Thus Terminating It. (H.R. 4624, Congressional Quarterly Vote #253: Rejected 36-64: R 6-38; D 30-26, August 3, 1994, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1995, Kerry Voted To Reduce NASA Funding By $400 Million. (H.R. 889, Congressional Quarterly Vote #105: Motion Agreed To 64-35: R 43-11; D 21-24, March 16, 1995, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 1995, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.8 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program. (H.R. 2099, Congressional Quarterly Vote #463: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 12-41; D 23-23, September 26, 1995, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1996, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.6 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program And Terminate Space Station Program. (H.R. 3666, Congressional Quarterly Vote #267: Motion Agreed To 61-36: R 38-12; D 23-24, September 4, 1996, Kerry Voted Nay)

source and im sure thats clever cherry picking

source and im sure thats clever cherry picking

SpaceRef.com And if it IS "cherry picking," take it up with them, please.

oh look he cleverly explains his stances and i highly agree!

maybe you should quote some explanation isntead of looking like the partisan asshole you are

i agree with kerry in that we should fully fund and work with programs that benefit people here in america and right now instead of supporting people in other countries over ours and making up plans that will cost us billions and assuming we actually get that funding, and if it isnt fully fundedd we will have lost that funding in addition to the programs uselessness *cough* every bush program *cough*

Once again, I guess if the people of Mass. don't want to fund something, (this time the space program) John Kerry is to blame. He's a representative.... I'm sure eventually people will understand how the system works....

Too right. Fuck the god-damn space programme. Third World countries will never be able to afford to utilise any further "technological advances". Aren't there more important areas where your tax money could be spent?

Interesting approach. First you lambaste President Bush for "not supporting science," then, when it becomes irrefutably obvious that Kerry would not support the Space Program if elected, you say "fuck the space program!" I suppose next you'll be saying that the space program "really isn't science," and that "it never does anyone any good."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. For some unfathomable reason, you lust after Kerry almost as much as he lusts after the Presidency. No amount of facts, reasoning, logic or anything else will convince you that this amoral opportunist would be a total disaster for, not only America, but for the world and the future.

not funding the space program is far better than saying "we are going to mars!" and instituting dozens of new expensive policies and underfunding them.

doing that we lose billions to projects that will never get off the ground and provide any useful information


in MMORPGs, we call this a money sink: you throw money in, and it goes away

Interesting approach. First you lambaste President Bush for "not supporting science," then, when it becomes irrefutably obvious that Kerry would not support the Space Program if elected, you say "fuck the space program!" I suppose next you'll be saying that the space program "really isn't science," and that "it never does anyone any good."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. For some unfathomable reason, you lust after Kerry almost as much as he lusts after the Presidency. No amount of facts, reasoning, logic or anything else will convince you that this amoral opportunist would be a total disaster for, not only America, but for the world and the future.

I'm sorry, you seemed to have confused me with a Kerry supporter. Give me a quote where I "lambasted" Bush for "not supporting science".

Good for him, its a big waste of money imo. At least those missions to mars (which they seem to keep losing) are. Why not split the money amoungst some poor people?

space program = science? Yes.
science = space program? No.

""
"fuck the space program!" I suppose next you'll be saying that the space program "really isn't science," and that "it never does anyone any good."
""

absolutely.
this may be 'science' but it's not science for the good of anyone except contractors to build parts of the project!

this really must rate as the greatest waste of resources ever concieved!

AND then they want to put damn missiles over here in th UK...

Interesting approach. First you lambaste President Bush for "not supporting science," then, when it becomes irrefutably obvious that Kerry would not support the Space Program if elected, you say "fuck the space program!" I suppose next you'll be saying that the space program "really isn't science," and that "it never does anyone any good."

It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. For some unfathomable reason, you lust after Kerry almost as much as he lusts after the Presidency. No amount of facts, reasoning, logic or anything else will convince you that this amoral opportunist would be a total disaster for, not only America, but for the world and the future.
Should I be suprised that you are trying to ram together two tangentially related things to make a hypocracy out of nothing? No, probably not. The well-documented fact that Bush has a shakey relationship with science is not somehow excused because Kerry thinks the money spent on the space program during a time when we need the money elsewhere.

Not that you follow links or look anything up, living by that quote "When chosing between the facts and what I know, I'll go with what I know." (not yours, I should point out so as not to wind up down a blind alley, just a quote I heard that reminds me of you) but-
this (http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/79763/1/) or this (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/science/19poli.html) or the other floods other articles on Bush's disconnect from science isn't the same thing as thinking that money spent on space might be better spent somewhere else.

You have to make a decission, really-is Kerry spending too much on things or too little? Isn't most of the Kerry criticism that he will rampantly spend your prescious tax dollars? Which is it?

If you look at the financial situation of the US government that existed in the early to mid 90s you would realize that we were reeling from 12 years of deficit spending. The Clinton administration was trying to balance the budget and it was no time to be pouring money into projects with no return on investment. Especially the pie-in-the-sky pork barrel space program. We are now faced with the same dilema. Again, this is not an area with any real value.
It's time to grow up and realize that humans will never be zooming around the galaxy on the USS Enterprise. If space has any real value at all it is much closer to earth as a moon based lab for making products that benefit from near zero gravity. If there is any value to this then the industries that would benefit should front the money not the government.

No amount of facts, reasoning, logic or anything else will convince you that this amoral opportunist would be a total disaster for, not only America, but for the world and the future.
No, it's not that, it's just that President Bush is that bad. Do you think there's no reason why almost everyone who isn't an American Republican hates him?

Doesn't matter.
Soon Virgin will have one with carpets anyway and governments can concentrate more on tax cuts.

Lori Garver from DFI International, was a former NASA Associate Administrator and the former Executive Director of the National Space Society, and has been working for the Kerry campaign for about eight months. In recent weeks Garver has made it very clear to a number of people in the aerospace community that she is deeply interested in - and, indeed, is pushing for - the nod to be the next Administrator of NASA - should John Kerry win, of course.

When asked to reconcile all that she has said about Kerry’s purported positive views on space with a voting record wherein he repeatedly voted to cut or cancel various NASA activities including the ISS, Garver noted that she was not all that concerned about this - and that one should not consider Kerry’s Senate voting record as being indicative of how Kerry would view NASA as President.

Another example of how Kerry tells us to disregard his record because he's going to somehow be "different" when we blindly elect him president.

John Kerry's voting record on space issues:

In 1991, Kerry Voted To “Reduce Funding For The Space Station From $2 Billion To $100 Million,” And Transfer Funds To Other Programs. (H.R. 2519, Congressional Quarterly Vote #132: Rejected 35-64: R 3-40; D 32-24, July 17, 1991, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1992, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station “Freedom” Project. (H.R. 5679, Congressional Quarterly Vote #194: Rejected 34-63: R 4-39; D 30-24, September 9, 1992, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Kerry Voted “To Terminate The Space Station Program.” (H.R. 2491, Congressional Quarterly Vote #272: Motion Agreed To 59-40: R 36-8; D 23-32, September 21, 1993, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station Program And Divert Funds To Tax Cuts. (H.R. 3167, Congressional Quarterly Vote #335: Motion rejected 36-61: R 10-32; D 26-29, October 27, 1993, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1994, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.9 Billion From Space Station Program, Thus Terminating It. (H.R. 4624, Congressional Quarterly Vote #253: Rejected 36-64: R 6-38; D 30-26, August 3, 1994, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1995, Kerry Voted To Reduce NASA Funding By $400 Million. (H.R. 889, Congressional Quarterly Vote #105: Motion Agreed To 64-35: R 43-11; D 21-24, March 16, 1995, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 1995, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.8 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program. (H.R. 2099, Congressional Quarterly Vote #463: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 12-41; D 23-23, September 26, 1995, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1996, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.6 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program And Terminate Space Station Program. (H.R. 3666, Congressional Quarterly Vote #267: Motion Agreed To 61-36: R 38-12; D 23-24, September 4, 1996, Kerry Voted Nay)

Even if that's true in spirit, I am unsurprised. George W. Bush's record-breaking deficits (to the tune of 400-500 billion dollars this year alone) are going to force cuts somewhere, and although I am a strong proponent of scientific progress, NASA will have to wait while we have sick people to provide healthcare to, and terrorists to crush abroad.

Good. The space program is crap.

NASA is the problem, the space program is the future, almost everything we discover in the 100 years will be space related, simply studying space has advance physics and quantum physics (Which will help produce fission, oh what a waste, the safest, most powerful, cleanest form of energy yet) farther than anything we've done on earth, for that matter it's that way for all mathmatics.

Again though, NASA is the problem. In the 1960's we had a goal, but those in charge of NASA haven't done anything ingenuitive since, we've been stagnate due to lack of visions and creativity. With the private industry pushing NASA, I think better days are on the way.

NASA is the problem, the space program is the future, almost everything we discover in the 100 years will be space related, simply studying space has advance physics and quantum physics (Which will help produce fission, oh what a waste, the safest, most powerful, cleanest form of energy yet) farther than anything we've done on earth, for that matter it's that way for all mathmatics.

Again though, NASA is the problem. In the 1960's we had a goal, but those in charge of NASA haven't done anything ingenuitive since, we've been stagnate due to lack of visions and creativity. With the private industry pushing NASA, I think better days are on the way.
thats what all the former hippies get for bitching their kids into conformity. factory workers and uncreative saps that have cost this nation years of development. them and religious fundamentalists

NASA is the problem, the space program is the future, almost everything we discover in the 100 years will be space related, simply studying space has advance physics and quantum physics (Which will help produce fission, oh what a waste, the safest, most powerful, cleanest form of energy yet) farther than anything we've done on earth, for that matter it's that way for all mathmatics.

Again though, NASA is the problem. In the 1960's we had a goal, but those in charge of NASA haven't done anything ingenuitive since, we've been stagnate due to lack of visions and creativity. With the private industry pushing NASA, I think better days are on the way.
Those insistance of goals are reason that the Challenger exploded. They knew the O-wings wouldn't be able to handle a cold night and yet still launched it on a cold night.
Lies can destroy credibility and people's lifes.

Those insistance of goals are reason that the Challenger exploded. They knew the O-wings wouldn't be able to handle a cold night and yet still launched it on a cold night.
Lies can destroy credibility and people's lifes.
The reason the challenger exploded was that someone wasn't focusing on the real goal, just the short term goal of a deadline. That's a failure of vision and responsibility, not the reaction to a goal. Again, the advances in mathmatics along makes NASA worth it, how exactly do you think these new high technology's come to be, fairy dust?

It was only recently we discovered that Newton's laws of gravity may be flawed, we took certain things for constants that are only constant on Earth. This allows for flexability in our model to gravity and possibilities on application into technologies where we control gravity, i.e. gravity fields.