Phi for All

If the Russians "were on the verge of being able to land on the moon", why have they still not done so? They're still planning to go, but not until at least 2030. And are you truly trying to sell the idea that Apollo 11 was faked, but Apollo 12 four months later was real? The Soviets had a catastrophic failure of their N1 rocket just two weeks before Apollo 11 landed, an explosion that took out their whole launch complex. Why on earth would we risk faking Apollo 11 when there was no longer any competition from the Soviets, especially since you concede that Apollo 12 four months later was real? Oh. < cricket, cricket > So, he went back to July 20, 1969 and saw bupkis?

Can I ask you what party affiliation you registered with? It shouldn't matter, but in every case I've heard so far where the local election commission has decided to jump with both feet on the slightest anomaly the voter has been registered Democrat. And Georgia is a pretty firm red state.

Semjase, in another thread you claim to have been contacted by aliens. Could you have them check for footprints up there to put this question to rest?

Every single scrap of "moon landing hoax" has been thoroughly debunked by the best in the business. Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that they spent more time and money on a hoax than it would have cost to actually go to the moon. Get real.

That sounds scary. I wonder if it would have automatically voted for Mitt if you'd done straight ticket Republican? I always use absentee ballots. I don't trust the electronic machines. My ballot didn't even have an option for a straight ticket vote (not sure I'd ever use it). We can even go online to make sure our votes were received by mail. I'll bring the shells if you've got sandwiches. Give me liberty, or give me ham on rye!

Romney has such a low likeability score, the same score that tanked Gore and Kerry against Bush II, so it's hard for me to believe people are voting for him because they think he'll do a good job. I think they're voting for him because he's a Republican, or because he claims he's against unapproved sex, or because he's going to lower taxes for everybody, or because he's going to automagically and incantaneously give them a job, or because the Bush strategies worked so dang well for eight years, or he's finally going to increase our military to a scarier size, or he's going to stop all those socialists from turning us into the Soviet Union or France.

You mean on a whole separate ballot? The quickest way to lose your right to bear arms is to become a terrorist, which you quickly would if you brought your guns to the march. I still have the torches in my basement, so I will swing by and pick you up on the way to the capital.

I felt the same way when Gore lost in 2000. I was all set to march on the capital when the Supreme Court gave that ridiculous 2-hour recount ruling to the Florida Election Commission. It became clear later that, had they given them a decent amount of time, the true recount would have meant Gore won the Electoral vote as well as the popular vote. But Gore rolled over and took it, and all those torches went back into my basement.

If you're doing religion then you're not doing science. Why do you call it a theory?

None. It was a red herring thrown out to detract from rigney's comment that Obama was a "do nothing" Senator. His "if you ignore all the great things Obama has accomplished despite treasonous opposition from the GOP" codicil wasn't working, so he panicked and decided to defend Israel instead.

Does this hypothesis involve religion or philosophy?

Quote mining, sure, but tell me I'm wrong!

I'm sorry, did you mean to say "three term Illinois Senator" in addition to his term as US Senator, which he had to step down from because of, you know, being elected President of the United States? And if you think Obama was a "do nothing" Senator, well, it's clear you aren't living in reality like the rest of us. Oh, I think quite a few idiots will do that. Not because of Mitt, but because they think the Republicans still represent them like they did in 1982. History-challenged, non-reality based Republicans. Oh, you're a Democrat now? I can see why you flip (or is it flop?) over Mitt.

Short memories seem to permeate virtually every problem we have in the US. We forget that the sources that inform us are driven by profit instead of a need to inform us. We forget that putting people who don't believe in a system in charge of that system insures that the system won't work. And we forget that no man is an island, that we need each other to prosper, that those who buy the hammers need to also respect those who wield the hammers in order to build great things.

I consider it evil to gain the second most powerful office in the country and then manipulate the system so your former company gets an offensive multi-billion dollar no-bid contract while continuing to espouse the glories of free market capitalism. I don't understand how ANY Republican with an ounce of self-respect can justify belief in the market and small government while allowing someone like Dick Cheney to shelter his company from the normal pressures of that market with hyper-inflated big government bureaucratic largesse. Shame on YOU for questioning MY intelligence while defending that satanical hypocrite! Will you STOP reading the idiot propaganda you're gobbling up and look at some unbiased reports? The stock market is up, employment is rising, the economy is getting better, our status with foreign countries is vastly improved, we're working harder on alternative energies, and taxes are at the lowest they've been in modern history. Eight years of stupidity have been reversed in just four years by using some smart strategies. The situation in America is GETTING BETTER and you want to hand it back to the party that kicked us in the ditch and blocked attempts to get us out?! You dare question MY intelligence?! One of the things I like best about Obama is his ability to learn from his mistakes. Bush continued failed processes and policies thinking that they'd automagically get better. When Obama tried his brand of nation-building in Afghanistan, he saw quickly it wouldn't work and scaled back. He gave too many concessions to China but when they started acting too aggressively he stood up and reasserted our military presence in the Pacific. He tried maybe too much diplomacy with Iran and North Korea and when that didn't work he stepped up and became more confrontational. He lives in reality, unlike Bush or Romney, he knows real people and real circumstances. He deserves a Congress that will work WITH him, he's hit his stride, he's experienced now AND I CAN"T BELIEVE YOU WANT TO HAND OVER THE REINS TO A ONE-TERM GOVERNOR WHO'S BEEN TELLING EVERYBODY ANYTHING HE THINKS THEY WANT TO HEAR BUT CAN'T TELL US SPECIFICALLY HOW HE PLANS TO RUN THE COUNTRY.

I don't know about the dinosaur part, but the fact that it looks like a two-car garage you could actually park two cars in PROVES it's not really a garage at all. The lack of oil stains where engines would be doesn't help your case much either. It does support the idea that this is indeed an invisible dinosaur enclosure though.

How can you possibly compare Obama sounding like himself over a four year period, with Romney sounding exactly like Bush, with failed Bush policies and Bush advisers and failed Bush tax plans and an admiration for Satan Dick Cheney? Have you not seen the numbers showing that Obama's policies are bringing the economy around, while Bush/Romney policies screwed us in the first place? Many things stand out about this election, but the ones that stand out most to me are the pathetic Congress that wouldn't work with Obama (making it the least productive Congress since 1947), the Republican self-fulfilling prophecy with regard to federal government (they don't want it to work, so it doesn't), Mitt's son having ANYTHING to do with voting machines when his dad is running for president, and Romney's sell out to the neocon strategies that made Bush II such a poor leader at a time when this nation needed strength and direction. Rigney, you've claimed you can see now that Bush II was a disaster as a president, so different from his father, so why would you support Romney when he's going to just repeat those disaster years if he's elected? It took Bush eight years to put us in this position, and you won't give Obama four more just when his policies are starting to turn things around? You want to give Bush another chance?

It always amazes me why a) these types of photographs are always so blurry and grainy, b) none of the camera operators are freaking out that this is happening (even if I was alone I'd be giving a running monologue about what was happening), and c) so many people believe these are aliens that no one can contact.

AFAIK, there are no real guidelines for maximum daily intake. The beta-carotene in pumpkin may cause some skin discoloration if you eat too much (carotenemia?), but I think "too much" depends more on your own body type than any standardized amount of pumpkin. From what I recall, the skin discoloration isn't harmful.

Does he realize that Bush 2.0 and Romney 3.0 use the same operating system? Romney has 17 out of 24 Bush foreign policy advisers, even looser veracity filter parameters and the same complete lack of service-oriented architecture.

Oh, but that was when they were running against Mitt for the nomination. Now, I'm sure they support him fully and will readily admit they just said those things in the spirit of competition.

Great find. That pretty much sums it up for the Republicans for the last 32 years of my life, for everything from education to healthcare to welfare. They don't want it to work so it doesn't.

I encounter a lot of this as well. Many people can't tell me exactly why they dislike a candidate, or when they do have an answer it's usually completely wrong. I have a friend who claims to identify with the Tea Party, and to this day swears that Obama has raised taxes on millions of people. I actually have family (hangs head in shame) who think Obama has tried to outlaw guns and make late term abortion legal. The amount of misinformation that gets slung around is appalling. And invariably, after I can point out every single logical flaw, misunderstanding or flat out lie, these people invariably fall back on, "I still don't like him."

Still, when they work under contract for a federal authority, we're not paying for their management of the relief efforts, we're paying for their trained personnel and equipment, who work under coordinated FEMA authority. If the whole thing were privatized, paying for AMR's administrative costs and profits to shareholders would essentially cost us more and allow people to profit from disaster relief. AMR is headquartered near me and were quite happy with an additional contract earlier this year for the western and central FEMA zones, at a cost not to exceed almost a quarter of a billion dollars per zone. I would further speculate that there would be certain things they wouldn't do because of either liability or loss of revenue. This is similar to the companies that provide private management of prisons in the US. They don't want the difficult prisoners, and have clauses in their contracts that allow them to transfer difficult (costly) prisoners back to federal or state custody with no penalties.

! Moderator Note Nextstein, your post has been unapproved. Please don't hijack someone else's thread with your pet hypotheses. Also, speculation that isn't mainstream science should NOT be posted in mainstream sections, where students and other knowledge-seekers may confuse it with accepted theory. We have a Speculations section. Also, using one thread to advertise another thread isn't allowed. Please read the rules you agreed to when you joined. If you have a problem with them, or with this modnote, please report this post or PM another Moderator. Do NOT further derail this thread by commenting here.