Texas Tea Party...a heart?

[ExiledInIllinois]

They launch shuttles from FL because it's close to the equator (which reduces launch costs) and open to the east (for safety). It has precisely ****-all to do with climate.

 

And they also land in FL. And mission control is in Houston because of politics - launch control, though, is at KSC.

 

:rolleyes:

 

About 12 degrees N Lat between Buffalo, NY and northeast FLA.

 

Whatever you say rocket surgeon.

[Chef Jim]

They launch shuttles from FL because it's close to the equator (which reduces launch costs) and open to the east (for safety). It has precisely ****-all to do with climate.

 

And they also land in FL. And mission control is in Houston because of politics - launch control, though, is at KSC.

 

And the only reason they land in CA is if the weather in FLA is not coducive to a landing.

[ExiledInIllinois]

And the only reason they land in CA is if the weather in FLA is not coducive to a landing.

 

And when the shuttle program was new, for quite sometime all they did was land in Cali (Edwards)... Why?

 

Tell it to the Russians, who of course were launching and landing capsules... Why didn't they splash down in/on the arctic?

[Gene Frenkle]

And when the shuttle program was new, for quite sometime all they did was land in Cali (Edwards)... Why?

 

Tell it to the Russians, who of course were launching and landing capsules... Why didn't they splash down in/on the arctic?

It costs a small fortune to transport the shuttle back to FLA if it doesn't land there.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It costs a small fortune to transport the shuttle back to FLA if it doesn't land there.

 

I know.. Then why were the first missions always landing in Cali @ Edwards?... Area wa bigger? Dryer? The weather wasn't always bad in FLA. Getting the bugs out? It is always easier to get the bugs out in more perfect enviro.

[Gene Frenkle]

I know.. Then why were the first missions always landing in Cali @ Edwards?... Area wa bigger? Dryer? The weather wasn't always bad in FLA. Getting the bugs out? It is always easier to get the bugs out in more perfect enviro.

I'm not really sure. Probably something to so with the facilities at each place at at time, but that's just a guess. That bird's pretty heavy!

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'm not really sure. Probably something to so with the facilities at each place at at time, but that's just a guess. That bird's pretty heavy!

 

 

Maybe... But I always thought it was becasue of the condusive geo and dry weather to land a shuttle, especially all the very first missions... And @ first did they dare to land on an artificial runway?... Wasn't it a natural surface they used at Edwards?... And where can you find ares like that? Oh, of course... That has to do with geography. There is a reason why they test cars at the Bonneville salt flats in Utah.

 

But for the rest, not really you Gene.. Laugh on and spin what I am saying to mean "perfect weather", "nice for our soldiers", etc... etc...

Edited March 15, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[Gene Frenkle]

Maybe... But I always thought it was becasue of the condusive geo and dry weather to land a shuttle, especially all the very first missions... And @ first did they dare to land on an artificial runway?... Wasn't it a natural surface they used at Edwards?... And where can you find ares like that? Oh, of course... That has to do with geography. There is a reason why they test cars at the Bonneville salt flats in Utah.

 

But for the rest, not really you Gene.. Laugh on and spin what I am saying to mean "perfect weather", "nice for our soldiers", etc... etc...

Ok, I was curious, so I did some digging...from Wiki:

 

 

The runway (at Kennedy) was first used by a space shuttle on 11 February 1984 when the STS-41-B mission returned to earth. This also marked the first ever landing of a spacecraft at its launch site. Prior to this all shuttle landings were performed at Edwards Air Force Base in California (with the exception of STS-3 which landed at White Sands Space Harbor) while the landing facility continued testing and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility

 

 

Seems they were still developing the facility at Kennedy during the early missions.

[Jim in Anchorage]

FLA has only one runway: 15-33. So if the wind is, say coming from 240 you are forced to deal with a cross wind. I really doesn't know, but the shuttle just doesn't look like it could handle much of a cross wind component. Edwards has two runways in a x shape so you can aways land into the wind.

 

I have no idea why they would care about clouds. Are they returning from orbit under visual flight rules?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ok, I was curious, so I did some digging...from Wiki:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....anding_Facility

 

 

Seems they were still developing the facility at Kennedy during the early missions.

 

 

I agree. Yet, my point is they still would have tested at White Sands/Edwards, even if that runway in FLA was already built and operational. Why? The answer is here in your post:

 

"...and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards."

 

Again, blessed by geography to help the ecomony. You don't think the Edwards local economy thrives because to the NASA/military (then test pilots) complex. What is the underlying factor for selecting such places? Same thing with the point I was making about Texas and San Antonio. Could BFLO/WNY have put in a bid to have these complexes in their area? :lol:

 

Kinda like the how cities bid for the SuperBowl and how BFLO has an open stadium. That is all changing though with NYC being awarded a SB.

 

FLA has only one runway: 15-33. So if the wind is, say coming from 240 you are forced to deal with a cross wind. I really doesn't know, but the shuttle just doesn't look like it could handle much of a cross wind component. Edwards has two runways in a x shape so you can aways land into the wind.

 

I have no idea why they would care about clouds. Are they returning from orbit under visual flight rules?

 

 

Man you guys spin... Do you read? I am not saying anything about clouds.. Sure if it is raining. Like I said, even if FLA was operational, there is areason why Cali would have been used first: Geography! Safety! Do you even know what the word geography means? It encompasses a lot... It is not just "nice" weather. Man, get that bee out of your bonnet!

 

Could BFLO/WNY put in a bid to house these facilties? Just answer this one simple question!

 

Of course BFLO/WNY/NYS could put in a bid... Would they win? You gotta be kidding! Where in the area?

Edited March 15, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[Jim in Anchorage]

I agree. Yet, my point is they still would have tested at White Sands/Edwards, even if that runway in FLA was already built and operational. Why? The answer is here in your post:

 

"...and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards."

 

Again, blessed by geography to help the ecomony. You don't think the Edwards local economy thrives because to the NASA/military (then test pilots) complex. What is the underlying factor for selecting such places? Same thing with the point I was making about Texas and San Antonio. Could BFLO/WNY have put in a bid to have these complexes in their area? :lol:

 

Kinda like the how cities bid for the SuperBowl and how BFLO has an open stadium. That is all changing though with NYC being awarded a SB.

 

 

 

 

Man you guys spin... Do you read? I am not saying anything about clouds.. Sure if it is raining. Like I said, even if FLA was operational, there is areason why Cali would have been used first: Geography! Safety! Do you even know what the word geography means? It encompasses a lot... It is not just "nice" weather. Man, get that bee out of your bonnet!

 

Could BFLO/WNY put in a bid to house these facilties? Just answer this one simple question!

 

Of course BFLO/WNY/NYS could put in a bid... Would they win? You gotta be kidding! Where in the area?

First of all I was not talking to you. That would be a waste of time. I was speculating why they may have to land at Edwards rather than FLA. Of course you missed the significance of FLA having only one runway and Edwards having two in a x shape as far as crosswind landings are concerned, and ran off with you're goofball geography obsession.

 

link

 

17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage

[Gene Frenkle]

First of all I was not talking to you. That would be a waste of time. I was speculating why they may have to land at Edwards rather than FLA. Of course you missed the significance of FLA having only one runway and Edwards having two in a x shape as far as crosswind landings are concerned, and ran off with you're goofball geography obsession.

 

link

 

17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program.

Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S.

I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program.

 

 

Thank you.

 

It is a freakin' desert, where are they gonna go?

 

Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S.

I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA?

 

Yes, you are right... But now compare that to where it is launched and the price tag against transportation. Of course they want to launch just west of the ocean... That way if something goes wrong... They scuttle over the water rather than populated land... Or in the case of Challenger, blow-up.

 

FLA, pretty much perfect LOCATION place to launch... Not so perfect to land... Yet, landing there can be learned and they can save some dough.

 

Where else in the country are they more blessed to carry out these missions?

[Chef Jim]

Yeah the Mojave is blessed by great geography. That place is a !@#$ing hot be of activity.

[DC Tom]

17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left.

 

You're probably not flying a brick.

[Gene Frenkle]

Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S.

I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA?

Like Tom said, they picked Florida because it's as close to the equator as you can get while remaining on US soil, which makes it the best launch point we have. Financially, it obviously helps to be able to land in the same place, but it looks like a tough place to build a huge landing strip, let alone two. Note the water hazards, should you push or pull your shot enough to miss the fairway.

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg/800px-Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg

 

(Ah well, I can't seem to get the image tags to actually display an image)

 

 

Edited March 15, 2011 by Gene Frenkle

[DC Tom]

Like Tom said, they picked Florida because it's as close to the equator as you can get while remaining on US soil, which makes it the best launch point we have. Financially, it obviously helps to be able to land in the same place, but it looks like a tough place to build a huge landing strip, let alone two. Note the water hazards, should you push or pull your shot enough to miss the fairway.

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg/800px-Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg

 

(Ah well, I can't seem to get the image tags to actually display an image)

 

KSC's also a nature preserve, so it's not like you can just slap down a cement slab whenever you feel like it.

[Gene Frenkle]

KSC's also a nature preserve, so it's not like you can just slap down a cement slab whenever you feel like it.

From the wiki article again:

 

A local nickname for the runway is the "gator tanning facility", as some of the 4,000 alligators living at Kennedy Space Center regularly bask in the sun on the runway.

That's pretty cool that they were able to build something like this without completely ruining the area for local wildlife.

[DC Tom]

:rolleyes:

 

About 12 degrees N Lat between Buffalo, NY and northeast FLA.

 

Whatever you say rocket surgeon.

 

Stick to carp, fish-boy. As a matter of orbital physics, that's a HUGE difference. Not only does that extra 11 degrees impart significant more energy to a rocket launched on an east-west trajectory, but it provides a shallower orbital inclination, which would otherwise have to be changed in orbit with an immense expenditure of energy.

[Jim in Anchorage]

You're probably not flying a brick.

No, everything I fly is better in the atmosphere than a shuttle I suspect. Course my service ceiling is 14,000 so I have concede them that. Frankly if I didn't know better I would swear the shuttle could never fly. Pusher power with far aft wings like a Beech Starship but without the canard, I don't see where they are getting their elevator control from. There is something that appears to be a elevator directly under the engines, but there is no way it's getting air flow over the top.

[DC Tom]

No, everything I fly is better in the atmosphere than a shuttle I suspect. Course my service ceiling is 14,000 so I have concede them that. Frankly if I didn't know better I would swear the shuttle could never fly. Pusher power with far aft wings like a Beech Starship but without the canard, I don't see where they are getting their elevator control from. There is something that appears to be a elevator directly under the engines, but there is no way it's getting air flow over the top.

 

Yep, the "beaver tail". It's basically just a great big high-lift flap. I'm pretty sure the wings have elevons for banking (the shuttle has to perform two S-turns on approach), but their pitch control is probably very limited.

 

As I recall, the landing speed is very high, well above 200kts. With a wing loading somewhere north of "Holy ****, holy ****, we're gonna die". And it's not powered - it's a glider.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Yep, the "beaver tail". It's basically just a great big high-lift flap. I'm pretty sure the wings have elevons for banking (the shuttle has to perform two S-turns on approach), but their pitch control is probably very limited.

 

As I recall, the landing speed is very high, well above 200kts. With a wing loading somewhere north of "Holy ****, holy ****, we're gonna die". And it's not powered - it's a glider.

The control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing appear quite conventional-ailerons on the outboard edge for banking, flaps ["elevons"] inboard for lift. The flaps apparently go up as well as the normal down. If they are raising the flaps for pitch control that would also reduce wing lift, explaining the high approach speed.

 

Anyway, it's got to be a handful to fly. I suspect a computer is doing more than the guy in the left seat.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yeah the Mojave is blessed by great geography. That place is a !@#$ing hot be of activity.

 

 

Again... WOW!!... Am I the only one here being objective? "Blessed by geography" can mean a heck of a lot of things that you don't personally find "blessed." Just give your subjective, narrow mindedness a rest Chef. I should have figure as much that many here can't critcally think.

 

Tom's talking about flying a brick... And I am responding to bricks. Then banging my head against bricks...

Edited March 16, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[ExiledInIllinois]

Stick to carp, fish-boy. As a matter of orbital physics, that's a HUGE difference. Not only does that extra 11 degrees impart significant more energy to a rocket launched on an east-west trajectory, but it provides a shallower orbital inclination, which would otherwise have to be changed in orbit with an immense expenditure of energy.

 

EXACTLY! So basically you are saying that FLA is blessed by geography and having that 12 degree advantage. How more "blessed" can that be when it comes to luring the NASA/military complex to an area? That is all I have been saying all along. But, you guys want to make it seem that these places are so awful and at a disadvantage! That their success has only been brought on by what humans have done to attract business.

 

Can we just finally agree that: Location (hence geography), location, and location is the lynch pin to everything?

 

And you are supposed to the best critical thinker this board has? You are a light weight and it is showing. Your are getting slayed by me... ME?

Edited March 16, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[....lybob]

EXACTLY! So basically you are saying that FLA is blessed by geography and having that 12 degree advantage. How more "blessed" can that be when it comes to luring the NASA/military complex to an area? That is all I have been saying all along. But, you guys want to make it seem that these places are so awful and at a disadvantage! That their success has only been brought on by what humans have done to attract business.

 

Can we just finally agree that: Location (hence geography), location, and location is the lynch pin to everything?

 

And you are supposed to the best critical thinker this board has? You are a light weight and it is showing. Your are getting slayed by me... ME?

That's because Tom thinks he's Integrated empiricism and rationalism to become a pragmatist but what has really done is integrated being an imperialist with being a rationalizer to become a sycophantic bootlicking toady apologist for the monied interests.

[DC Tom]

EXACTLY! So basically you are saying that FLA is blessed by geography and having that 12 degree advantage. How more "blessed" can that be when it comes to luring the NASA/military complex to an area? That is all I have been saying all along. But, you guys want to make it seem that these places are so awful and at a disadvantage! That their success has only been brought on by what humans have done to attract business.

 

Can we just finally agree that: Location (hence geography), location, and location is the lynch pin to everything?

 

And you are supposed to the best critical thinker this board has? You are a light weight and it is showing. Your are getting slayed by me... ME?

 

Except for the fact that you specifically and erroneously argued that Florida's CLIMATE was why they launched space vehicles there...

 

Christ, you're a dolt. You just lost an argument to youself.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Except for the fact that you specifically and erroneously argued that Florida's CLIMATE was why they launched space vehicles there...

 

Christ, you're a dolt. You just lost an argument to youself.

 

And CLIMATE (@ sea level) is also affected by Lat (location) closer to the equator. Climate also plays a part in the next step up from location... It is also a plus. As is the hot, DRY, hell on earth climate a plus for LANDING at Edwards or White Sands.

 

Nice try.

Edited March 16, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[Jim in Anchorage]

Thank you.

 

It is a freakin' desert, where are they gonna go?

 

 

 

Yes, you are right... But now compare that to where it is launched and the price tag against transportation. Of course they want to launch just west of the ocean... That way if something goes wrong... They scuttle over the water rather than populated land... Or in the case of Challenger, blow-up.

 

FLA, pretty much perfect LOCATION place to launch... Not so perfect to land... Yet, landing there can be learned and they can save some dough.

 

Where else in the country are they more blessed to carry out these missions?

 

Hawaii

 

Closer to the equator, perfect climate,surrounded by water. But that messes up your "blessed" theory.

 

But a Florida location doe's have some perks

Edited March 16, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage

[ExiledInIllinois]

Hawaii

 

Closer to the equator, perfect climate,surrounded by water. But that messes up your "blessed" theory.

 

But a Florida location doe's have some perks

 

 

No. It also has to be in the lower 48 next to the rest of the military complex... I thought that was a given. Oh wait, where is the largest concentration of that located? Texas? Where is Texas between? Cali and FLA.

 

We aren't talking about your Anchorage from a sole military base purpose... And being globally blessed... Pearl Harbor is geographically blessed as best as they come when it comes to many other purposes.

 

I would actually buy what you are saying above if HI was in the lower 48... HI is geo blessed when it comes to EVERYTHING except position/location in relation to everybody else... With its central location in the pacific it is nice for a splashdown in the old days... It is totally handicapped by where it is in realation to everybody else, everything every other asset it has is thrown out the window.

 

No matter how good you have it, most of the time you gotta be in the same neigborhood as the rest of the family and friends.

 

Like a target practice score that compose of all bulleyes with the last shot being not even registered on the board. You misssed one important thing that messed up your whole shoot... THE BOARD!

 

Anyway... You are still being subjective about geography. You are not factoring ALL asspects of being geo blessed with relationed to what's at hand. I know you wanna get me on this "great weather alone BS"... And now you are attempting to connect soley location. There are many factors in what is considered "geographically blessed."

 

 

Your dog doesn't hunt. Try again.

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

No. It also has to be in the lower 48 next to the rest of the military complex... I thought that was a given. Oh wait, where is the largest concentration of that located? Texas? Where is Texas between? Cali and FLA.

 

We aren't talking about your Anchorage from a sole military base purpose... And being globally blessed... Pearl Harbor is geographically blessed as best as they come when it comes to many other purposes.

 

I would actually buy what you are saying above if HI was in the lower 48... HI is geo blessed when it comes to EVERYTHING except position/location in relation to everybody else... With its central location in the pacific it is nice for a splashdown in the old days... It is totally handicapped by where it is in realation to everybody else, everything every other asset it has is thrown out the window.

 

No matter how good you have it, most of the time you gotta be in the same neigborhood as the rest of the family and friends.

 

Like a target practice score that compose of all bulleyes with the last shot being not even registered on the board. You misssed one important thing that messed up your whole shoot... THE BOARD!

 

Anyway... You are still being subjective about geography. You are not factoring ALL asspects of being geo blessed with relationed to what's at hand. I know you wanna get me on this "great weather alone BS"... And now you are attempting to connect soley location. There are many factors in what is considered "geographically blessed."

 

 

Your dog doesn't hunt. Try again.

 

I don't have a dog. Ever thought why Texas has more non-Navy militery bases than, say Arizona? Politics maybe? But of course your remarkably simplistic view of the world has no room for any thing more complex then "geographically blessed".

[DC Tom]

And CLIMATE (@ sea level) is also affected by Lat (location) closer to the equator. Climate also plays a part in the next step up from location... It is also a plus. As is the hot, DRY, hell on earth climate a plus for LANDING at Edwards or White Sands.

 

Nice try.

 

"Nice try"?

 

 

You said "because of the climate". I said you were wrong. You replied "See, because of geography, like I said!" I replied "No, you said climate."

 

And now...what the !@#$ is this bull ****? Climate is affected by latitude...therefore that proves that you're right? Climate determines the location of KSC, because climate and KSC's location are both related to latitude? Climate determines geography because climate's affected by latitude? Are you somehow confusing cause and effect? Seriously...what the !@#$ is this bull ****?

 

You said KSC is where it is because of the climate. I said it's not. There is no "nice try". You were wrong. I am right. They did not choose Cape Canaveral for KSC because it's a hot, humid, hurricane-prone, alligator infested swamp with occasional hard freezes.

[OCinBuffalo]

I know two conservatives that watch Fox News - and the correlation between them and Fox News is less "they're conservative" and more "they're pinheads."

 

Conversely, I only know two liberals who DON'T B word about Fox News every single day. Most of the conservatives I know couldn't tell you what cable channel it's on. Most of the liberals I know seem to know the details of their programming content.

Ain't this the truth. I have to endure 3-4 "But..but..but..Glenn Beck said this!" idiotic arguments a month. I believe we can put this to bed finally. Simply ask:

 

"why the f do people who supposedly hate a network know way more about it than it's supposed audience, and why do these same people keep propagating something they are supposed to hate? Are you all stupid, or insane? You are the ones complaining about Fox's existence, yet you are the ones directly contributing to that existence by never shutting up about it, everywhere. And you dare come talk to me, who only watches Brett Baier, and O'Reilly on occasion, and want me to defend things/people I don't care about? This is retarded, and besides, the Sabres game is back on."

 

It's as though they think people have FOX running in the background 24/7, and, as though it's not possible to like O'Reilly and Baier but hate Hannity or Beck, and, as though we all have the time to watch these shows every day, for 8 hours a day.

Wait, you think people stay here because they like the physical attributes to the area? :lol:

 

The city is completely concrete, there's almost no green patches anywhere......

Don't forget about the hail...that turned my rental car into a golfball 3 or 4 times. Always get the insurance on rental cars, period, but especially get it in Dallas and San Antonio in the fall and spring.

 

Personally, I think the amount of homegrown female talent in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, and that the area seems to draw all the talent from neighboring states...has no bearing on the success of Texas on the whole at all. Nah, nobody likes being completely distracted by an entire lunch filled with hotties. It's bad for business!

Edited March 17, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Nice try"?

 

 

You said "because of the climate". I said you were wrong. You replied "See, because of geography, like I said!" I replied "No, you said climate."

 

And now...what the !@#$ is this bull ****? Climate is affected by latitude...therefore that proves that you're right? Climate determines the location of KSC, because climate and KSC's location are both related to latitude? Climate determines geography because climate's affected by latitude? Are you somehow confusing cause and effect? Seriously...what the !@#$ is this bull ****?

 

You said KSC is where it is because of the climate. I said it's not. There is no "nice try". You were wrong. I am right. They did not choose Cape Canaveral for KSC because it's a hot, humid, hurricane-prone, alligator infested swamp with occasional hard freezes.

 

You just can't admit you are wrong.

 

Why are choosing to see the negatives? And be subjective? What is the weather like on the northeastern FLA coast outside of hurricane season and the middle of summer? It is quite pleasant, even through the winter. If they wanted all those negatives like you posted, they would have pushed KSC 5 degrees south to Miami and South FLA... Afterall, you said latitude is the main reason. 12 north to BFLO, NY and 5 south to south FLA... In your own words, I take that 5 degrees means a lot! So yes, it is climate TOO.

 

Perfect intro to this, you need the attitude change:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56nHBah7mdE

[DC Tom]

You just can't admit you are wrong.

 

Easy in this case, since I wasn't. You said "climate", I said "nope" and explained why, then you said "See, geography!" Except you said "climate".

 

Maybe you shouldn't have made the stupid statement that military base locations are determined by climate?

[Buftex]

The "promise breaking" conitnues...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/tea-party-group-plans-pro_n_839874.html

[Chef Jim]

The "promise breaking" conitnues...

 

http://www.huffingto...o_n_839874.html

 

I'm not a tea party member but I will tell you those people are pissed and that's what we need. We don't need people shruggng their shoulders and saying "oh well, we tried." The tea party members are paying attention and if the people they elected don't follow what they want they'll keep trying until the get what they want. That is exactly what this country needs. Good for them.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Chef Jim

[Buftex]

I'm not a tea party member but I will tell you those people are pissed and that's what we need. We don't need people shruggng their shoulders and saying "oh well, we tried." The tea party members are paying attention and if the people they elected don't follow what they want they'll keep trying until the get what they want. That is exactly what this country needs. Good for them.

 

 

I agree with you on that point...wish Democrats would have done the same with the president. He hasn't done the things we had elected him to do, and has barely faught for any of the issues he ran on. He has, instead, gone head to head with his Repulican opposition, and surrendered at every opportunity...Democrats are disappointed, because he is, basically, straddling the middle of the road to appease Republicans, and Republicans will never be happy with him, because he isn't a Republican...it's a lose-lose situation all the way around!

[IDBillzFan]

The "promise breaking" conitnues...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/tea-party-group-plans-pro_n_839874.html

Interesting.

 

Republicans break promises, like how much they intend to cut from the budget, and their constituents tell them to stick to their word or they're gone.

 

Democrats break promises, like closing Gitmo or allowing five days of public comments before signing a bill, and their constituents point out the Republican's broken promises.

[Chef Jim]

I agree with you on that point...wish Democrats would have done the same with the president. He hasn't done the things we had elected him to do, and has barely faught for any of the issues he ran on. He has, instead, gone head to head with his Repulican opposition, and surrendered at every opportunity...Democrats are disappointed, because he is, basically, straddling the middle of the road to appease Republicans, and Republicans will never be happy with him, because he isn't a Republican...it's a lose-lose situation all the way around!

 

See I don't always get under your skin. But it looks like Obama does. Cool.