After consideration, I have to agree that the argument is valid. One can make the argument that US tax dollars are being wasted whether one has paid US taxes or not. Status as a taxpayer is not relevant to the validity of the argument.
The original question you asked was "Is NASA wasting tax dollars? Do you care? Should I care that you care?"
It is not about whether US tax dollars are being wasted, it is whether NASA is wasting the US tax dollars. So, which particular argument is the one that you argee with?
This is rather like a politician saying "well, thats a very good question and I am glad you asked it" and then going on to answer a completely different question altogether A question that has nothing to do with the crucial point of the original question, but still allowing everyone to think you have answered to their satisfaction.
Presumably you think you should care, but you dont because you can argue to yourself that there is a legal reason for not suffering any loss. Should anyone say that you were accusing NASA of wasting tax dollars, you can always point to the fact that you did not answer the question directly, one way or the other.
I am going to have to push you on this one, since you, yourself asked it. It seems that we would really like to know where you personally stand as regards NASA wasting tax dollars, not whether you agree that the argument is a valid one or not.
This is not coming down one side of the fence or the other, it is walking very carefully along the top !!
Also, seeing that 7 out of the top 8 most prolific posters here seem to be in the same situation, it raises the question. If you've never contributed any significant US tax money, do you feel that it's valid for you to make an argument based on how US tax money is spent?
Kennedyassasination, Watergate, Vietnam, the twin towers- a lot of taxpayers money has gone into the orkus.....
I am living in an occupied country, parts of its ressources go to the States. Tribut. And are used what for ?
Most people are unaware of their own surrounding, as I have said before many times, - ' cause they do not have acces to a multifacetted education. Common people get common onedimensional education. People with some advanced awarenes are always a product of selfeducation, not of governement or religious education. So they have to walk the hard way, which is in fact the only way with some substantial reality in it.
Are the tributes and taxes wasted ? In the case of NASA in my opinion not wasted but partly misused. As in many other selfproclaimed elitist onion groups, there are lots of skins, one above another above another above another....
Are the taxpayers bucks wasted in Afghanistan and in Irak ?
If people would be educated in the right way, by an education guiding them into their personal indepencence, the selfish ones would not have any chance anymore, nowhere.
After consideration, I have to agree that the argument is valid. One can make the argument that US tax dollars are being wasted whether one has paid US taxes or not. Status as a taxpayer is not relevant to the validity of the argument.
While I have decided that this is the case, it still FEELS wrong. This comes from the precedent of legal standing. In law that is the idea that someone must demonstrate sufficient connection to the issue and demonstrate that he has incurred harm from the action in order for it to be brought before the court. Without that, the plaintiff is said to "lack standing" and the case will be dismissed. For instance, if I were to bring a suit against BP for the Deepwater Horizons leak, my case would "lack standing" because I have suffered no direct economic loss. Even though I may suffer peripheral loss (say, an increase in gas prices) that loss is not considered sufficient connection.
In the US, if a case was brought before court regarding misappropriations of tax money by someone who had not contributed to those taxes, it would "lack standing."
But the validity of an argument is not determined by legal precedent. So I hold with my first conclusion.
I've been sitting on the fence because I've been mulling over these conflicting ideas. I appreciate the input from members who have helped me to make this decision.
Rather than sitting on the fence O'Brien, maybe you could answer your own question please. I am sure we would all like to know how you stand on these issues.
O'Brien
I have to agree with qmantoo, your questions have been answered by other members opinions and perspectives, it is only right that you answer your own questions, plus I too would like to know how you stand on these issues.
__________________
"Creating a fiction when stating a fact destroys the credibility of the truth one are trying to convey"
Since Neil Amstrong said:"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".He has since stated that he had an awareness at the time of it being only one physical step for him, but that such a historic advancement was only made possible by the work of many other persons all around the world.
How says gamantoo:"NASA and other country's agencies have been designated (perhaps by default) as the body who explores space on our (the global population's) behalf." Since they put in the point of view of the mankind explaining all that has cost every piece of high technology that they have put in the space, proud of what they do for us, etc.. And then they show these poor retouched images I cannot stop asking me What is happens here? .These pictures, these poor explanations that give us cost so much?. I am not a good soldier who accepts all that that they say to him, I refuse to be one of The three wise monkeys:don't see, don't hear, don't speak, and I add dont ask Like part of the mandkind I dont mind if we are talking about the use of Us tax,Russian tax,Chinese tax,etc...If we are talking about something that affects me, my friends,my brothers or any other person that lives with me in this world,I always will say what I think about it. So here is your answer:"Yes, we can"
Rather than sitting on the fence O'Brien, maybe you could answer your own question please. I am sure we would all like to know how you stand on these issues.
Addressing my previous post ... since I don't have the privileges to edit posts, and since Chandre's post was being edited and material added to it while I was replying to the original, this will have to be an addendum.
The questions posed in the title were peripheral to the entire thread of thought laid out in the full body of the post, and to the single question asked at its conclusion.
It's possible to both want clearer images and global access to information without being displeased about how US tax money is spent. Since those opinions didn't address the issue of how US tax money is spent, I felt the issues being raised were wandering from the original topic.
There are numerous reasons and rationales in the last two posts, but I fear the original very specific question is being lost. My question was "Is it valid to make an argument based on how US taxpayer money is spent?"
qmantoo voiced his opinion on the matter in his second paragraph. The remainder of the two previous posts, while food for thought, have strayed from the original question.
OBrien, as a South African I can assure you that the apartheid era would never have come to an end if international pressure and sanctions had not been applied. The weight of the worlds opinion finally forced us to reassess the error of what was happening and make the necesary changes.
So, if the world had chose silence and disassociation from the suffering then it would have continued. They could have, because it was not their country but I personally am very grateful that they did not do that.
What grew from freedom in my country is the concept of UBUNTU, simply put...'we are all one'. The suffering that happens to someone anywhere on Earth happens to you too and you can ignore that or you can take a stand and speak your truth.
People often underestimate the power of one, that is a mistake ! One person CAN and often has made an enormous difference to the path of history.
On this Forum we are not fighting for world peace or larger concepts. We may discuss our views on it, which can be interesting as we have members from all over the world and the perspectives differ greatly making for some thought-provoking reading at times.
We are fighting for clearer images from the space agencies that are currently exploring the solar system (and beyond). Its really that simple
I believe that every person on this planet has the right to that information irrespective of where they happen to reside. Its about the bigger questions....
Who are we ? Where did we come from ? Why are we here ? Are we alone ?
These questions form the basis (in some way) of every religion and philosophy on Earth and in this way we are all united, we are all one, and we all have the right to the answers.
One of the ways of limiting the amount of resistance, is to continually wear down and reduce the amount of will to participate and free expression allowed. A public debate should be open to all, and to limit the number of people allowed into the debate room will seriously limit the amount of debate that is generated. That may be beneficial to our cause or it may be detrimental to our cause - it depends which side of the debate you are on, doesn't it?
Does money belong to the country that mints it? Can anyone these days say that they do not have a finger in every pie? NO they cannot because we all have insurance policies and pensions that invest in global companies and government bonds. So, from a financial point of view, I DO have a right of say. This is one answer to your question. NASA gets its financial lifeblood from the US government as well as other places, and as long as it is connected to the global economy, I also contribute to its budget.
I am not a US citizen, but I can see the sleeping mass of US citizens need to wake up before things are out of hand. I can see that my friends are being lied to and that they are being taken for a ride, and totally conned. Wouldn't you want to alert your friend to this kind of scam or deception? If you friend was being raped and pillaged(whatever 'pillaged' means), wouldn't you want to stop that violation of their rights and harm to their self?
The answer you need to explain your question maybe all about caring for others, and about a general concern for the environment, population, and the future of our human race. Not, to the exclusion of all other races, but in a way that recognises the diversity of life everywhere and allows free will to be expressed by others without violating our own free will. If other third parties wish to limit that free will, then there will always be those who make a stand against agencies who seek to limit this free will. This is not always done in a violent way, but none the less it can still be effective.
There are many aspects of space exploration that NASA shares with other space agencies across the world. Either in taking the satellites, experiments, or personnel into space or by supplying various pieces of equipment for other countries to take into space on their own spacecraft. ESA and NASA collaborate all the time, so as a member of European Community I care in this way and I am involved.
NASA and other country's agencies have been designated (perhaps by default) as the body who explores space on our (the global population's) behalf. We do not have the individual resources to undertake such a project and we trust those that we assign this task, to do a good honest job at it. It is rather like politics, we trust that government will be honest and do what is best for the community, BUT where that is not the case, then we recognise that the system has broken down and other factors are influencing the way decisions are made and these decisions are not for our collective benefit, but for the benefit of a few greedy and callous organisations.
As a member of the global population as well as a friend, I like to see the US growing in knowledge, wisdom and in experience. There will always be those people who cannot see the facts in front of their noses and there will always be people who are some years ahead of the game. I reckon that some of the people on this and other forums are ahead of the game and can recognise where we are being deceived. Of course, some are just plain paranoid too.
If we have any religious background at all or subscribe to any moral code, then I would hope that we generally agree with many of the points I have made above. However, there are always going to be people who choose, for whatever reason, to "back the wrong horse" and to perpetuate the deception and to seek to further limit free will choices and to control and enslave others.
I'm having a hard time coming to a decision about something. How much weight in an argument should be given to the personal involvement of one of the parties?
On the one hand, most people would agree that the world was improved when it took a stand against apartheid (generally recognized as A Bad Thing), even though most people lobbying for change were not directly affected by it. Many campaigns around the world exist to fight for political rights in foreign lands, lobby for the release of women who will be executed for violating local and religious taboos, and decry the economic policies of other countries where the population is in poverty, even though the people who do so have no direct interest in the matter other than they see a wrong they feel needs to be righted.
On the other hand, people always use the weight of their personal invovement in an argument. In the recent flap over a Muslim Center near Ground Zero in New York City, a frequent argument was "We live in New York, we lived through 9/11, you didn't have to, therefore our argument is inherently more valid." In a discussion about gay rights, a straight person may have one opinion, but a gay person may say "What do you know? You're not gay, you're not involved, it's none of your business." If I were to suddenly take an intense interest in your personal local political structure, studying it intently and deeply, I imagine you'd personally be annoyed if I told you that Candidate X was better than Candidate Y, or that a particular measure should be voted on in a particular way. I imagine a typical response would be "You don't live here, you have only an academic interest in my local politics, I have to live with it, you have no right to be arguing for or against something that doesn't involve you."
That's a long preface to the main question which came up the other day. Are the following two arguments made in threads here (and many, many others like it I've heard elsewhere) valid?
"I get the impression, more than half of their (NASA) budget goes to camouflage department. The employers working there to let us belief they been there with a rolling-robot, eat all the USA tax money..." (Amsterdam)
"The American tax-payer coughed up a lot of dollars for these missions to take place, only to see the returned results played around with." (UK)
In each case, the complaint is that US tax money has been used in a way that the member doesn't like. But in both the cases here, the profiles of each member indicates that the member is probably not a US citizen. I'll take a wild guess that neither has ever paid significant US tax.
Also, seeing that 7 out of the top 8 most prolific posters here seem to be in the same situation, it raises the question. If you've never contributed any significant US tax money, do you feel that it's valid for you to make an argument based on how US tax money is spent?
