House Democrats propose national park on the moon

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

WHAT. THE. FUCK. OVER.

Two House Democrats are proposing that the next national park be out of this world.

Reps. Donna Edwards, D-Md., and Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, propose in the "Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act" that a national historical park on the moon be created to ensure the American landing sites are preserved for future generations.

The lawmakers say the legislation is necessary to protect the Apollo landing sites for "posterity," as commercial space exploration increases and more foreign nations head to space.

The Hill reports the bill would allow the federal government to accept donations to help preserve the landing sites and would create visitor services and administrative offices "within reasonable proximity to the Historical Park."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/09/house-democrats-propose-creating-national-park-on-moon/?test=latestnews#ixzz2YfKwRbSc

I guess they realize they've fucked this planet and country up enough, time to branch out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkFiAxo8tU

[cwolff]

You have to have a lot of time on your hands to come up with this kind of stupid shit.

These two should be shot.

[Back]

I'm all for it. In fact I agree with Gingrich on building a moon base. It makes sense for future exploration. If we can establish a base on the moon, travel to and from Earth safely and efficiently, then we can use the moon as a launching point for other travel. Launching from the moon would be a hell of a lot easier in terms of gravitational pull and atmospheric issues. Plus, I'm sure we can mine it for something useable.

[Parkbandit]

I'm all for it. In fact I agree with Gingrich on building a moon base. It makes sense for future exploration. If we can establish a base on the moon, travel to and from Earth safely and efficiently, then we can use the moon as a launching point for other travel. Launching from the moon would be a hell of a lot easier in terms of gravitational pull and atmospheric issues. Plus, I'm sure we can mine it for something useable.

And you know what? We can just use all the billions and trillions of dollars that Obamacare will save us to pay for it.

It's BRILLIANT!

[Tgo01]

I'm all for it. In fact I agree with Gingrich on building a moon base. It makes sense for future exploration. If we can establish a base on the moon, travel to and from Earth safely and efficiently, then we can use the moon as a launching point for other travel. Launching from the moon would be a hell of a lot easier in terms of gravitational pull and atmospheric issues. Plus, I'm sure we can mine it for something useable.

Sure. If we were living in the year 2564 this would be a great idea.

[Taernath]

Isn't there a UN treaty that prevents a nation from claiming a celestial body? I'm assuming by 'national' park they mean international.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Then I hope China or Russia invade or Al Quaeda attacks it somehow. We can finally graduate from this silly Global War on Terror to the Universal War on Terror. 5313

[cwolff]

I'm assuming by 'national' park they mean international.

Nope. National as in Yellowstone, Acadia, Big Bend, Moon.

[Warriorbird]

Better than some stuff we spend our money on. All the advances that our NASA expenditures brought us are valuable.

[cwolff]

All the advances that our NASA expenditures brought us are valuable.

NASA has brought value that's damn near immeasurable. A Moon park is a totally different story.

What protections are in place for national parks? You can't build a rocket launching pad inside one can you?

[Taernath]

What protections are in place for national parks? You can't build a rocket launching pad inside one can you?

Maybe they'll build a marijuana grow op in one.

[Back]

Maybe they'll build a marijuana grow op in one.

Moon weed! I like these ideas more and more.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm all for it. In fact I agree with Gingrich on building a moon base. It makes sense for future exploration. If we can establish a base on the moon, travel to and from Earth safely and efficiently, then we can use the moon as a launching point for other travel. Launching from the moon would be a hell of a lot easier in terms of gravitational pull and atmospheric issues. Plus, I'm sure we can mine it for something useable.

You're all for building a national park on land that isn't ours? We don't own the moon.

[Warriorbird]

Maybe they'll build a marijuana grow op in one.

I'm pretty sure they're far ahead of you on this.

[tyrant-201]

You're all for building a national park on land that isn't ours? We don't own the moon.

Well we found it! And it's not like we're stealing it from some Moon natives or anything. And indirectly and directly causing a genocide. That would be horrible.

[Jarvan]

I actually like this idea.

How about we first figure out a safe fast and reliable way to GET there and back though?

Also, governments may not be able to claim the moon, but if I had Bill gates type of money, I would be in the process of building a base there. Then claim it as my own. Once I am on the moon, I don't have to abide by Earth Treaties.

[Tgo01]

Democrats propose a national park that only the 1% will be able to afford to visit and Democratic voters think this is a good idea.

What is wrong with this picture?

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Well we found it! And it's not like we're stealing it from some Moon natives or anything. And indirectly and directly causing a genocide. That would be horrible.

Yes we are.

5314

[Warriorbird]

Democrats propose a national park that only the 1% will be able to afford to visit and Democratic voters think this is a good idea.

What is wrong with this picture?

And a RINO has finally done it.

They made Newt Gingrich a Democrat.

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/newt-gingrich1-600x345.jpg

[Tgo01]

And a RINO has finally done it.

They made Newt Gingrich a Democrat.

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/newt-gingrich1-600x345.jpg

I thought Gingrich wanted a base on the moon? Y'know, employing low wage workers to maintain the base while allowing 1%'ers to travel up there for some moon fun? Isn't that the trifecta of Republican awesomeness? The third being a Republican?

[Delias]

You're all for building a national park on land that isn't ours? We don't own the moon.

I do. I've ridden the mighty moonworm.

[Warriorbird]

I thought Gingrich wanted a base on the moon? Y'know, employing low wage workers to maintain the base while allowing 1%'ers to travel up there for some moon fun? Isn't that the trifecta of Republican awesomeness? The third being a Republican?

How exactly is this different? It'd be like Elon Musk and Richard Branson flights to get there.

[Tgo01]

I've ridden the mighty moonworm.

That sounds like homosexual slang.

[Tgo01]

How exactly is this different? It'd be like Elon Musk and Richard Branson flights to get there.

The difference is I thought Republicans were the champions of the 1% while the Democrats were the champions of the 99%?

[Warriorbird]

The difference is I thought Republicans were the champions of the 1% while the Democrats were the champions of the 99%?

And this is that idea restructured so it would help society more. Shocking. It's not like Obama hasn't made a career of stealing Republican ideas.

[Tgo01]

And this is that idea restructured so it would help society more. Shocking. It's not like Obama hasn't made a career of stealing Republican ideas.

How does any structure on the moon help society at all?

[tyrant-201]

How does any structure on the moon help society at all?

It's the moon, man. The moon. How cool would it be to live there? Just float around in low gravity. Fuck yeah.

[Tgo01]

It's the moon, man. The moon. How cool would it be to live there? Just float around in low gravity. Fuck yeah.

1%er!

[Delias]

That sounds like homosexual slang.

http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_Worm

[Latrinsorm]

You're all for building a national park on land that isn't ours? We don't own the moon.Fact: the moon rules, #1.
Fact: America rules, #1.
Therefore, the moon = America.

Am I wrong?
How does any structure on the moon help society at all?La science pour la science always helps us in the long run unless it completely eradicates us, and even that is debatably helping if you live in Alabama.

[Methais]

I wasn't aware that having something like that on the moon would help us with muslim outreach.

[Androidpk]

Moon weed! I like these ideas more and more.

You've been talking about weed a lot lately. I'm going to have to pencil you in for a drug test.

[Delias]

You've been talking about weed a lot lately. I'm going to have to pencil you in for a drug test.

By which you mean you insist he brings you his drugs and you test them?

[Androidpk]

By which you mean you insist he brings you his drugs and you test them?

You saw right through me.

[Delias]

You saw right through me.

I'll bring my quality control equipment.

[Methais]

I know you guys banned critical thinking in Texas. Did you ban reading comprehension too?

Perhaps you should enlighten him, since you sound like you know the answer.

[Androidpk]

I'll bring my quality control equipment.

Yes, and don't forget the water powered scientific glass piece.

[Tgo01]

And this is that idea restructured so it would help society more.


How does any structure on the moon help society at all?


I know you guys banned critical thinking in Texas. Did you ban reading comprehension too?

Uh...so what exactly am I misunderstading here?

I also liked your earlier implication that I always agree with anything a Republican says. I mean really, just out of the blue "BAM! Newt Gingrich said this! Where is your God now Tgo?!"

This isn't the first time you have implied that I agree with everything every Republican says. What exactly did I ever say to give you that impression? :(

[Warriorbird]

Uh...so what exactly am I misunderstading here?

I also liked your earlier implication that I always agree with anything a Republican says. I mean really, just out of the blue "BAM! Newt Gingrich said this! Where is your God now Tgo?!"

This isn't the first time you have implied that I agree with everything every Republican says. What exactly did I ever say to give you that impression? :(

Calm down their big guy.

I was pointing out how you'd gone from an idea restructured to "structure."

Before that I was making fun of your over emphasis on the Democratic nature of the idea through the use of Newt Gingrich, who your party raged out on over his space notions.

Really, there's a fair bit to to the notion of a structure on the moon helping society. Each time we've made NASA a priority it did a hell of a lot for American scientific innovation, whether it be under a Democratic or Republican administrations (and it has been under both). Lately we're just in the time of OMG GOVERNMENT SPENDING BADDDZ!

American scientific innovation helps all of us.

[Tgo01]

I was pointing out how you'd gone from an idea restructured to "structure."

No I really wasn't. I just used the word structure because Newt was talking about building a base and this plan is talking about a national monument of some sort. Saying "structure" would fit both ideas.


Lately we're just in the time of OMG GOVERNMENT SPENDING BADDDZ!

I'm all for scientific breakthroughs and shit but really? A national monument? On the moon? All of 12 people have walked on the moon to date with no immediate plans to up that number but yes, a monument on the moon is exactly what the US needs right now.

[Warriorbird]

I'm all for scientific breakthroughs and shit but really? A national monument? On the moon? All of 12 people have walked on the moon to date with no immediate plans to up that number but yes, a monument on the moon is exactly what the US needs right now.

Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are both things right now. Elon Musk and SpaceX just launched a hovering vertical takeoff and land rocket. Do you want to be ahead on this or behind the Chinese and the Russians?

Before we started ending any meaningful Congressional cooperation space travel has always been one of the precious few things that bring Americans together. It's one of the things that makes me, personally, feel the most patriotic. I know that holds true for a lot of other folks.

[Parkbandit]

I'm fine with the Chinese or Russians putting up a national monument on the moon before us.

[Delias]

Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are both things right now. Elon Musk and SpaceX just launched a hovering vertical takeoff and land rocket. Do you want to be ahead on this or behind the Chinese and the Russians?

Before we started ending any meaningful Congressional cooperation space travel has always been one of the precious few things that bring Americans together. It's one of the things that makes me, personally, feel the most patriotic. I know that holds true for a lot of other folks.

I actually have to agree- the immediate research potential and future economic potential of being the biggest and best in space is worth maybe building one less stealth bomber and a few less tanks per year, in my opinion. I'm not an expert and certainly don't have the figures to back me up, but I think it will be cheaper in the long run for our government to take an active role than it will be to pay private contractors in 20 years to handle our extra-planetary activities.

[Gelston]

I'm actually for them being declared a national park. Obviously we can't go there, and they won't be building anything there, but it'll be documented for the future.

Although, I'm not sure if we have the authority, being that I believe we signed a treaty back during the Space Race saying no nation could claim land on the moon.

Here it is (Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

[Delias]

I'm actually for them being declared a national park. Obviously we can't go there, and they won't be building anything there, but it'll be documented for the future.

Although, I'm not sure if we have the authority, being that I believe we signed a treaty back during the Space Race saying no nation could claim land on the moon.

If it was just us and the USSR, I believe it would now be defunct.

Plus, it has our flag on it.

[Gelston]

If it was just us and the USSR, I believe it would now be defunct.

Plus, it has our flag on it.

No, it is over 100 nations that have signed it. It was a UN treaty, with still more signing it to this date.

[Delias]

No, it is over 100 nations that have signed it. It was a UN treaty, with still more signing it to this date.

Ridiculous. I am pretty sure Buzz licked one of the rocks while he was there, so nobody else wants the moon anyway.

[Jarvan]

We could always just change our mind.

[Parkbandit]

What's the rush?

While I believe we should be able to do more than one thing at a time in Congress.. this probably has the lowest priority of anything I've ever heard of coming out of there. How many jobs will this create? Will it stimulate the economy? Will it lower our deficit?

Let's keep our eye on the big picture.. this isn't quite Star Trek yet.

[Gelston]

We could always just change our mind.

That would take an act of Congress. Good luck with that.

[Delias]

What's the rush?

While I believe we should be able to do more than one thing at a time in Congress.. this probably has the lowest priority of anything I've ever heard of coming out of there. How many jobs will this create? Will it stimulate the economy? Will it lower our deficit?

Let's keep our eye on the big picture.. this isn't quite Star Trek yet.

It isn't star trek because after getting to the moon we basically said "Thanks for beating those damn commies, nasa, now go fuck yourself. Maybe hold a bake sale if you need funding."

While I understand the need to be fiscally conservative at this time, I just feel we should really be reallocating some of our hyper-inflated defense budget. Maybe the portion being spent on tanks that the military doesn't want would be a good start. If it is a question of keeping those manufacturing jobs (the few that are actually left in this country) I am sure Nasa could find something for them to build to advance the cause of space exploration and settlement.

Yes, settlement. Our odds improve as a species if we expand beyond earth. As an overall goal for our race I consider nothing to be more critical. The rewards for doing so first as a nation as opposed to a conglomerate might be questionable, but the necessity of doing so is very real.

I eagerly anticipate all of the reasons PB will find in the above to call me retarded.

[Methais]

While I understand the need to be fiscally conservative at this time, I just feel we should really be reallocating some of our hyper-inflated defense budget.

http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/400x/39612728.jpg

[Delias]

http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/400x/39612728.jpg

I'm fairly certain tanks are useless on the moon, too.

[Parkbandit]

It isn't star trek because after getting to the moon we basically said "Thanks for beating those damn commies, nasa, now go fuck yourself. Maybe hold a bake sale if you need funding."

While I understand the need to be fiscally conservative at this time, I just feel we should really be reallocating some of our hyper-inflated defense budget. Maybe the portion being spent on tanks that the military doesn't want would be a good start. If it is a question of keeping those manufacturing jobs (the few that are actually left in this country) I am sure Nasa could find something for them to build to advance the cause of space exploration and settlement.

Yes, settlement. Our odds improve as a species if we expand beyond earth. As an overall goal for our race I consider nothing to be more critical. The rewards for doing so first as a nation as opposed to a conglomerate might be questionable, but the necessity of doing so is very real.

We aren't ready for that.. given our technology and fiscal position. I agree though, we need to eventually get there... but there is no hurry. If you are concerned about the species of man, a more important task is identifying NEAs and coming up with a plan on how to deal with one that will hit the planet. Protect Earth should be a higher priority IMO.


I eagerly anticipate all of the reasons PB will find in the above to call me retarded.

I'm sure everyone here knows most of the reasons you are retarded.

[Taernath]

It isn't star trek because after getting to the moon we basically said "Thanks for beating those damn commies, nasa, now go fuck yourself. Maybe hold a bake sale if you need funding."

Always relevant:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

[Methais]

I'm fairly certain tanks are useless on the moon, too.

I wasn't aware that the defense budget was only used on tanks.

That said, you're still incorrect.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeked7TsE-k

[Wrathbringer]

We aren't ready for that.. given our technology and fiscal position. I agree though, we need to eventually get there... but there is no hurry. If you are concerned about the species of man, a more important task is identifying NEAs and coming up with a plan on how to deal with one that will hit the planet. Protect Earth should be a higher priority IMO.



I'm sure everyone here knows most of the reasons you are retarded.

Not fiscally ready, PB? Don't you know money is free? Spend all you want! We'll print more!

[Delias]

I wasn't aware that the defense budget was only used on tanks.

That said, you're still incorrect.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeked7TsE-k

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=military+doesn%27t+want+tanks

[Delias]

We aren't ready for that.. given our technology and fiscal position. I agree though, we need to eventually get there... but there is no hurry. If you are concerned about the species of man, a more important task is identifying NEAs and coming up with a plan on how to deal with one that will hit the planet. Protect Earth should be a higher priority IMO.



I'm sure everyone here knows most of the reasons you are retarded.

NEA's are only a part of the vast array of ways for a planet to die, some of which our only possible defense against is being somewhere else. Still worth developing a plan to deal with them, sure, but whatever we develop for asteroid defense will be useless against GRBs, not to mention the potential for ELEs that occur on/in the planet itself. We need self sufficient communities in as many different, non-earth places as possible to serve as a bastion against extinction. It will still be a losing battle- man will never master the stars. All we can do is try to keep far enough ahead, cover enough bases, that we can manage until the inevitable heat death of the universe. The odds of accomplishing that are essentially nil, but the longer we take the get started, the slimmer they get.

[Drew]

You're all for building a national park on land that isn't ours? We don't own the moon.

We could. Ownership is an abstract concept that is entirely related to how many weapons you have.

[Ashliana]

It isn't star trek because after getting to the moon we basically said "Thanks for beating those damn commies, nasa, now go fuck yourself. Maybe hold a bake sale if you need funding."

While I understand the need to be fiscally conservative at this time, I just feel we should really be reallocating some of our hyper-inflated defense budget. Maybe the portion being spent on tanks that the military doesn't want would be a good start. If it is a question of keeping those manufacturing jobs (the few that are actually left in this country) I am sure Nasa could find something for them to build to advance the cause of space exploration and settlement.

Yes, settlement. Our odds improve as a species if we expand beyond earth. As an overall goal for our race I consider nothing to be more critical. The rewards for doing so first as a nation as opposed to a conglomerate might be questionable, but the necessity of doing so is very real.

I eagerly anticipate all of the reasons PB will find in the above to call me retarded.

Space exploration has an insanely high ROI--not just for the US, but for all of mankind. Lots of things we take for granted were either invented specifically for the space program, or miniaturized small enough to be used in practical applications by regular people (like computers) for the space program. Necessity is the mother of invention, and say, focusing on establishing a base on the moon or Mars would spur technological advancement for decades.

Compare the expenditure of the war in Iraq ($813,000,000,000) since our invasion in 2003--in exchange for which we've gotten increased fundamentalism and decreased stability in the region, 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilian non-combatants, 4,500 dead U.S. soldiers, 32,000 seriously wounded soldiers, and soldiers with PTSD or other mental issues in the hundreds of thousands.

That's slightly more than NASA has spent in its entire history (its annual budget is about $19 billion), even adjusted for inflation. What did we get in return for investing in the space program? LEDs, GPS/satellite systems, medical technologies (artificial limbs, invisible braces)--the list goes on, and it's only an incidental benefit to the traditional reasons for space exploration.

If you really believe in "American exceptionalism" and about maintaining the US' position as a superpower, exploration and control of space is probably the best way to do it. Alas, people are short-sighted. Meanwhile, congress mandates the military spend billions of dollars maintaining equipment that makes no sense in the modern battlefield (like tanks) or developing "alternate" engines for the JSF, as free-giveaways to defense contractors and as GOP-friendly jobs programs (funny how the oft-repeated GOP claim that "government doesn't create jobs" doesn't apply when the government job involves making bullets to kill brown people overseas) in rural, southern states, despite the Pentagon repeatedly telling congress that they don't need, or want, money for those programs.

[Jarvan]

Space exploration has an insanely high ROI--not just for the US, but for all of mankind. Lots of things we take for granted were either invented specifically for the space program, or miniaturized small enough to be used in practical applications by regular people (like computers) for the space program. Necessity is the mother of invention, and say, focusing on establishing a base on the moon or Mars would spur technological advancement for decades.

Compare the expenditure of the war in Iraq ($813,000,000,000) since our invasion in 2003--in exchange for which we've gotten increased fundamentalism and decreased stability in the region, 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilian non-combatants, 4,500 dead U.S. soldiers, 32,000 seriously wounded soldiers, and soldiers with PTSD or other mental issues in the hundreds of thousands.

That's slightly more than NASA has spent in its entire history (its annual budget is about $19 billion), even adjusted for inflation. What did we get in return for investing in the space program? LEDs, GPS/satellite systems, medical technologies (artificial limbs, invisible braces)--the list goes on, and it's only an incidental benefit to the traditional reasons for space exploration.

If you really believe in "American exceptionalism" and about maintaining the US' position as a superpower, exploration and control of space is probably the best way to do it. Alas, people are short-sighted. Meanwhile, congress mandates the military spend billions of dollars maintaining equipment that makes no sense in the modern battlefield (like tanks) or developing "alternate" engines for the JSF, as free-giveaways to defense contractors and as GOP-friendly jobs programs (funny how the oft-repeated GOP claim that "government doesn't create jobs" doesn't apply when the government job involves making bullets to kill brown people overseas) in rural, southern states, despite the Pentagon repeatedly telling congress that they don't need, or want, money for those programs.

Tanks are still useful on the battlefield. It just depends where that battlefield is really.

Also, I notice you mention GOP-friendly jobs programs. You do know that just about every senator and congressman will vote against closing bases in their state right? Or will vote for a bill that sends money to a contractor in their state. It's a money thing, not an ideology thing. Also your poke at making bullets to kill brown people is highly offensive. But it is not surprising coming from you. I wonder tho.. how many dems voted yes on any bill for buying more bullets to fight those same "brown" people. Also, those jobs making the bullets are not government jobs. They are private industry. So no, the Government didn't directly create those jobs. The government does prop them up though, at least high tech ordinance. Low tech I don't think really sees any change.

We do need to scale back on some of our military stuff, that's for sure. Yet we can't stop spending. We still need tanks, in fact we need better tanks. We just don't heed thousands of them anymore.

I personally think we do need a national space exploration program. We also need private company space exploration as well. Why is there are need for both? Because one will do everything for profit, and if there is none, they likely won't do it. Where as the other will do the things where there may be no profit upfront, but can in the later part.

Imagine this.. Virgin Galactic send a ship to Mars first. In the process, a Chinese company performs a hostile take over of the company. The people on the ship are mostly American and European. The ships is built in numerous placed, but Launched from the US. Ultimately, who gets to claim that they got to Mars first? Does it matter? If you say no it doesn't, then you forget how much the 60's meant to the American people. National pride goes a long way.

I do think our first goal though should be a real space station, not a maned flight to Mars.

[Tgo01]

Space exploration has an insanely high ROI--not just for the US, but for all of mankind. Lots of things we take for granted were either invented specifically for the space program, or miniaturized small enough to be used in practical applications by regular people (like computers) for the space program. Necessity is the mother of invention, and say, focusing on establishing a base on the moon or Mars would spur technological advancement for decades.

Compare the expenditure of the war in Iraq ($813,000,000,000) since our invasion in 2003--in exchange for which we've gotten increased fundamentalism and decreased stability in the region, 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilian non-combatants, 4,500 dead U.S. soldiers, 32,000 seriously wounded soldiers, and soldiers with PTSD or other mental issues in the hundreds of thousands.

That's slightly more than NASA has spent in its entire history (its annual budget is about $19 billion), even adjusted for inflation. What did we get in return for investing in the space program? LEDs, GPS/satellite systems, medical technologies (artificial limbs, invisible braces)--the list goes on, and it's only an incidental benefit to the traditional reasons for space exploration.

If you really believe in "American exceptionalism" and about maintaining the US' position as a superpower, exploration and control of space is probably the best way to do it. Alas, people are short-sighted. Meanwhile, congress mandates the military spend billions of dollars maintaining equipment that makes no sense in the modern battlefield (like tanks) or developing "alternate" engines for the JSF, as free-giveaways to defense contractors and as GOP-friendly jobs programs (funny how the oft-repeated GOP claim that "government doesn't create jobs" doesn't apply when the government job involves making bullets to kill brown people overseas) in rural, southern states, despite the Pentagon repeatedly telling congress that they don't need, or want, money for those programs.

What like the military doesn't lead to technological advances or something? You credit the space program with advances in computing when it was the military that really got computing off the ground. Also GPS was designed and developed by the department of defense for the military, it is still being maintained by the department of defense.

You sure do view the past with rose colored glasses.

[Ashliana]

Tanks are still useful on the battlefield. It just depends where that battlefield is really.

Also, I notice you mention GOP-friendly jobs programs. You do know that just about every senator and congressman will vote against closing bases in their state right? Or will vote for a bill that sends money to a contractor in their state. It's a money thing, not an ideology thing. Also your poke at making bullets to kill brown people is highly offensive. But it is not surprising coming from you. I wonder tho.. how many dems voted yes on any bill for buying more bullets to fight those same "brown" people. Also, those jobs making the bullets are not government jobs. They are private industry. So no, the Government didn't directly create those jobs. The government does prop them up though, at least high tech ordinance. Low tech I don't think really sees any change.

We do need to scale back on some of our military stuff, that's for sure. Yet we can't stop spending. We still need tanks, in fact we need better tanks. We just don't heed thousands of them anymore.

I personally think we do need a national space exploration program. We also need private company space exploration as well. Why is there are need for both? Because one will do everything for profit, and if there is none, they likely won't do it. Where as the other will do the things where there may be no profit upfront, but can in the later part.

Imagine this.. Virgin Galactic send a ship to Mars first. In the process, a Chinese company performs a hostile take over of the company. The people on the ship are mostly American and European. The ships is built in numerous placed, but Launched from the US. Ultimately, who gets to claim that they got to Mars first? Does it matter? If you say no it doesn't, then you forget how much the 60's meant to the American people. National pride goes a long way.

I do think our first goal though should be a real space station, not a maned flight to Mars.

In practice, Democrats like government spending. In practice, Republicans like government spending. Republicans, however, claim they don't. That's specifically what I said--the GOP loves to claim how much they hate the idea that government ever provides jobs--and yet, specifically oppose terminating programs that the Pentagon insists are unnecessary. That, my friend, is sheer hypocrisy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-approves-useless-military-spending-2013-5

The Army chief of staff told congress explicitly (http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-approves-useless-military-spending-2013-5), regarding the Abrams tank program (~$400 million dollars): "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way."

The alternate Joint Strike Force jet engine is another spectacular example of insane defense waste--the Pentagon told congress over and over and over and over and over, that the program was completely unnecessary--it cost the taxpayers an additional $3 billion dollars for absolutely no reason, until it was FINALLY killed--despite the personal backing of--guess who?--John Boehner.

Want to spend government dollars? Fine, be my guest. Do it on something useful, like space exploration--not totally, one hundred percent pointless programs that the military itself opposes.


What like the military doesn't lead to technological advances or something? You credit the space program with advances in computing when it was the military that really got computing off the ground. Also GPS was designed and developed by the department of defense for the military, it is still being maintained by the department of defense.

You sure do view the past with rose colored glasses.

The military does lead to technological advances--and even the disastrous Iraq war has led to some discoveries as well (clotting technology, in particular). However, keeping numerous programs that the military itself opposes continuing alive, as stimulus plans for rural southern states, while simultaneously decrying the very concept of stimulus, is disingenuous, bullshit hypocrisy that the GOP is almost entirely composed of.

Want a compromise? Militarize space exploration. Either way, it gets done.

[Jarvan]

So Ashliana.. Hypocrisy would then be a Dem that Votes FOR military spending, but is against the military ever using what they voted to spend money on, aye?

Which is likely almost all Dems.

Face it.. Hypocrisy is on both sides of the isle... it's called Politics, and it sucks.

but my point is this...

(funny how the oft-repeated GOP claim that "government doesn't create jobs" doesn't apply when the government job involves making bullets to kill brown people overseas)

You added a racial tone to your message.. (go figure you are a Dem, it's always about race) when frankly, the GOP doesn't care what color of skin the bullets are penetrating, as long as they get elected, and resources keep rolling in.

But once again.. the Government buying Bullets does not create Jobs. Those Jobs already exist. The Government spending 1 billion to design a new tank, that would create jobs. Not government jobs tho, private industry ones.

Actually.. if we wanted to create MORE jobs, shouldn't we bring back the draft, then draft everyone possible, and go to war with everyone we can? Imagine all the jobs we would create!! We could have a standing army of 50 Million!!

[Tgo01]

However, keeping numerous programs that the military itself opposes continuing alive, as stimulus plans for rural southern states, while simultaneously decrying the very concept of stimulus, is disingenuous, bullshit hypocrisy that the GOP is almost entirely composed of.

Like the military is going to say "No no, we don't want that money at all. Take it back!" Shit, if the military had a choice; fund these programs you don't want or we take the money back I'd be willing to bet 57 cents that the military would say keep funding these programs we don't want.

[Androidpk]

Tanks are still useful on the battlefield. It just depends where that battlefield is really.

We still need tanks, in fact we need better tanks.

Tanks are not currently needed for todays type of engagements. That doesn't mean we won't ever need them again but the US Army and Marines are currently sitting on around 9,000 M1A battle tanks. I think it's safe to say we can stop production of them and not have any kind of national security threat. And no, we don't need better thanks at the moment.

This same logic applies to various equipment that the Air Force has been trying to retire in order to save money but Congress won't allow it. It has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with these Congressman doing whatever they want to appease the people and corporations that keep them in office.

[Androidpk]

Like the military is going to say "No no, we don't want that money at all. Take it back!" Shit, if the military had a choice; fund these programs you don't want or we take the money back I'd be willing to bet 57 cents that the military would say keep funding these programs we don't want.

Yes and no. That isn't always the case. Sometimes they do say no, we don't need that equipment anymore or no we don't think that particular project is needed.

[Tgo01]

Sometimes they do say no, we don't need that equipment anymore or no we don't think that particular project is needed.

Is that an attempt to have the money allocated elsewhere though? That would be my guess.

[Androidpk]

Is that an attempt to have the money allocated elsewhere though? That would be my guess.

I don't know. I know in the case of the C-5 it has to do with having too many planes that are just sitting around not even being used and Congress saying, "looks like you guys could use some more!"

[Latrinsorm]

What's the rush?Resources are finite and expendable. There is only so much oil on earth, so much heavy metals, etc. It is possible that space exploration (or any other technological achievement) has a window significantly shorter than that of the human race.

Cave men had no idea tin would become valuable, and people in the Bronze Age had no idea it would become worthless. Similarly, we have at best a vague notion of what will be necessary for large scale space exploration and colonization. What if it turns out helium is essential, but we squandered it all on children's balloons? Better to know as soon as possible.

Is declaring a national park going to get us that knowledge? Not directly, no, but increasing our focus on space is a step in the right direction.

[Warriorbird]

Not fiscally ready, PB? Don't you know money is free? Spend all you want! We'll print more!

It's been quite a while since a Republican Congress or President has cut spending.

[Jarvan]

Tanks are not currently needed for todays type of engagements. That doesn't mean we won't ever need them again but the US Army and Marines are currently sitting on around 9,000 M1A battle tanks. I think it's safe to say we can stop production of them and not have any kind of national security threat. And no, we don't need better thanks at the moment.

This same logic applies to various equipment that the Air Force has been trying to retire in order to save money but Congress won't allow it. It has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with these Congressman doing whatever they want to appease the people and corporations that keep them in office.

You are basing today's types of engagements on our fighting non-governments. Does Russia have tanks? China? I do believe they do. Are we LIKELY to go to war against them? No. Does that mean we don't NEED tanks to defend ourselves against the possible use of their tanks? Heck, almost every government has some form of tank, I am sure even Canada does. Yes, Air power is more important, but if we were fighting against a real government, I don't think we could depend on 100 fight/bombers to deal with their tank battalions.

And we ALWAYS need better Thanks. But we also need better Tanks too. Our current top of the line Tank is 30+ years old. Yes, they make improvements, and retrofit. But seriously.. 30 years old is top of the line? China is currently working on a new main battle tank. Granted, it's likely their new main may equal our 30 year old one. But do we really only want to be "on par" with the next biggest Military?

There is no reason not to work on new model tanks, doesn't mean we would need to order up 10k of them though.

[Back]

Drones are the new weapon. I also think drones are the best method of inter solar exploration at this point. We've gone to the moon and back. If we pour money into quicker travel (ion) and safety think how much that could effect our over all technological know how in every field.

[Jarvan]

Drones are the new weapon. I also think drones are the best method of inter solar exploration at this point. We've gone to the moon and back. If we pour money into quicker travel (ion) and safety think how much that could effect our over all technological know how in every field.

Then make a Drone tank. Problem solved.

[Delias]

Then make a Drone tank. Problem solved.

...

[Androidpk]

There is no reason not to work on new model tanks, doesn't mean we would need to order up 10k of them though.

You're talking about a brand new weapons platform. Don't underestimate the efficiency of upgrades.

[Jarvan]

You're talking about a brand new weapons platform. Don't underestimate the efficiency of upgrades.

This is true. Still tho.. a rebuilt pinto with high tech gear.. is still a pinto.

[Delias]

This is true. Still tho.. a rebuilt pinto with high tech gear.. is still a pinto.

The abrams is hardly a pinto.

[Androidpk]

This is true. Still tho.. a rebuilt pinto with high tech gear.. is still a pinto.

Except it isn't a pinto. The M1 is one of the most advanced main battle tanks ever designed, still today, especially with all the upgrade suites.

[Delias]

Except it isn't a pinto. The M1 is one of the most advanced main battle tanks ever designed, still today, especially with all the upgrade suites.

Stop agreeing with me before people start to think we're roommates.

[Jarvan]

The abrams is hardly a pinto.

Compared to a Plasma Cannon on a hovertank it is!

Thats what we need, Hovertanks with Plasma cannons.

[Delias]

Compared to a Plasma Cannon on a hovertank it is!

Thats what we need, Hovertanks with Plasma cannons.

Plasma is a worthwhile area of research for shielding in space.

[Latrinsorm]

And hover tanks would also work for space travel, just turn up the hover all the way. Done and done.

[Delias]

And hover tanks would also work for space travel, just turn up the hover all the way. Done and done.

The hover tank has an awesome and fundamental flaw.

[Gelston]

Then make a Drone tank. Problem solved.

Actually, yes. The Abrams is a mighty weapon of war, but they are slowly become more of a prestige weapon...

On another forum I post on we were recently having a discussion about the prevalence of cavalry from the Classical period to now. It basically goes back and forth between infantry and cavalry. In the ancient period (Rome), heavy infantry is what ruled the world, with cavalry generally playing a support role. During the waning days of the Western Empire, cavalry began to gain a more important role. They would now be used for more than scouting, harassment, or running down fleeing enemies.

You eventually get to the fully armored knight and heavy cavalry. They ruled battle for a period. Just like our tanks today, however, they were very expensive. Crossbows and long bowmen were cheap, with crossbowmen barely needing any training, thus the Pope banned the use of crossbowmen against Catholics. Later a bunch of dudes became protestant and pretty much said F the Pope and used them anyways. That is fine, since the Catholics could now use them against the Protestants... Being all Protesty and all.

Crossbows didn't totally kill off Cavalry, though. The eventually adaptation of gunpowder and halberd tactics ended destroyed cavalry. As firearms advanced, and the ring bayonet was invented and became widespread, cavalry was back to its ancient role of scouting and harassment. Something that wasn't used much in ancient times, however, that was used fairly heavily in the 17 and 1800s was mounted infantry. They were a type of cavalry who rode as cavalry, but fought on foot. The idea is they would use their high speeds and mobility to get around the enemy, dismount, (and in later periods, especially when they received rifles) they would lay the horses down and use them as cover. By the time of the 1860s, cavalry was fairly useless in fighting a conventional battle. One cavalryman was a lot more expensive then an infantryman, and they were a lot easier to bring down, being such a larger target. The Indian Wars of the United States, however, kept cavalry relevant to World War One.

With the advent of tanks, horse cavalry became completely obsolete. Armored cavalry was used as support for infantry up to the beginning of World War Two. The French had way better and more tanks than the Germans at the beginning... The difference was the use. The French used them purely as infantry support. The Germans, on the other hand, used infantry to support their tanks. Through out the war, the tank remained the lord of battle. Through the following cold war, tanks continued to be developed and placed in this role. They became more and more expensive, while the infantry weapons that could destroy them became cheaper, lighter, and more effective. I'm purposely leaving out air power, because I am assuming that anyone the US goes to war with will no longer have any, but that is also a very effective tank killer, since the second world war.

Which leads full circle, the infantry have an easy means to take out tanks. Tanks are a lot more expensive then the infantry. An M1A2 Abrams tank is about 9 million, not counting ammo, crew, and such. A Javelin anti-tank launcher, which is reusable, is about 130 grand. The missile is about 80 grand. Even if it took TEN to take out one tank, it is still a LOT cheaper. Which is why I think drone tanks will be better. You can make them a lot smaller, basically just a gun turret on treads. You don't have to use all this space for crew comforts, AC, or even a bunch of the computers inside it. The guy steering it somewhere else can have all that stuff.

tl;dr- Drone tanks plz.

[Candor]

If a couple Republicans have proposed designating an area on the Moon as a National Park, I expect the media would be poking fun at them for weeks. But instead a couple Democrats proposed it, so I guess that is acceptable.

I'm just wondering when any part of the Moon became US Territory. Maybe I missed the memo.

Ya know, as long as we're at it, we better start claiming the other planets in the solar system as US Territory before any other nations get the bright idea to do it.

That's silly you say? But placing a National Park on the Moon is not?

uh huh

[Gelston]

If a couple Republicans have proposed designating an area on the Moon as a National Park, I expect the media would be poking fun at them for weeks. But instead a couple Democrats proposed it, so I guess that is acceptable.

I'm just wondering when any part of the Moon became US Territory. Maybe I missed the memo.

Ya know, as long as we're at it, we better start claiming the other planets in the solar system as US Territory before any other nations get the bright idea to do it.

That's silly you say? But placing a National Park on the Moon is not?

uh huh

All vehicles and man-made objects that we left behind on the Apollo missions, per the UN Treaty, belong to the US. The Soviet Union/Russia-successor own a couple of dead rovers too. While not directly owning the land under these items, both nations own stuff on the moon... So there are parts of the moon's atmosphere that belong to us. :)

So... They could designate those ITEMS National Historic Landmarks much in the same way they do buildings.

[Tenlaar]

I'm just wondering when any part of the Moon became US Territory. Maybe I missed the memo.

There's a flag, brah. Don't you know how claiming land works? If you put a flag in it it's yours.

[Delias]

Actually, yes. The Abrams is a mighty weapon of war, but they are slowly become more of a prestige weapon...

On another forum I post on we were recently having a discussion about the prevalence of cavalry from the Classical period to now. It basically goes back and forth between infantry and cavalry. In the ancient period (Rome), heavy infantry is what ruled the world, with cavalry generally playing a support role. During the waning days of the Western Empire, cavalry began to gain a more important role. They would now be used for more than scouting, harassment, or running down fleeing enemies.

You eventually get to the fully armored knight and heavy cavalry. They ruled battle for a period. Just like our tanks today, however, they were very expensive. Crossbows and long bowmen were cheap, with crossbowmen barely needing any training, thus the Pope banned the use of crossbowmen against Catholics. Later a bunch of dudes became protestant and pretty much said F the Pope and used them anyways. That is fine, since the Catholics could now use them against the Protestants... Being all Protesty and all.

Crossbows didn't totally kill off Cavalry, though. The eventually adaptation of gunpowder and halberd tactics ended destroyed cavalry. As firearms advanced, and the ring bayonet was invented and became widespread, cavalry was back to its ancient role of scouting and harassment. Something that wasn't used much in ancient times, however, that was used fairly heavily in the 17 and 1800s was mounted infantry. They were a type of cavalry who rode as cavalry, but fought on foot. The idea is they would use their high speeds and mobility to get around the enemy, dismount, (and in later periods, especially when they received rifles) they would lay the horses down and use them as cover. By the time of the 1860s, cavalry was fairly useless in fighting a conventional battle. One cavalryman was a lot more expensive then an infantryman, and they were a lot easier to bring down, being such a larger target. The Indian Wars of the United States, however, kept cavalry relevant to World War One.

With the advent of tanks, horse cavalry became completely obsolete. Armored cavalry was used as support for infantry up to the beginning of World War Two. The French had way better and more tanks than the Germans at the beginning... The difference was the use. The French used them purely as infantry support. The Germans, on the other hand, used infantry to support their tanks. Through out the war, the tank remained the lord of battle. Through the following cold war, tanks continued to be developed and placed in this role. They became more and more expensive, while the infantry weapons that could destroy them became cheaper, lighter, and more effective. I'm purposely leaving out air power, because I am assuming that anyone the US goes to war with will no longer have any, but that is also a very effective tank killer, since the second world war.

Which leads full circle, the infantry have an easy means to take out tanks. Tanks are a lot more expensive then the infantry. An M1A2 Abrams tank is about 9 million, not counting ammo, crew, and such. A Javelin anti-tank launcher, which is reusable, is about 130 grand. The missile is about 80 grand. Even if it took TEN to take out one tank, it is still a LOT cheaper. Which is why I think drone tanks will be better. You can make them a lot smaller, basically just a gun turret on treads. You don't have to use all this space for crew comforts, AC, or even a bunch of the computers inside it. The guy steering it somewhere else can have all that stuff.

tl;dr- Drone tanks plz.

The only thing I want to contest in this is the length of time that it actually took for gunpowder weapons to render the breastplate obsolete. It survived quite a while after full plate armor went out of style and was still fairly effective. I may be wrong on this, but wasn't it primarily their contact with hostile parthian cavalry that more or less forced Rome to use their cavalry in a more substantial role? Regularly, I mean. Predating that period I believe their cavalry was generally supplied by allies rather than raised from the legions, then of course in the later imperial period you would end up with a lot of auxiliaries doing the horse-work... if memory serves.

[Gelston]

The only thing I want to contest in this is the length of time that it actually took for gunpowder weapons to render the breastplate obsolete. It survived quite a while after full plate armor went out of style and was still fairly effective. I may be wrong on this, but wasn't it primarily their contact with hostile parthian cavalry that more or less forced Rome to use their cavalry in a more substantial role? Regularly, I mean. Predating that period I believe their cavalry was generally supplied by allies rather than raised from the legions, then of course in the later imperial period you would end up with a lot of auxiliaries doing the horse-work... if memory serves.

The breastplate did survive a bit longer, as it was sort of effective against shrapnel from cannons and provided protection against musket fire. It was rendered completely obsolete by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, however. During the battle of Waterloo, Napoleon's cavalry attacked the British infantry, who went into a square formation. The cavalry was wiped out in short order. One British account of the event says "We would fire and it sounded as if it were a hailstorm on a tin roof." The horses refuses to charge the square formations, for the most part, and the ones that did.. Well, they basically were charging a pike wall, due to the bayonets on the long muskets at the time.

During the early period of the Roman Republic, Cavalry was never a substantial part of their army. The upper class would be the cavalry, generally because they had the money and it was safer. You have to remember, the horses back then were smaller, so they couldn't carry a fully armored man and charge. Not to mention stirrups still hadn't made it to Europe, so it was harder to stay on the horse in battle. Rome always prided itself in its infantry, as they firmly felt they were a farmer/blue collar/working man nation, and infantry is the work of the blue collar in their eyes.

The Parthian-Roman Wars are a bit to hard one specific thing on. They lasted nearly 300 years, with Rome invading so far in as modern day Baghdad. The impact of Parthian cavalry on the Legions is often overstated. Yes, they could harass, but the Parthian cavalry alone was never a big threat. Parthia was stomped by Rome many times. Rome has generally always relied on outsourcing for its cavalry. It would hire local cavalry from the area it was campaigning in. Hence they'd use a lot of Germanic/Gallic Cavalry in Gaul/Germania and Middle Eastern Cavalry against the Parthians and such. Parthia had decent enough heavy infantry, and that is what they fought their actual battles with, but the Romans would beat them every time. The times when Parthia would win, is when an overzealous Roman General would over extend his supply lines, which happened many, many times.

[Gelston]

One note I forgot to add about Waterloo, Napoleon knew that his cavalry wouldn't be able to hold its own against the British Infantry Regiments, but he thought he had them most in disarray and wiped out from extensive artillery fire. Little did he know, he wasn't actually hitting them at all.

Another thing to add onto that, the Roman Empire did eventually (a few hundred years later) adopt their own heavy cavalry which was completely based off of the original Parthian heavy cavalry. It is believed they were the basis for medieval knights.

[Warriorbird]

All vehicles and man-made objects that we left behind on the Apollo missions, per the UN Treaty, belong to the US. The Soviet Union/Russia-successor own a couple of dead rovers too. While not directly owning the land under these items, both nations own stuff on the moon... So there are parts of the moon's atmosphere that belong to us. :)

So... They could designate those ITEMS National Historic Landmarks much in the same way they do buildings.

I also think the only ones who'd even dream of being capable of calling either of us on it would be China.

[Gelston]

I also think the only ones who'd even dream of being capable of calling either of us on it would be China.

They'd probably make sure to get some historical landmarks up there themselves, instead.

[Delias]

One note I forgot to add about Waterloo, Napoleon knew that his cavalry wouldn't be able to hold its own against the British Infantry Regiments, but he thought he had them most in disarray and wiped out from extensive artillery fire. Little did he know, he wasn't actually hitting them at all.

Another thing to add onto that, the Roman Empire did eventually (a few hundred years later) adopt their own heavy cavalry which was completely based off of the original Parthian heavy cavalry. It is believed they were the basis for medieval knights.

Right, the late imperial period basically using a modified cataphract cavalry type. In the period predating the republic and into the early republic they generally had their allies providing cavalry before moving on to conscripting or hiring essentially tribal cavalry as mercenaries or auxiliaries (after the marian reforms, I believe). Their own heavy cavalry was pretty late into the imperial period, I believe. Before that, the frontal charge of cavalry was not typically how they were used- skirmishing, flank attacks, pursuit, scouting, and screening troop movements are what the early light cavalry was best for.

[Gelston]

Right, the late imperial period basically using a modified cataphract cavalry type. In the period predating the republic and into the early republic they generally had their allies providing cavalry before moving on to conscripting or hiring essentially tribal cavalry as mercenaries or auxiliaries (after the marian reforms, I believe). Their own heavy cavalry was pretty late into the imperial period, I believe. Before that, the frontal charge of cavalry was not typically how they were used- skirmishing, flank attacks, pursuit, scouting, and screening troop movements are what the early light cavalry was best for.

I refuse to call it the late Imperial Army! The Empire lasted until the 1400s damn you! The year 565, 80 years after the Roman Empire supposedly "fell".

http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-12-24-11472/The-Eastern-Roman-Empire-565.jpg

[jafo]

This is Murica. Not only do we put a national park on the moon, but we then name it Reagan National Park and then sell corporate sponsorship and open a space McDonalds on it.

[Tgo01]

This is Murica. Not only do we put a national park on the moon, but we then name it Reagan National Park and then sell corporate sponsorship and open a space McDonalds on it.

Now you see people THAT'S how you get support for a moon national park!

[Delias]

I refuse to call it the late Imperial Army! The Empire lasted until the 1400s damn you! The year 565, 80 years after the Roman Empire supposedly "fell".

]

While I agree with you in principle, they generally call that the eastern empire or byzantine empire. Believe me, I always have a giant nerd-boner for Rome, and can go on and on about how long it lasted and how badass it was.

[Latrinsorm]

I refuse to call it the late Imperial Army! The Empire lasted until the 1400s damn you! The year 565, 80 years after the Roman Empire supposedly "fell".You think you're annoyed? The Vandals had the worst publicists in human history.

[Delias]

You think you're annoyed? The Vandals had the worst publicists in human history.

http://www.vandals.com/Vandals/Home/Home.html

Their site looks mediocre, I wouldn't say the worst ever.

[Tisket]

I haven't read any posts beyond the OP but, someone please tell me there is at least one Pink Floyd or 2001 joke/reference somewhere in this thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Pink Floyd, who's that? One of those old timey ragtime bands? :heart:

[Tisket]

I think my head just exploded.

[Methais]

Pink Floyd, who's that? One of those old timey ragtime bands? :heart:

I believe Pink Floyd was one of the first mainstream crossdressers. His real name was Floyd Pinkerton, but he was a big fan of Boy George, and thought the name Pink Floyd would be more marketable than Floyd Pinkerton. I hear he draws big crowds, so he must have been right!

[Tisket]

Pink Floyd was also black. He thought he'd throw people off the truth by naming his band "Pink"

True story.

[tyrant-201]

Pink Floyd was also black. He thought he'd throw people off the truth by naming his band "Pink"

True story.

Well yeah! How many white guys have you heard of with the name Floyd.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/nZcRU0Op5P4/hqdefault.jpg

[Methais]

Well yeah! How many white guys have you heard of with the name Floyd.

The name Floyd was born in the projects.

[Gelston]

While I agree with you in principle, they generally call that the eastern empire or byzantine empire. Believe me, I always have a giant nerd-boner for Rome, and can go on and on about how long it lasted and how badass it was.

They being the western scholars in the more modern period. The people alive during that time called them the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire and them often got into quarrels over who was really the King of the Romans.

[Methais]

A woman?

No no, Roman!


http://youtu.be/2K8_jgiNqUc

[Parkbandit]

They being the western scholars in the more modern period. The people alive during that time called them the Roman Empire.

No we didn't...

Wait, what?

[Tenlaar]

This argument is pointless, I very clearly remember it being referred to as the Byzantine Empire in one of the Assassin's Creed games. And those were developed by a multi-cultural team with a variety of religious beliefs.

[Gelston]

This argument is pointless, I very clearly remember it being referred to as the Byzantine Empire in one of the Assassin's Creed games. And those were developed by a multi-cultural team with a variety of religious beliefs.

Sadly some people really do get most of their learning from video games :(

[Methais]

Sadly some people really do get most of their learning from video games :(

As opposed to getting their learning from public schools or The Daily Show?

Video games are probably the safer bet.

[Warriorbird]

As opposed to getting their learning from public schools or The Daily Show?

Video games are probably the safer bet.

So much is explained.

[Methais]

So much is explained.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/Render%20-%20I%20See%20What%20You%20Did%20There%20Troll%20Fa ce%20%20BaixeRenders.png