NASA and the Federal Budget

[Broken Parachute]

I came across something interesting while reading a thread at another forum, so I decided to bring it up here to see what you guys think.

NASA's budget for the year 2008 is $17.318 billion, making up 0.6% of the United States' federal budget of $2.9 trillion. The average budget for NASA since 1958 is $12.681 billion per year. The budget is fixed every year to coincide with inflation.

Discretionary Spending of the United States Budget ($1.114 trillion)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

My question is, do you think we are not using enough of the federal budget for NASA or do you think we are using too much? How important do you feel NASA is? How effective do you think they have been in recent years? Compared to the other discretionary spending budgets, do you think NASA should be made a top priority over anything else or should it not be a priority at all?

[shit stroll]

i don't want my hard earned money going to these left wing socialist programs.

[saysmydoctor]

Small budget, personally.

[Nevuk]

Hmm, the geeky/nerdy guy in me wants to say fund it more, but reason and rationality say that its probably fine where its at, although there are bigger issues on the table, like the fucking war in iraq.

Also, what the fuck does the housing and urban department do? I've never even heard of it and it sounds... odd.

[Broken Parachute]

As far as total costs go:

Iraq War (5 years, 2003-2008) --- approximately $502 billion spent
NASA (50 years, 1958-2008) --- $618.412 billion spent

So it's almost like pennies compared to the spending on some of the other things.

[open mind]

i think nasa is terribly under funded. the benefits that we've gotten from the program are so awesome (everything from exploring the galaxy and developing a better understanding of engineering to inventing tang and memory foam) that i just don't get why some people think nasa is a waste of resources.

[Dan Hollister]

NASA is underfunded, but at the same time, it's a monster. NASA is extremely inefficient. They have so many employees, spend so much money, and then someone like Burt Rutan comes along and gets a man into orbit with like 16 employees and $20 million, and in a very short period of time.

Should NASA be given a lot more money? Yes. No doubt. But at the same time, if it were my money, I wouldn't give NASA a penny until they restructure, clean up, find out how to cut costs, and get back to basics. The amount of money it costs NASA just to do anything is staggering, and just not necessary.

Efficiency = yay.

[open mind]

NASA is underfunded, but at the same time, it's a monster. NASA is extremely inefficient. They have so many employees, spend so much money, and then someone like Burt Rutan comes along and gets a man into orbit with like 16 employees and $20 million, and in a very short period of time.

Should NASA be given a lot more money? Yes. No doubt. But at the same time, if it were my money, I wouldn't give NASA a penny until they restructure, clean up, find out how to cut costs, and get back to basics. The amount of money it costs NASA just to do anything is staggering, and just not necessary.

Efficiency = yay.

i think nasa is inefficient because of all the red tape and politics you have to deal with to get government money more then anything else and that demanding that nasa be the source (or at least the begining) of government reform is unrealistic and unfair.

[GiggsOho]

Nearly $40 bil to VA? And that's an increase, but all we hear are VA doctors talking about cutting back on med costs??! Where the fuck is that money going then?


/off-topic rant

[GuitarR0cker1]

It is fully worth the money and if anything we need to fund NASA more as the space is our future. It would be very stupid of the US to ignore this and let other countries get a head start.

[open mind]

Nearly $40 bil to VA? And that's an increase, but all we hear are VA doctors talking about cutting back on med costs??! Where the fuck is that money going then?


/off-topic rant

the increase in funding isn't at the same level as inflation and the increase in patients, so the VA effectively has to cut costs in the end.

[thespearkid]

M-A-R-S. Mars, bitches!

[HashHolly]

I came across something interesting while reading a thread at another forum, so I decided to bring it up here to see what you guys think.

NASA's budget for the year 2008 is $17.318 billion, making up 0.6% of the United States' federal budget of $2.9 trillion. The average budget for NASA since 1958 is $12.681 billion per year. The budget is fixed every year to coincide with inflation.

Discretionary Spending of the United States Budget ($1.114 trillion)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

My question is, do you think we are not using enough of the federal budget for NASA or do you think we are using too much? How important do you feel NASA is? How effective do you think they have been in recent years? Compared to the other discretionary spending budgets, do you think NASA should be made a top priority over anything else or should it not be a priority at all?

Nasa needs more money and man do we need to get out of Iraq, that shits expesnive....

btw do you surf Nasoic?

[Broken Parachute]

Nasa needs more money and man do we need to get out of Iraq, that shits expesnive....

btw do you surf Nasoic?What is Nasoic?

[TK]

I wouldn't at all mind NASA having a larger budget, but I'm fine as it is now.

[Rockybehri]

NASA is about to layoff a shitload of people around here. It's supposed to cripple the economy of the space coast.

[se1046]

I say we cut out the unnecessary spending going on in iraq to rebuild everything that's been blown up, and spend it all on nasa.

[open mind]

I say we cut out the unnecessary spending going on in iraq to rebuild everything that's been blown up, and spend it all on nasa.

i'm hoping that's a poor attempt at humor.

[se1046]

i'm hoping that's a poor attempt at humor.

o rly?

[saysmydoctor]

I say we cut out the unnecessary spending going on in iraq to rebuild everything that's been blown up, and spend it all on nasa.
I say we cut spending on both NASA and the Iraq Conflict and spend it instead on trying to weed out parents who will reproduce worthless pieces of shit like you.

[ghostyouare]

I say we cut spending on both NASA and the Iraq Conflict and spend it instead on trying to weed out parents who will reproduce worthless pieces of shit like you.
America needs more people like you.

[se1046]

I say we cut spending on both NASA and the Iraq Conflict and spend it instead on trying to weed out parents who will reproduce worthless pieces of shit like you.

So I'm guessing the first parents they'd go after would be yours?

[Machu505]

I say we cut out the unnecessary spending going on in iraq to rebuild everything that's been blown up, and spend it all on nasa.

How about we spend the extra money on paving roads, assuring healthcare to everyone, and finding alternative fuels to power our shit?

[se1046]

How about we spend the extra money on paving roads, assuring healthcare to everyone, and finding alternative fuels to power our shit?

I guess that would be ok.

[Broken Parachute]

Sometimes people don't realize that NASA's funding is not just for space related things. They've created many spinoff technologies in their existence.

ie: they created the memory foam used in mattresses and pillows, low-cost plastic for beverages/food, better parts for cars, safer/more efficient equipment for firemen, on earth satellites (including dish TV), medical imaging (especially for breast cancer), ear thermometers, smoke detectors, invisible braces, gamma ray detectors which detect nuclear materials, parts that helped in the advancement of the MRI

NASA is responsible for over 1600 spinoff technologies that have to do with our everyday life.

[Machu505]

Sometimes people don't realize that NASA's funding is not just for space related things. They've created many spinoff technologies in their existence.

ie: they created the memory foam used in mattresses and pillows, low-cost plastic for beverages/food, better parts for cars, safer/more efficient equipment for firemen, on earth satellites (including dish TV), medical imaging (especially for breast cancer), ear thermometers, smoke detectors, invisible braces, gamma ray detectors which detect nuclear materials, parts that helped in the advancement of the MRI

NASA is responsible for over 1600 spinoff technologies that have to do with our everyday life.

Yes, but to drive to store and get shit like you mentioned, we need roads that are not in total disrepair.

[Broken Parachute]

Yes, but to drive to store and get shit like you mentioned, we need roads that are not in total disrepair.I wasn't speaking to you specifically, I was just saying as a general statement.

I don't know what roads you're driving on, but there aren't that many roads in total disrepair that we'd have to adjust the entire federal budget to fix them.

[EasySkankin]

lol roads are usually handled by the municipal government

[se1046]

lol roads are usually handled by the municipal government

Apparently Machu has to drive on the interstate to get to the store.

[Machu505]

Roads here are terrible, though yeah it's probably Manchin's fault.

[Broken Parachute]

Yeah, contact your city council about that or something.

[Dan Hollister]

i think nasa is inefficient because of all the red tape and politics you have to deal with to get government money more then anything else and that demanding that nasa be the source (or at least the begining) of government reform is unrealistic and unfair.

NASA employes over a quarter million people. Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com) only employs 250. Yet it's Scaled, not NASA, that managed to build a lightweight craft to get a man into orbit, in a very short period of time, for very little money. You remember SpaceShipOne, don't you? That whole project cost $20 million dollars total, and NASA gets $17 billion and this is not enough?

NASA should be doing way more given how many people work for them. You cannot argue at all that their only inefficiency is their ability to find money. Give me a break.

I love NASA, and I do believe we should increase their funding. But in return, I think NASA has a responsibility to figure out how to scale themselves down and get things done.

[open mind]

NASA employes over a quarter million people. Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com) only employs 250. Yet it's Scaled, not NASA, that managed to build a lightweight craft to get a man into orbit, in a very short period of time, for very little money. You remember SpaceShipOne, don't you? That whole project cost $20 million dollars total, and NASA gets $17 billion and this is not enough?

NASA should be doing way more given how many people work for them. You cannot argue at all that their only inefficiency is their ability to find money. Give me a break.

I love NASA, and I do believe we should increase their funding. But in return, I think NASA has a responsibility to figure out how to scale themselves down and get things done.

name more then one efficiently run government institution and i'll concede your point.

[Dan Hollister]

USPS, the CDC, the FDA, and the DOE all do damn good stuff with the money they have. Those are just off the top of my head. Do you have a point to make or an argument or something? Maybe some sort of rebuttal?

[open mind]

USPS, the CDC, the FDA, and the DOE all do damn good stuff with the money they have. Those are just off the top of my head. Do you have a point to make or an argument or something? Maybe some sort of rebuttal?

they do good stuff (so does nasa)............but show me how they aren't extremely wasteful.

[Dan Hollister]

It's not just a matter of waste, it's a matter of waste versus results. All of the aforementioned institutions are wasteful, but the difference is that the CDC releases ground-breaking medical information on a very regular basis, the DOE has no real problems within their organization, and the FDA has day-to-day duties to attend to. NASA only done a project once every few years, with often catastrophic results. And it's not a matter of NASA's jobs being "harder" because, once again, look what Scaled did with about 50 guys.

Oh, and as for USPS... Have you found a better deal than $0.42 to mail a letter from New York to Hawaii? ;)

[open mind]

It's not just a matter of waste, it's a matter of waste versus results. All of the aforementioned institutions are wasteful, but the difference is that the CDC releases ground-breaking medical information on a very regular basis, the DOE has no real problems within their organization, and the FDA has day-to-day duties to attend to. NASA only done a project once every few years, with often catastrophic results. And it's not a matter of NASA's jobs being "harder" because, once again, look what Scaled did with about 50 guys.

Oh, and as for USPS... Have you found a better deal than $0.42 to mail a letter from New York to Hawaii? ;)

unlike the other projects you mentioned nasa has had to invent everything from scratch. research and development is quite costly and scaled composites had to do next to none of it to build what they did thanks to nasa's innovations and inventions.
my argument is not about results (nasa has produced great results in a field they're pioneers in) it's about waste. every organization you mention has some pretty big problems despite thier massive budgets. the cdc can't keep sufficient supplies of immunizations, the doe hasn't been pro-active on our energy needs, the fda routinely let's disease riddled food and horrible medications hit the market, and the postal service is fast becoming obsolete (at least when it comes to things like letters).

the benefits that america (and the world) gets from nasa don't only involve rockets and space exploration. what government program invented and then allowed for stuff like wireless technology, water filters, long distance telecommunications, and satelites to become widely available for use at a reasonable cost to consumers? and those are just a few of 6300 plus patents they've filed.
todays world is only possible because of work that nasa has done, so don't argue that they haven't produced results.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions10.htm

[asmolitor]

It's not just a matter of waste, it's a matter of waste versus results. All of the aforementioned institutions are wasteful, but the difference is that the CDC releases ground-breaking medical information on a very regular basis, the DOE has no real problems within their organization, and the FDA has day-to-day duties to attend to. NASA only done a project once every few years, with often catastrophic results. And it's not a matter of NASA's jobs being "harder" because, once again, look what Scaled did with about 50 guys.

Oh, and as for USPS... Have you found a better deal than $0.42 to mail a letter from New York to Hawaii? ;)

government protected monopoly. and now they're starting to absorb services offered by competitors. DHL doesn't do home delivery anymore, there's an alliance between them that DHL just gets it to a distribution center, USPS takes care of the rest.

and really, the USPS is a wonderfully complex system in itself. they get around $100 million from the government per year (chump change, but still) and regularly turn in profits over over $1 billion every year. oh, and the USPS, for all that revenue, doesn't pay federal taxes as a government entity, even though it operates as a for-profit, private business. i mean, they provide an incredible amount of services, but it's definitely interesting in the context of a government/agency/spending/tax discussion.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, the US and its quasi-agencies.

[Dan Hollister]

government protected monopoly. and now they're starting to absorb services offered by competitors. DHL doesn't do home delivery anymore, there's an alliance between them that DHL just gets it to a distribution center, USPS takes care of the rest.

and really, the USPS is a wonderfully complex system in itself. they get around $100 million from the government per year (chump change, but still) and regularly turn in profits over over $1 billion every year. oh, and the USPS, for all that revenue, doesn't pay federal taxes as a government entity, even though it operates as a for-profit, private business. i mean, they provide an incredible amount of services, but it's definitely interesting in the context of a government/agency/spending/tax discussion.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm

You're kind of proving my point. With the federal funding they are dealt, they manage to work wonders with it, whereas other organizations do not.

The lesson learned here is that if more government organizations were run in the style of private companies rather than giant wasteful bureaucracies, we wouldn't have so much trouble to begin with. If you ran NASA the way Steve Jobs runs Apple, we'd be on Neptune by now and we would've done it for about a twentieth of the cost.

Here's an interesting fact for you: In the state of California, our schools suck miserably despite us being rich enough to have our own continent. However, if you do the math, the raw dollar amount that goes into the budget each year is enough to a) rebuild every school's buildings from scratch, b) double every teacher and administrator's salary in the whole state, and c) buy every single student a laptop. But that doesn't happen. A lot of money goes to waste in a bureaucracy. Most, actually.

I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not USPS should be an agency or a company. The fact is that they are straddling that line between public organization and private company because, well, you need the best of both worlds to make shit happen.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

You're kind of proving my point. With the federal funding they are dealt, they manage to work wonders with it, whereas other organizations do not.

The lesson learned here is that if more government organizations were run in the style of private companies rather than giant wasteful bureaucracies, we wouldn't have so much trouble to begin with. If you ran NASA the way Steve Jobs runs Apple, we'd be on Neptune by now and we would've done it for about a twentieth of the cost.

Here's an interesting fact for you: In the state of California, our schools suck miserably despite us being rich enough to have our own continent. However, if you do the math, the raw dollar amount that goes into the budget each year is enough to a) rebuild every school's buildings from scratch, b) double every teacher and administrator's salary in the whole state, and c) buy every single student a laptop. But that doesn't happen. A lot of money goes to waste in a bureaucracy. Most, actually.

I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not USPS should be an agency or a company. The fact is that they are straddling that line between public organization and private company because, well, you need the best of both worlds to make shit happen.

Privatization is not the fix to the problem. If you look back on history, private companies usually gain a strangle hold on the high demand resources. Oil/Energy/Food/Phone company/Microsoft. If we were to privatize everything, that would only hurt things honestly. I know the common answer is 'competition' but 'competition' isn't the regulator, the government is. If you look at my previous examples you'll see that a few companies, or even one, has taken over each market until the government stepped in with regulation.

What we can do to fix the problem, is what we do here in Texas. It's called a sunset review. It happens every 8-9 years and basically the agency in question has to prove its worth to stay around. It has to show what it's done with its funding and etc. That would fix the problem rather than privatization.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

what we should do is not spend so much on 'defense'. I love how they use the word defense when instead most of it is offense. If we can cut taht down just a bit, that would free up a lot more money to put toward other things.

[open mind]

You're kind of proving my point. With the federal funding they are dealt, they manage to work wonders with it, whereas other organizations do not.

The lesson learned here is that if more government organizations were run in the style of private companies rather than giant wasteful bureaucracies, we wouldn't have so much trouble to begin with. If you ran NASA the way Steve Jobs runs Apple, we'd be on Neptune by now and we would've done it for about a twentieth of the cost.

Here's an interesting fact for you: In the state of California, our schools suck miserably despite us being rich enough to have our own continent. However, if you do the math, the raw dollar amount that goes into the budget each year is enough to a) rebuild every school's buildings from scratch, b) double every teacher and administrator's salary in the whole state, and c) buy every single student a laptop. But that doesn't happen. A lot of money goes to waste in a bureaucracy. Most, actually.

I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not USPS should be an agency or a company. The fact is that they are straddling that line between public organization and private company because, well, you need the best of both worlds to make shit happen.

not everything should be run like a for profit buisness, it would create to many conflicts of interest.
one could argue that if it wasn't for the technological advancements that nasa has provided apple wouldn't be where it is today, and neptune is a gas planet with no real reason to land on it at this point....nasa has managed to send things out to it and analyze the planet to some extent nonetheless. there is also no way you can say with any real certainty that we'd be any more technologically advanced if nasa was run like a private buisness........especially when you take into account the fact that a large amount of the modern technology that we use on a daily basis today was originally invented by nasa.
where are you getting those numbers on the california education system?

[saysmydoctor]

You're kind of proving my point. With the federal funding they are dealt, they manage to work wonders with it, whereas other organizations do not.

The lesson learned here is that if more government organizations were run in the style of private companies rather than giant wasteful bureaucracies, we wouldn't have so much trouble to begin with. If you ran NASA the way Steve Jobs runs Apple, we'd be on Neptune by now and we would've done it for about a twentieth of the cost.

Here's an interesting fact for you: In the state of California, our schools suck miserably despite us being rich enough to have our own continent. However, if you do the math, the raw dollar amount that goes into the budget each year is enough to a) rebuild every school's buildings from scratch, b) double every teacher and administrator's salary in the whole state, and c) buy every single student a laptop. But that doesn't happen. A lot of money goes to waste in a bureaucracy. Most, actually.

I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not USPS should be an agency or a company. The fact is that they are straddling that line between public organization and private company because, well, you need the best of both worlds to make shit happen.
:facepalm:

[se1046]

:facepalm:

I'm pretty sure you have no clue what's going on because instead of offering a valid point on something you just call people stupid or do the ridiculous :facepalm:

[Dan Hollister]

Ditto. Your use of "facepalm" is almost offensive. I've seen you use it when someone comes onto a forum topic laden with misspellings, ignorance and other fine things, but I don't think me arguing a legitimate viewpoint just because it isn't the same as yours is really the same thing.

When I say it should be run like a private business, I am not necessarily referring to the evil monopolistic mannerisms. I'm referring more to the mindset. Government organizations are notorious for needing heaps of money to lift a finger, whereas most successful companies learn how to produce great results with the least amount of investment and manpower.

Sure, Microsoft and crew do some evil things and need to be regulated. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many things that can be learned from private industry and applied to public programs, efficiency being one of them.

<rant>I don't even know why I have to include that last paragraph. I am sick of people acting like private industry is a big evil thing, when entrepreneurship largely built this country and when cures for diseases, advances in technology, and other huge things are mostly coming from for-profit companies. I wish the handful of stupid greedy companies didn't give such a bad name to the idea of business as a whole.</rant>

[open mind]

When I say it should be run like a private business, I am not necessarily referring to the evil monopolistic mannerisms. I'm referring more to the mindset. Government organizations are notorious for needing heaps of money to lift a finger, whereas most successful companies learn how to produce great results with the least amount of investment and manpower.

Sure, Microsoft and crew do some evil things and need to be regulated.

But at the same time, there is no way you can argue against the fact that private industry is where efficiency rules. If you were to find the most efficient projects in the country, in terms of time/money/manpower invested versus results, they would almost certainly fall within private industry, with maybe some academia somewhere on that list, but it wouldn't be private industry.

Actually, I have to question why we are even arguing about this. The USPS example is a horrible point for you all to try to argue, because in the end it's a great service to the American people and one of the better ones out there. So while I concede that there are some interesting issues regarding their exact status, in the end, the organization still provides a good service and appears to be free from corruption, so I'm not sure why it is of immediate concern.

most successful companies don't really invent much of their own products.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Ditto. Your use of "facepalm" is almost offensive. I've seen you use it when someone comes onto a forum topic laden with misspellings, ignorance and other fine things, but I don't think me arguing a legitimate viewpoint just because it isn't the same as yours is really the same thing.

When I say it should be run like a private business, I am not necessarily referring to the evil monopolistic mannerisms. I'm referring more to the mindset. Government organizations are notorious for needing heaps of money to lift a finger, whereas most successful companies learn how to produce great results with the least amount of investment and manpower.

Sure, Microsoft and crew do some evil things and need to be regulated. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many things that can be learned from private industry and applied to public programs, efficiency being one of them.

<rant>I don't even know why I have to include that last paragraph. I am sick of people acting like private industry is a big evil thing, when entrepreneurship largely built this country and when cures for diseases, advances in technology, and other huge things are mostly coming from for-profit companies. I wish the handful of stupid greedy companies didn't give such a bad name to the idea of business as a whole.</rant>

I see what you're saying here, but you're almost implying that gov't run agencies are trying to lose money. Private companies are so keen on their $$ because they can't run a loss while gov't companies can. But I don't want the gov't to jack up prices just so they don't run a loss, which is what private co's do, or even have layoffs, which again, is a priavte co tactic.

I see what you're saying with you're rant, but the fact remains that the bad companies are the ones that cause the most damage thus need to be paid attention to. If people were to ignore them, then we learn nothing and the same things will keep happening.

[oldwirehands]

NASA > Military weapons. That number is bigger than all the world's military spending combined. $8 billion which can't be accounted for. How does $8 billion go missing? Where did it go? Something tells me I'd rather not know.

[Dan Hollister]

most successful companies don't really invent much of their own products.

How the hell do you come up with that argument?

[open mind]

How the hell do you come up with that argument?

common sense.

[se1046]

How the hell do you come up with that argument?

I've asked myself this same question numerous times with this guy.

[open mind]

I've asked myself this same question numerous times with this guy.

and i've always supplied a reasonable answer when pressed haven't i?

[se1046]

and i've always supplied a reasonable answer when pressed haven't i?

In your eyes. I just figured it wasn't worth trying because although your screen name says open mind it's quite contrary to how you act.

[open mind]

In your eyes. I just figured it wasn't worth trying because although your screen name says open mind it's quite contrary to how you act.

point to and explain how an argument that i've made is unreasonable and i'll give you a cookie.
being open minded doesn't require acceptance of poor logic.