Liberal Luddites: NASA already has a working prototype of a moon station module pod, based on the construction approach of the space station which works very well, thank you. This an be done and we can extract the H3 we need to give us all the power we need for a fraction of a price, using clean fission instead of dirty fusion (nuclear plants), including the cost of going to the moon to get it. I thought liberals cared about the planet. Switch parties and do it right for a change: NEWT 2012!
The space race is on, Luddites. THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO THE MOON AND NOT FOR FUN. Whoever controls the moon with today's technology becomes in many ways the military masters of the earth, including the amazing resource H3 and former KGB Putin is not a nice guy. We could have gone to the moon and harvested enough H3 to power the US for a year for what obama spent on his 'stimulus packages" and be able to tear down the nuclear power plants that are poisoning the planet. That's fact. NEWT 2012!
What's wrong with that? He always has to look for some way to be against a Republican. Going to the moon itself seemed crazy a hundred years ago. Cenk laughs about colonizing the moon now. Why is he so sure we can't?
This idea is simultaneously the most awesome and most retarded idea ever proposed by an individual. Apparently newt gingrich (and most americans) are completely unaware that other countries exist on the planet and that they might have something to say about america having a base on the moon.
A moon base will only cost $35 billion and we can use it to harvest Helium-3, which solve our energy crisis problem overnight.
If you are a conservative interested in oil dependency, or national greatness, a liberal interested in stopping oil wars, or global warming, or just a space enthusiast interested in making mankind's first permanent baby steps into space, you should vote for Newt for this reason alone.
I would rather have President Obama remain our President than have Newt Gringrich as our President. I would rather have Mitt Romney as our President than Rick Santorum.
I would much rather have our rights, freedoms, and liberties resotred than have any of the those named above as our President.
The moon base will only cost $35 billion. By comparison the ISS costs $100 billion. The ISS is being decommissioned by 2021, and so we will need a new space station anyway. Why not put it on the moon this time instead? It will be cheaper anyway.
And I'm sure Gingrich didn't mean a full colony up their by 2020, just a base.
@JohananRaatz It's less about the cost of the equipment to make a base/colony and more the tremendous cost to send raw materials out of the atmosphere and all the way there. Fuel costs alone would be .... astronomical? xP
"Fuel costs alone would be .... astronomical? xP"
Not any more so than the ISS. See, and a lot of people don't realize this, but once you get into LEO (Low-Earth Orbit), all you need to do is break orbit and cruise to the moon. A space shuttle trip with a payload would be no more expensive than a Constellation trip to the moon. And as a side note, it's actually more expensive to construct stuff in space than on a surface like the moon.
@JohananRaatz Stop making excuse for troll Gingrich. And making stuff on the moon maybe cheaper but how much does it cost to deliver stuff on the moon? Probably a lot more than in the LEO because you need to land on the moon and liftoff. It is not just gliding at fuel cost to that destination.
The same amount of money it costs to deliver things into orbit -and for the same reason, once you get into orbit all you need to do is break orbit, cruise into lunar orbit and then land.
"land on the moon and liftoff"
That wont be much more. See you're assuming that all of the pieces we send there will be accompanied by a manned crew. But we can simply retrofit some of the spacecraft to land, and not take off, and you can built the base out of them.
At least he said SOMETHING about advancing NASA. Obama has pretty much cannibalized future space projects. It used to be Democrats who actually wanted to advance space exploration.
@Xenite227 Space travel sounds fun, until you realise what's wrong with it. And what's wrong with it, to cut this short and get to the point, is that space is DEAD. EMPTY. BARREN. LIFELESS — devoid of ANY content whatsoever apart from the primitive physical properties of a bunch of blocks floating around. In fact, the 60's were the dumb generation for spending millions upon billions of dollars to be able to say "wow, we are on the fucking moon!"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE & VOTE VOTE VOTE !!!!! WE NEED EVERY LAST ONE!!!
To everyone suggesting NASA is not worth the cost, please consider a couple articles. Look on Wikipedia for "NASA Spin-off" and "Economic Impact of NASA funding."
NASA funding clearly creates substantial economic returns on investment from developments in science and technology for which it is not given enough credit. I suggest increasing NASA's budget by about 20 fold. Even with this increase, it would only account for 10% of the Federal budget.
yo, newt, we are gonna need some one to go out there to the moon and test if it is safe place humans to reside for prolonged periods of time, why don't you volunteer? go for it newt. i know you'll do great.
We need to get off this planet now because it's doomed. All of humanity's eggs are in one basket."
I completely agree. The threat of a nuclear or biological war that could cause mass extinction or death and threaten the survival of the entire human species seems very real. I suggest a "Mars to Stay" type program for NASA.
I think that this civilization, perhaps this species, has missed its window of opportunity to launch ourselves permanently into space and take some of the eggs out of Basket Earth.
"But this is decades, perhaps centuries ahead of us. A permanent 3 man outpost on the Moon would be an engineering feat Now. And could Only be viable as a multinational endeavor."
I disagree. Just end the war on drugs, cut the military budget, end the wars overseas, close down unnecessary military bases, etc. Then there would be plenty of money for science programs like NASA to do amazing things like this, missions to Mars, asteroids, etc.
Newt is picturing himself in his mansion military complex, overlooking his tiny colony of millionaires on the moon. Safe from all the hoards of peasants and burning madness that hes turned earth into.
NASA does great science, NASA creates jobs, NASA inspires children to go into science, engineering, and math, and NASA enhances America's image around the world.
NASA does all the things that progressives claim to be in favor of, and yet this thread is full of anti-NASA garbage. What's wrong with you people? And don't tell me NASA is expensive. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the Federal budget. Compare that with the military budget...
For the last fucking time: Human beings either were created or evolved (depending on your religious convictions) for life in 1G, they fucking DIE in 1/6G--we already know this. Their livers fail, their circulatory systems fail, their bones and muscles atrophy to the point of DEATH. Go watch another Star Trek episode, and this time try very hard to understand that it is FANTASY!
@hatemorethanyou999 "they fucking DIE in 1/6G--we already know this. Their livers fail, their circulatory systems fail, their bones and muscles atrophy to the point of DEATH."
Not with the upcoming biotech revolution we don't!
"Go watch another Star Trek episode, and this time try very hard to understand that it is FANTASY!"
@hatemorethanyou999 You know, some countries have had this revolutionary idea where instead of spending over half their budget on destruction, they instead spend more on solving problems like the ones you described. Sounds crazy, I know.
@JoesephKatana There are NO solutions that allow humans to live on the moon--EVER! If we are going to solve problems, we need to do it on this planet, the only one that humans will EVER live on.
@hatemorethanyou999 You're asserting that which you do not and can not know and display transparent bias on the issue. I suggest you reevaluate your positions or excuse yourself from the discussion.
@JoesephKatana Maybe you can tell me how I am wrong. How do humans live on the moon? Remember our physiology falls apart under low gravity conditions.and reproduction is out of the question. Yes I have made an assertion, but you have done nothing to counter it. As far as interstellar travel, I do know that there is no physics that allows it--again tell me where I have erred.
You're false. First, interstellar travel is indeed possible. One of NASA's probes has left our solar system some time ago. It may be unmanned, but that's beside the point. Also, the US Government/NASA have had several programs in the past that developed more advanced rocket designs - nuclear rockets - that are thought to be able to go fast enough to make interstellar travel (to nearby stars) substantially closer to being possible than previously thought.
@ELM1941 "One of NASA's probes has left our solar system some time ago." Yes and in a mere 36,000 years, roughly 8 times the length of recorded human history, it will reach half the distance to nearest star. Here is what we know about physics: it would take more energy tan there is in the entire universe to propel so much as an atom to the speed of light.
"Yes and in a mere 36,000 years, roughly 8 times the length of recorded human history, it will reach half the distance to nearest star. Here is what we know about physics: it would take more energy tan there is in the entire universe to propel so much as an atom to the speed of light."
That does not prove that interstellar travel is impossible. You don't need to go the speed of light to get to NEARBY stars.
@ELM1941 Yeah whatever--keep dreaming fella, but in the mean time, let's fix a few things here on Earth 'cause it sure looks like we are going to be here for quite some time--if not forever.
I agree with the idea of fixing things on Earth. I think that the science/innovation produced by NASA, the inspiration of millions of children to pursue careers in science, mathematics, and engineering, the improvement to America's image around the world, and the jobs created by NASA would be a superb start.
What you need to understand is that part of what's useful about having permanent research stations in space (like a proposed Moon base, or a proposed Mars base, or the ISS)... is that their very existence drives NASA fund development of new technologies that enable these bases in space to survive... better water treatment and re-utilization, better solar energy technologies, and yes, research to prevent harm from low-gravity conditions.
Well, I am a resident of the moon, and I cant allow you to destroy our civilization here, just like you did with the Mayans and subsequently,Red Indians
A moon colony, really Gingrich? The US is in the middle of a economic disaster, as well- the rest of the world, and you're talking about a 'moon colony'. Call me crazy but shouldn't our priorities be jobs, education, environment- you know, crazy stuff here on Earth. But this makes sense coming from the' Newt' (N to the E to the WT!), his head is either up his ass or so far up in the clouds that he just can't think straight.
NASA creates new scientific and technological breakthroughs that are great for the environment. Read about their accomplishments with regard to solar power. NASA inspires kids to go into science, technology, mathematics, and engineering. It plays a vital role in educating children in these areas. NASA creates huge numbers of jobs. NASA also enhances our image around the world.
NASA satisfies all the priorities you just said we should have.
I stand by him on this one, Nasa is the height of scientific discovery.
There will always be someone to invent another glorified chat room like YT and FB ( i'm a whore for each incarnation ) but we need people that are driven to go further, much further .
The next planet, the next galaxy, and every technological innovation that stems from that, not just the next LMFAO platform.
After all, that ubiquitous phrase would have never viralized if it weren't for the space program
This (from the Simpsons "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson") is the first thing I thought of when I saw this. Gingrich is as dumb as as a Simpsons character, no?
"By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve colonies on the moon, ideal for family vacations. Once there, you'll weigh only a small percentage of what you weigh on Earth. Slow down, tubby, you're not on the moon yet! The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?"
NASA does great science, NASA creates jobs, NASA inspires children to go into science, engineering, and math, and NASA enhances America's image around the world.
NASA does all the things that progressives claim to be in favor of, and yet this thread is full of anti-NASA garbage. What's wrong with you people? And don't tell me NASA is expensive. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the Federal budget. Compare that with the military budget...
Call me nuts but i think it would be a good idea to focus on a goal like setting up a permanent US colony on the moon, i mean a real colony with families not just a bunch of scientists. Look at all the amazing technology that came out of the 1960's space race, velcro, computers, satellites, and much more. Starting a new space race would force us to develop new technologies and would create countless jobs and who wouldn't want a chance to live on the moon or on mars. So call me nuts if u want!
I think you're correct. I don't see why you don't want scientists on the colony though... the science is part of what helps create the new technologies.
But yeah, there have been thousands of technological developments that came from the Moon missions. Public science programs like NASA are fantastic, and should be expanded, not cut.
@ELM1941 I said not "just" scientists sure scientists and engineers are important to but i would like to see a real colony. that means that in addition to the scientists u also have child care workers and chefs and janitors and everything else u would need to form a real community i agree with u about NASA's importance
with what spaceship...? are the Russians gonna give us a lift so we can be the first to conquer the moon?!? i feel like there would be a conflict of interest.
actually ... it'll prolly happen, yall know that, right? before i die, in my lifetime, there will be commercial (as in "just for fun") spaceflights to the moon.
it'll be an economic rouse. it'll costs untold sums of money, it wont make any money, but it will get a little money and jobs into people's hands (temporarily) so everyone will be all in a tizzy, and the stock market will have a manipulable bubble again (until they pop it for fun, again), but wtf, the drama will give us something to do.
Here's what people forget about the space race. It was devastatingly expensive. It was huge surge and influx of money that was unprecedented and in fact, to offset the costs, Kennedy asked Khrushchev to make it a joint mission. Nothing come of it because he made the proposal shortly before November 1963. Newt is crazy to think we can do that again.
Technological development that comes from space exploration is of crucial importance, and is hardly a "luxury." The benefits to education - inspiring kids to go into science and engineering - is critical for America's future (and the world's future).
@ELM1941 In advancing science and technology, I agree that space exploration is both vital and exciting. Yet how do you propose such a radical leap as moon colonisation be paid for in this global financial climate? It's a naive unrealistic goal. There are more important things to achieve before we set our sights back on the moon.
You are a progressive, right (you're watching TYT, so this seems a reasonable assumption)? Progressives have historically thought that government spending - even deficit spending - helps to create jobs and stimulate the economy. NASA creates huge numbers of jobs, particularly in Florida, Texas, and California. Assuming you're a progressive, why NOT fund NASA in the midst of a recession? NASA creates jobs. NASA produces incredible science. NASA inspires kids to go into science.
@ELM1941 I admire your optimism to say the least. Yes, I agree that stimulating an economy through spending is the best way to beat a recession. However I think there are more important industries than space programs to build in achieving that end.
So if you think that stimulating an economy through spending is the best way to beat a recession, and you don't seem to disagree that NASA provides the benefits I mentioned, why not fund NASA?
Sure, there may be other things you are interested in funding as well, but if you agree that NASA inspires children to go into science, if you agree it enhances world opinion of America, and if you agree NASA creates valuable science/innovation and jobs, why not fund NASA?
@ELM1941 Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals.
Since money is tight, it needs to be spent as economically and intelligently as possible in industries which will provide both short and long term benefits and provide jobs for both skilled and unskilled workers.
"and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals."
I'm sure NASA employs a certain amount of staff to maintain the facilities they operate, provide simple security, etc. Not everyone they employ is a highly skilled professional. That said, yes, NASA employs highly skilled professionals (like scientists). You don't value NASA science or innovations?
"Since money is tight"
The US spends around $600B/year in military spending.
@ELM1941 Don't be silly, I think NASA is great. My argment is that now is not the time to be inflating their budget in the hopes of achieving such a radical goal as colonising the moon (or even going back to the moon in the near future).
I am aware that the US spends ludicrous amounts on its military. I think that is nothing short of appauling. Were you to ask if I think that money should be spent elsewhere I would agree vehemently.
"My argment is that now is not the time to be inflating their budget in the hopes of achieving such a radical goal as colonising the moon (or even going back to the moon in the near future)."
Now is as good a time as any to increase NASA's budget. You could double NASA's budget right now and NASA would only consume about 1% of the Federal budget. Considering the benefits all humanity gets from NASA, 1% is insignificant.
"Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term"
NASA accounts for about 0.6% of the Federal budget. Is that price is too high given all the benefits NASA provides? Would it be too high if NASA accounted for 1% of the Federal budget?
Keep in mind, there is still another 99% of the Federal budget that would be available for jobs programs and anything else, even if you doubled NASA's budget. You don't think NASA is worth it, given that?
"Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals."
And if you fired all those highly skilled professionals at NASA, you don't think that would contribute to unemployment and make the recession worse (not to mention all the lost benefits to science, innovation, and industry)? Look at all the unemployed in FL, just because of cutting Constellation.
NASA programs in general should be one of the easiest government programs to argue we should have. It's a public science program. It creates huge numbers of jobs. It funds terrific amounts of scientific research. It inspires children to go into mathematics, science, and engineering. All of these things are a byproduct of its central goal of space exploration. If we didn't have space exploration, Moon missions, Mars missions, etc, none of these benefits would be had.
As a futurist, I love the idea of finally starting work on an extra-planetary colony. But getting to work on a project that big in the middle of a recession is, quite frankly, a bad idea.
In addition to a futurist, I'm also a social liberal, which means I think gays should be allowed to get married and muslim americans shouldn't be automatically associated with Al Queda. So yeah. The cons of a Newt in the white house outweigh the pros in my mind.
Newt is a republican so obviously he would despice facts, laws and international treaties, but making claim to the moon is actually not legal.The "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" states that no country can make claim to the moon. The treaty has been signed and ratified by most countries including the United States. So good luck to you Mr Gingrich.
@JohnGaltHasSpoken Making a colony on the moon and make it the 51. state would be making a claim to the moon. It's really the definition of doing so. One nation claiming sovereignty over a geographical area. Is this really so difficult to grasp?
@kmhno Gingrich is a fat blowhard.his moon colony proposal received a great deal of ridicule from the media and even his fellow Republican contenders.besides whorebama canceled the lunar program a while back.but you know what?he could loan two more printing machines from china (can't afford to buy them outright)-he will get them working round the clock & print loads of dollars and he will relaunch this program using this quantitatively eased dollars MUHAHAHAHA
You know what, if President Gingrich's insanity leads to rapid moon colonisation...it might be worth it. At last man will have a true permenent space presence, and at the very least we'll have somewhere to escape to when his economic and foreign policies cause the collapse of human civilisation.
This is a good point. Many great thinkers throughout history have made arguments that it is essential for the survival of the human species (in the long term) ... that we extend our presence into space PERMANENTLY.... and become a multi-planet species... due to threats from nuclear/biological war, possible asteroid impacts that could wipe out life as we know it, or environmental catastrophe.
That said, I think Mars would be more likely habitable than the Moon.
Hey dumbfuck Cenk, we've had the technology to build space colonies since the 70's. The only thing we don't have is the money to build it.
I just love how TYT is so anti-space exploration. I thought they were pro-job creation? We need to subsidice space travel to create and incentive to go into space and be able to create more jobs.
Not only does NASA create huge numbers of jobs, NASA also does a great job creating science that benefits all people, improves the economy, creates new industries; and inspires children to go into math, science, and engineering. NASA also enhances our image around the world.
If you ask people from other countries what is great about America, they'll point to the Bill of Rights, the Apollo Program (NASA), the Constitution, etc.
Cenk, why do you always talk about how great it is to create jobs, and how much you like science... and then when a politician turns around and says "Hey, lets have an ambitious public science program that will employ large numbers of people who have been layed off in Florida and inspire countless young Americans to be scientists and engineers" .... you laugh at him?
You know what SCIENCE PROGRAM creates jobs (and new technologies)? ...NASA.
Progressives always like to talk about how Republicans are anti-science, are not interested in creating jobs, and do things (like torture, war in iraq, etc) that damage America's image around the world.
Hey guys, you know what is pro-science, creates lots of new technologies, creates lots of jobs, does not contribute significantly to the deficit, and enhances America's image around the world? NASA.
I agree with Newt to the extent that we should go to the Moon and especially Mars.
Israel, Australia, etc., that reluctantly condemn themselves as the '51st state' would have their noses put out of joint if they got outdone by the moon and all its persuasive politicians.
Gay marriage? Nooo thats crazy! Colony on the moon? Yes yes great idea just what america needs. Jheez I pray that this fucking dickhead does not become president, man kind may as well give up if he does
My guess is he is so stupid he thinks there's oil there - republicans think there's oil EVERYWHERE if you just look hard enough - peak oil is a NWO conspiracy, by the UN enforced by black helicopters dont you know... Sheez... Oh, and he knows he can say ANYTHING because it has absolutely fuck all to do with policy claims by these scum but by WHO SPENDS THE MOST...
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and have you seen all the weddings taking place in deserts? Well the moon is WAY more baron and inhospitable - my guess is that Republicans so worship death and destruction they want to see how the Earth will look in 100 years with republicans/right wingers in control...
I like how TYT is so anti-space exploration. They claim to want to create jobs, but when an idea comes up they mock is. Space is where the money and jobs will be, people, might as well start now.
The Outer Space Treaty -signed by the US, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom on January 27, 1967- explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. The treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". Isn't Newt a Historian ?
I never would have clicked on this if I had noticed that it was YT.
However, NASA had plans for a return to The Moon with a permanently manned base until O'bama killed the plan in 2010.
NASA has turned itself into NAAGW (National Administration for Anthropogenic Global Warming). They need a shake-up and a mission/purpose. If we're not doing manned space flight, then privatize the whole thing.
Gingrich has studied these sciences for years. Maybe you should listen for once.
honestly though, a moonbase is not that far-fetched. 12 people have already walked there, many decades ago, back when a cell phone would've been considered magic. and look up SpaceX, a private corporation with some really ambitious plans (and there are others as well, like Virgin Galactic). we WILL be going to space regularly in a few years, and not just astronauts but anyone with the money to buy tickets (costly at first, but prices will keep coming down). the next logical step is the moon.
@xjaskix Having a select few incredibly rich private citizens going into space as opposed to astronauts exclusively can in no way be equated to a moon colony. The moon inherently contains no resources worth harvesting so everything a viable site will need will have to be brought up via an expensive rocket launch. Did you know it currently costs NASA about $2.5 million to get a single person into space?
Does any of this actually sound viable to you in just 8 short years?
Liberal Luddites: NASA already has a working prototype of a moon station module pod, based on the construction approach of the space station which works very well, thank you. This an be done and we can extract the H3 we need to give us all the power we need for a fraction of a price, using clean fission instead of dirty fusion (nuclear plants), including the cost of going to the moon to get it. I thought liberals cared about the planet. Switch parties and do it right for a change: NEWT 2012!
proevictory2012 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The space race is on, Luddites. THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO THE MOON AND NOT FOR FUN. Whoever controls the moon with today's technology becomes in many ways the military masters of the earth, including the amazing resource H3 and former KGB Putin is not a nice guy. We could have gone to the moon and harvested enough H3 to power the US for a year for what obama spent on his 'stimulus packages" and be able to tear down the nuclear power plants that are poisoning the planet. That's fact. NEWT 2012!
proevictory2012 1 day ago
He wants to make the moon a state.
Nulono 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
a state requires 60k people
binkydonny 2 weeks ago
@binkydonny except for the original colonies
binkydonny 2 weeks ago
What's wrong with that? He always has to look for some way to be against a Republican. Going to the moon itself seemed crazy a hundred years ago. Cenk laughs about colonizing the moon now. Why is he so sure we can't?
vjohn16 3 weeks ago
This idea is simultaneously the most awesome and most retarded idea ever proposed by an individual. Apparently newt gingrich (and most americans) are completely unaware that other countries exist on the planet and that they might have something to say about america having a base on the moon.
somekindofpie 3 weeks ago
Ironically, colonizing the moon is probably the best economic plan the Republicans have ever come up with.
Magicwillnz 3 weeks ago
send Newt to the moon first.
gladiator766 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moon base will only cost $35 billion and we can use it to harvest Helium-3, which solve our energy crisis problem overnight.
If you are a conservative interested in oil dependency, or national greatness, a liberal interested in stopping oil wars, or global warming, or just a space enthusiast interested in making mankind's first permanent baby steps into space, you should vote for Newt for this reason alone.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
I would rather have President Obama remain our President than have Newt Gringrich as our President. I would rather have Mitt Romney as our President than Rick Santorum.
I would much rather have our rights, freedoms, and liberties resotred than have any of the those named above as our President.
Ron Paul 2012!
God bless the USA!~
TIEGUY17 4 weeks ago
Colonizing the moon sounds SOO cool.
bradylawson3636 4 weeks ago
Maybe we can control how the tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.
jackwdc 1 month ago
sya newt, do you like bannanas?
werewolf873 1 month ago
Only good thing Ive heard from romney, Newt or Santorum. A great idea from Gingrich, Cenk you should support this from him, sounds great
Thomaspegful 1 month ago
The moon base will only cost $35 billion. By comparison the ISS costs $100 billion. The ISS is being decommissioned by 2021, and so we will need a new space station anyway. Why not put it on the moon this time instead? It will be cheaper anyway.
And I'm sure Gingrich didn't mean a full colony up their by 2020, just a base.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz It's less about the cost of the equipment to make a base/colony and more the tremendous cost to send raw materials out of the atmosphere and all the way there. Fuel costs alone would be .... astronomical? xP
xI2ei 1 month ago
@xI2ei No, that's included in the cost estimate.
"Fuel costs alone would be .... astronomical? xP"
Not any more so than the ISS. See, and a lot of people don't realize this, but once you get into LEO (Low-Earth Orbit), all you need to do is break orbit and cruise to the moon. A space shuttle trip with a payload would be no more expensive than a Constellation trip to the moon. And as a side note, it's actually more expensive to construct stuff in space than on a surface like the moon.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Stop making excuse for troll Gingrich. And making stuff on the moon maybe cheaper but how much does it cost to deliver stuff on the moon? Probably a lot more than in the LEO because you need to land on the moon and liftoff. It is not just gliding at fuel cost to that destination.
yes4me 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yes4me "how much does it cost"
The same amount of money it costs to deliver things into orbit -and for the same reason, once you get into orbit all you need to do is break orbit, cruise into lunar orbit and then land.
"land on the moon and liftoff"
That wont be much more. See you're assuming that all of the pieces we send there will be accompanied by a manned crew. But we can simply retrofit some of the spacecraft to land, and not take off, and you can built the base out of them.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Best solution? Crash the ISS into the moon! Problem solved!
PeterG00000 3 weeks ago 2
@PeterG00000 lol.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
This guy is a visionary!
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
At least he said SOMETHING about advancing NASA. Obama has pretty much cannibalized future space projects. It used to be Democrats who actually wanted to advance space exploration.
Xenite227 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xenite227 Space travel sounds fun, until you realise what's wrong with it. And what's wrong with it, to cut this short and get to the point, is that space is DEAD. EMPTY. BARREN. LIFELESS — devoid of ANY content whatsoever apart from the primitive physical properties of a bunch of blocks floating around. In fact, the 60's were the dumb generation for spending millions upon billions of dollars to be able to say "wow, we are on the fucking moon!"
Ejay1001 2 weeks ago
He's hoping to meet his 4th wife on the moon. Maybe this one will be hot enough to be the wife of a president.
ProfessorxVile 1 month ago
I'm all for the Moon Base idea as long as he goes there and takes all his followers with him.
toddfuckingaudas 1 month ago
The main question is how are people going to be able to eat on the moon.
pryan96 1 month ago 8
gravity is also a bit of a problem ,
eurozone69 2 weeks ago
@eurozone69 and radiation
eurozone69 2 weeks ago
@pryan96 By getting plants to grow it there from here using the dirt to change it into a soil
srblackbird1 1 week ago
hopefully newt will be one of the first to jump on that rocket to the moon!
TheMasterofrevenge 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE & VOTE VOTE VOTE !!!!! WE NEED EVERY LAST ONE!!!
RON PAUL 2012!!
Budsmokerhaha 1 month ago
@WildBuck007 hehehe, so true
JohnGaltHasSpoken 1 month ago
lol, look at the annotations in the beginning ,"newt gingrich said in florida to kill people "
JohnGaltHasSpoken 1 month ago
To everyone suggesting NASA is not worth the cost, please consider a couple articles. Look on Wikipedia for "NASA Spin-off" and "Economic Impact of NASA funding."
NASA funding clearly creates substantial economic returns on investment from developments in science and technology for which it is not given enough credit. I suggest increasing NASA's budget by about 20 fold. Even with this increase, it would only account for 10% of the Federal budget.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Be careful, this guy is gay
UltraMitt 1 month ago
yo, newt, we are gonna need some one to go out there to the moon and test if it is safe place humans to reside for prolonged periods of time, why don't you volunteer? go for it newt. i know you'll do great.
CHEESYhairyGASH 1 month ago
S. Hawking was right.
We need to get off this planet now because it's doomed. All of humanity's eggs are in one basket.
Kamicolod 1 month ago
@Kamicolod We don't even have the capacity to go the moon anymore.
AbsoluteMonarchist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kamicolod
"S. Hawking was right.
We need to get off this planet now because it's doomed. All of humanity's eggs are in one basket."
I completely agree. The threat of a nuclear or biological war that could cause mass extinction or death and threaten the survival of the entire human species seems very real. I suggest a "Mars to Stay" type program for NASA.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I think that this civilization, perhaps this species, has missed its window of opportunity to launch ourselves permanently into space and take some of the eggs out of Basket Earth.
StevenBee2 1 month ago
@KesselRunner606
"But this is decades, perhaps centuries ahead of us. A permanent 3 man outpost on the Moon would be an engineering feat Now. And could Only be viable as a multinational endeavor."
I disagree. Just end the war on drugs, cut the military budget, end the wars overseas, close down unnecessary military bases, etc. Then there would be plenty of money for science programs like NASA to do amazing things like this, missions to Mars, asteroids, etc.
ELM1941 1 month ago
Newt is picturing himself in his mansion military complex, overlooking his tiny colony of millionaires on the moon. Safe from all the hoards of peasants and burning madness that hes turned earth into.
brokenbeekerman 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA does great science, NASA creates jobs, NASA inspires children to go into science, engineering, and math, and NASA enhances America's image around the world.
NASA does all the things that progressives claim to be in favor of, and yet this thread is full of anti-NASA garbage. What's wrong with you people? And don't tell me NASA is expensive. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the Federal budget. Compare that with the military budget...
ELM1941 1 month ago
would be bad ass though
alliencedful 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
For the last fucking time: Human beings either were created or evolved (depending on your religious convictions) for life in 1G, they fucking DIE in 1/6G--we already know this. Their livers fail, their circulatory systems fail, their bones and muscles atrophy to the point of DEATH. Go watch another Star Trek episode, and this time try very hard to understand that it is FANTASY!
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatemorethanyou999 "they fucking DIE in 1/6G--we already know this. Their livers fail, their circulatory systems fail, their bones and muscles atrophy to the point of DEATH."
Not with the upcoming biotech revolution we don't!
"Go watch another Star Trek episode, and this time try very hard to understand that it is FANTASY!"
Wow, you sure have a bright vision of the future!
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@hatemorethanyou999 You know, some countries have had this revolutionary idea where instead of spending over half their budget on destruction, they instead spend more on solving problems like the ones you described. Sounds crazy, I know.
JoesephKatana 1 month ago
@JoesephKatana There are NO solutions that allow humans to live on the moon--EVER! If we are going to solve problems, we need to do it on this planet, the only one that humans will EVER live on.
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
@hatemorethanyou999 You're asserting that which you do not and can not know and display transparent bias on the issue. I suggest you reevaluate your positions or excuse yourself from the discussion.
JoesephKatana 1 month ago
@JoesephKatana Maybe you can tell me how I am wrong. How do humans live on the moon? Remember our physiology falls apart under low gravity conditions.and reproduction is out of the question. Yes I have made an assertion, but you have done nothing to counter it. As far as interstellar travel, I do know that there is no physics that allows it--again tell me where I have erred.
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
@hatemorethanyou999
You're false. First, interstellar travel is indeed possible. One of NASA's probes has left our solar system some time ago. It may be unmanned, but that's beside the point. Also, the US Government/NASA have had several programs in the past that developed more advanced rocket designs - nuclear rockets - that are thought to be able to go fast enough to make interstellar travel (to nearby stars) substantially closer to being possible than previously thought.
ELM1941 1 month ago
@ELM1941 "One of NASA's probes has left our solar system some time ago." Yes and in a mere 36,000 years, roughly 8 times the length of recorded human history, it will reach half the distance to nearest star. Here is what we know about physics: it would take more energy tan there is in the entire universe to propel so much as an atom to the speed of light.
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
@hatemorethanyou999
"Yes and in a mere 36,000 years, roughly 8 times the length of recorded human history, it will reach half the distance to nearest star. Here is what we know about physics: it would take more energy tan there is in the entire universe to propel so much as an atom to the speed of light."
That does not prove that interstellar travel is impossible. You don't need to go the speed of light to get to NEARBY stars.
ELM1941 1 month ago
@ELM1941 Yeah whatever--keep dreaming fella, but in the mean time, let's fix a few things here on Earth 'cause it sure looks like we are going to be here for quite some time--if not forever.
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
@hatemorethanyou999
I agree with the idea of fixing things on Earth. I think that the science/innovation produced by NASA, the inspiration of millions of children to pursue careers in science, mathematics, and engineering, the improvement to America's image around the world, and the jobs created by NASA would be a superb start.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@hatemorethanyou999
What you need to understand is that part of what's useful about having permanent research stations in space (like a proposed Moon base, or a proposed Mars base, or the ISS)... is that their very existence drives NASA fund development of new technologies that enable these bases in space to survive... better water treatment and re-utilization, better solar energy technologies, and yes, research to prevent harm from low-gravity conditions.
ELM1941 1 month ago
Well, I am a resident of the moon, and I cant allow you to destroy our civilization here, just like you did with the Mayans and subsequently,Red Indians
MrTrollingStone 1 month ago
Somehow i dont think he will be too succesful convincing someone to go live on the moon.
outlooker707 1 month ago
Next step... Colonizing the sun.
Hartjess 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
A moon colony, really Gingrich? The US is in the middle of a economic disaster, as well- the rest of the world, and you're talking about a 'moon colony'. Call me crazy but shouldn't our priorities be jobs, education, environment- you know, crazy stuff here on Earth. But this makes sense coming from the' Newt' (N to the E to the WT!), his head is either up his ass or so far up in the clouds that he just can't think straight.
TalesFromTheCrypt80 1 month ago 6
@TalesFromTheCrypt80
NASA creates new scientific and technological breakthroughs that are great for the environment. Read about their accomplishments with regard to solar power. NASA inspires kids to go into science, technology, mathematics, and engineering. It plays a vital role in educating children in these areas. NASA creates huge numbers of jobs. NASA also enhances our image around the world.
NASA satisfies all the priorities you just said we should have.
ELM1941 1 month ago
Has anyone asked the Moon how it feels about this?
MrDragon1968 1 month ago 30
@MrDragon1968 the moon is offended lol
chamblizi 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I stand by him on this one, Nasa is the height of scientific discovery.
There will always be someone to invent another glorified chat room like YT and FB ( i'm a whore for each incarnation ) but we need people that are driven to go further, much further .
The next planet, the next galaxy, and every technological innovation that stems from that, not just the next LMFAO platform.
After all, that ubiquitous phrase would have never viralized if it weren't for the space program
clownprince88 1 month ago
Colonizing the moon is the smartest thing Newt ever proposed.
ShammyKalii 1 month ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
This (from the Simpsons "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson") is the first thing I thought of when I saw this. Gingrich is as dumb as as a Simpsons character, no?
"By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve colonies on the moon, ideal for family vacations. Once there, you'll weigh only a small percentage of what you weigh on Earth. Slow down, tubby, you're not on the moon yet! The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?"
MrCrazyCanuk 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrCrazyCanuk 1 month ago
NASA does great science, NASA creates jobs, NASA inspires children to go into science, engineering, and math, and NASA enhances America's image around the world.
NASA does all the things that progressives claim to be in favor of, and yet this thread is full of anti-NASA garbage. What's wrong with you people? And don't tell me NASA is expensive. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the Federal budget. Compare that with the military budget...
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 : You are correct sir. But you forget innumeracy. Some people simply can't understand percentages
nosuchthing8 1 month ago
say newt, do you like bannanas?
werewolf873 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
Call me nuts but i think it would be a good idea to focus on a goal like setting up a permanent US colony on the moon, i mean a real colony with families not just a bunch of scientists. Look at all the amazing technology that came out of the 1960's space race, velcro, computers, satellites, and much more. Starting a new space race would force us to develop new technologies and would create countless jobs and who wouldn't want a chance to live on the moon or on mars. So call me nuts if u want!
ranseeka 1 month ago
@ranseeka
I think you're correct. I don't see why you don't want scientists on the colony though... the science is part of what helps create the new technologies.
But yeah, there have been thousands of technological developments that came from the Moon missions. Public science programs like NASA are fantastic, and should be expanded, not cut.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 I said not "just" scientists sure scientists and engineers are important to but i would like to see a real colony. that means that in addition to the scientists u also have child care workers and chefs and janitors and everything else u would need to form a real community i agree with u about NASA's importance
ranseeka 1 month ago
@ranseeka agreed!
LobsterPotsticker 1 month ago
Maybe if the entire world focused on that one goal...
BrennanAndrewWittig 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
with what spaceship...? are the Russians gonna give us a lift so we can be the first to conquer the moon?!? i feel like there would be a conflict of interest.
saintlaurentb 1 month ago
Tide goes in, tide goes out. you can't explain that!
NotRelatedToBob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
actually ... it'll prolly happen, yall know that, right? before i die, in my lifetime, there will be commercial (as in "just for fun") spaceflights to the moon.
it'll be an economic rouse. it'll costs untold sums of money, it wont make any money, but it will get a little money and jobs into people's hands (temporarily) so everyone will be all in a tizzy, and the stock market will have a manipulable bubble again (until they pop it for fun, again), but wtf, the drama will give us something to do.
paragshah2112 1 month ago
Comment removed
paragshah2112 1 month ago
How fast can we send him to the moon? To stay permanent
TheRoxie08 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The left is WRONG!!!
The right is STUPID!!!
Gingrich is a Neo-Fascist.
He wrote the fore-word for a book by Neo-Fascist Alvin Toffler that called for the American Constitutional-Republic to ''die and be replaced''.
search Gingrich Toffler
WVMADMAN1 1 month ago
Here's what people forget about the space race. It was devastatingly expensive. It was huge surge and influx of money that was unprecedented and in fact, to offset the costs, Kennedy asked Khrushchev to make it a joint mission. Nothing come of it because he made the proposal shortly before November 1963. Newt is crazy to think we can do that again.
bluesboy25000 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@bluesboy25000 ...especially in this financial climate. Space exploration is a luxury.
Pinage 1 month ago
@Pinage
Technological development that comes from space exploration is of crucial importance, and is hardly a "luxury." The benefits to education - inspiring kids to go into science and engineering - is critical for America's future (and the world's future).
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 In advancing science and technology, I agree that space exploration is both vital and exciting. Yet how do you propose such a radical leap as moon colonisation be paid for in this global financial climate? It's a naive unrealistic goal. There are more important things to achieve before we set our sights back on the moon.
Pinage 1 month ago
@Pinage
You are a progressive, right (you're watching TYT, so this seems a reasonable assumption)? Progressives have historically thought that government spending - even deficit spending - helps to create jobs and stimulate the economy. NASA creates huge numbers of jobs, particularly in Florida, Texas, and California. Assuming you're a progressive, why NOT fund NASA in the midst of a recession? NASA creates jobs. NASA produces incredible science. NASA inspires kids to go into science.
ELM1941 1 month ago
@ELM1941 I admire your optimism to say the least. Yes, I agree that stimulating an economy through spending is the best way to beat a recession. However I think there are more important industries than space programs to build in achieving that end.
Pinage 1 month ago
@Pinage
So if you think that stimulating an economy through spending is the best way to beat a recession, and you don't seem to disagree that NASA provides the benefits I mentioned, why not fund NASA?
Sure, there may be other things you are interested in funding as well, but if you agree that NASA inspires children to go into science, if you agree it enhances world opinion of America, and if you agree NASA creates valuable science/innovation and jobs, why not fund NASA?
ELM1941 1 month ago
@ELM1941 Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals.
Since money is tight, it needs to be spent as economically and intelligently as possible in industries which will provide both short and long term benefits and provide jobs for both skilled and unskilled workers.
Pinage 1 month ago
@Pinage
"and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals."
I'm sure NASA employs a certain amount of staff to maintain the facilities they operate, provide simple security, etc. Not everyone they employ is a highly skilled professional. That said, yes, NASA employs highly skilled professionals (like scientists). You don't value NASA science or innovations?
"Since money is tight"
The US spends around $600B/year in military spending.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 Don't be silly, I think NASA is great. My argment is that now is not the time to be inflating their budget in the hopes of achieving such a radical goal as colonising the moon (or even going back to the moon in the near future).
I am aware that the US spends ludicrous amounts on its military. I think that is nothing short of appauling. Were you to ask if I think that money should be spent elsewhere I would agree vehemently.
Pinage 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pinage
"My argment is that now is not the time to be inflating their budget in the hopes of achieving such a radical goal as colonising the moon (or even going back to the moon in the near future)."
Now is as good a time as any to increase NASA's budget. You could double NASA's budget right now and NASA would only consume about 1% of the Federal budget. Considering the benefits all humanity gets from NASA, 1% is insignificant.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pinage
"Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term"
NASA accounts for about 0.6% of the Federal budget. Is that price is too high given all the benefits NASA provides? Would it be too high if NASA accounted for 1% of the Federal budget?
Keep in mind, there is still another 99% of the Federal budget that would be available for jobs programs and anything else, even if you doubled NASA's budget. You don't think NASA is worth it, given that?
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 "NASA accounts for about 0.6% of the Federal budget." I was not aware that it was so low. I will admit that is unfortunate.
Pinage 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pinage
"Because the ratio of cost to benefit is too high in the short term and any jobs it creates will be primarily suited to highly skilled profressionals."
And if you fired all those highly skilled professionals at NASA, you don't think that would contribute to unemployment and make the recession worse (not to mention all the lost benefits to science, innovation, and industry)? Look at all the unemployed in FL, just because of cutting Constellation.
ELM1941 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ELM1941 "And if you fired all those highly skilled professionals at NASA"
Not once have I suggested NASA's budget ought to be cut entirely, nor would I ever support such action.
Pinage 1 month ago
@Pinage
NASA programs in general should be one of the easiest government programs to argue we should have. It's a public science program. It creates huge numbers of jobs. It funds terrific amounts of scientific research. It inspires children to go into mathematics, science, and engineering. All of these things are a byproduct of its central goal of space exploration. If we didn't have space exploration, Moon missions, Mars missions, etc, none of these benefits would be had.
ELM1941 1 month ago
LOL Cenk you do Newts movements so well.
TheZoostudio13 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
seems to me he is already on another planet
dabner50 1 month ago
As a futurist, I love the idea of finally starting work on an extra-planetary colony. But getting to work on a project that big in the middle of a recession is, quite frankly, a bad idea.
In addition to a futurist, I'm also a social liberal, which means I think gays should be allowed to get married and muslim americans shouldn't be automatically associated with Al Queda. So yeah. The cons of a Newt in the white house outweigh the pros in my mind.
DinoJake 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Space is international territory. Full stop.
Killur10 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Killur10 except for the british.. period.
jk
fumala420 1 month ago
Newt is a republican so obviously he would despice facts, laws and international treaties, but making claim to the moon is actually not legal.The "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" states that no country can make claim to the moon. The treaty has been signed and ratified by most countries including the United States. So good luck to you Mr Gingrich.
kmhno 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@kmhno moron,nobody is making claims to the moon..besides,even if we did ,who's going to stop us ?
JohnGaltHasSpoken 1 month ago
@JohnGaltHasSpoken Making a colony on the moon and make it the 51. state would be making a claim to the moon. It's really the definition of doing so. One nation claiming sovereignty over a geographical area. Is this really so difficult to grasp?
kmhno 1 month ago
@kmhno Gingrich is a fat blowhard.his moon colony proposal received a great deal of ridicule from the media and even his fellow Republican contenders.besides whorebama canceled the lunar program a while back.but you know what?he could loan two more printing machines from china (can't afford to buy them outright)-he will get them working round the clock & print loads of dollars and he will relaunch this program using this quantitatively eased dollars MUHAHAHAHA
JohnGaltHasSpoken 1 month ago
Newt is literally promising the moon!
martinw1200 1 month ago
Only Newt could take the dream of space exploration and make it so crass. Only Newt and farscape that is
BrightonContrarian10 1 month ago
He's a lunar luny.
celt67 1 month ago
HAHAHA...the moon is the 51st state. That's...bad ass and dumb. Can we go to Mars first? Please?
djwaglmuffin 1 month ago
BS from a politician, and a republican at that?!? No way!!!
TruthatCearcie 1 month ago 24
You know what, if President Gingrich's insanity leads to rapid moon colonisation...it might be worth it. At last man will have a true permenent space presence, and at the very least we'll have somewhere to escape to when his economic and foreign policies cause the collapse of human civilisation.
niriop 1 month ago
@niriop
This is a good point. Many great thinkers throughout history have made arguments that it is essential for the survival of the human species (in the long term) ... that we extend our presence into space PERMANENTLY.... and become a multi-planet species... due to threats from nuclear/biological war, possible asteroid impacts that could wipe out life as we know it, or environmental catastrophe.
That said, I think Mars would be more likely habitable than the Moon.
ELM1941 1 month ago
MAKE IT SO!
ibs2pid 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Sorry, that names gone!
Fifty1stState 1 month ago
Princes Celestia of Equestria Agrees.
Send Newt to the moon... A thousand years, that should be good..
ParadoxEcho 1 month ago 28
This has been flagged as spam show
Jewish terrorist :
Ex Israel Prime Minister, Yizhak Rabin was killed by a Jewish terrorist, Yigal Amir.
Killed on : November 4, 1995
Stevie68000 1 month ago
Hey dumbfuck Cenk, we've had the technology to build space colonies since the 70's. The only thing we don't have is the money to build it.
I just love how TYT is so anti-space exploration. I thought they were pro-job creation? We need to subsidice space travel to create and incentive to go into space and be able to create more jobs.
Shonenut213 1 month ago
@Shonenut213 Why the hell do we need to colonize the moon?
Candiecane908 1 month ago
@Shonenut213 u r an idiot, what Cenk means is that Gringrich is a huge hypocrite.
Kpac21c 1 month ago
@Shonenut213
Not only does NASA create huge numbers of jobs, NASA also does a great job creating science that benefits all people, improves the economy, creates new industries; and inspires children to go into math, science, and engineering. NASA also enhances our image around the world.
If you ask people from other countries what is great about America, they'll point to the Bill of Rights, the Apollo Program (NASA), the Constitution, etc.
We should increase NASA's budget, not cut it.
ELM1941 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cenk, why do you always talk about how great it is to create jobs, and how much you like science... and then when a politician turns around and says "Hey, lets have an ambitious public science program that will employ large numbers of people who have been layed off in Florida and inspire countless young Americans to be scientists and engineers" .... you laugh at him?
You know what SCIENCE PROGRAM creates jobs (and new technologies)? ...NASA.
ELM1941 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Progressives always like to talk about how Republicans are anti-science, are not interested in creating jobs, and do things (like torture, war in iraq, etc) that damage America's image around the world.
Hey guys, you know what is pro-science, creates lots of new technologies, creates lots of jobs, does not contribute significantly to the deficit, and enhances America's image around the world? NASA.
I agree with Newt to the extent that we should go to the Moon and especially Mars.
ELM1941 1 month ago
At least he has dreams....
DeletedDelusion 1 month ago
Moon colony? How can some with their head in the clouds also have their head up their ass?
athma12 1 month ago
SPACE : 1999
ValyTraveler 1 month ago
Does Newt think America owns the moon?
Clutchology 1 month ago
And when they build schools on the moon, black kids can clean those toilets too.
videobeat09 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Guess the 1% is planning their exit when they destroy this planeet.
Onthewater850 1 month ago
colonize the moon by the year 2020? Yeah, haha... no
bam121 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i remember another political figure who had aspirations about the moon..
watch?v=iRygA_sM6lM&feature=related
kiladhi3 1 month ago
Comment removed
kiladhi3 1 month ago
and the moon is next! and we are of!
griiko 1 month ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från TheYoungTurks
Newt is just homesick.
00shadowLord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Israel, Australia, etc., that reluctantly condemn themselves as the '51st state' would have their noses put out of joint if they got outdone by the moon and all its persuasive politicians.
naganokumas 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
naganokumas 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
naganokumas 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You can't be serious
Jesus Christ
TheFunkyDomination 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@xjaskix The next logical step would be to have a faIrer and more humane system on the planet we live on. Not waste money on bullshit we don't need
cadnewham 1 month ago
Gay marriage? Nooo thats crazy! Colony on the moon? Yes yes great idea just what america needs. Jheez I pray that this fucking dickhead does not become president, man kind may as well give up if he does
cadnewham 1 month ago
My guess is he is so stupid he thinks there's oil there - republicans think there's oil EVERYWHERE if you just look hard enough - peak oil is a NWO conspiracy, by the UN enforced by black helicopters dont you know... Sheez... Oh, and he knows he can say ANYTHING because it has absolutely fuck all to do with policy claims by these scum but by WHO SPENDS THE MOST...
StunnedByStupidity 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and have you seen all the weddings taking place in deserts? Well the moon is WAY more baron and inhospitable - my guess is that Republicans so worship death and destruction they want to see how the Earth will look in 100 years with republicans/right wingers in control...
StunnedByStupidity 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I like how TYT is so anti-space exploration. They claim to want to create jobs, but when an idea comes up they mock is. Space is where the money and jobs will be, people, might as well start now.
KaiLuck 1 month ago
Mine the moon for rocks?
fivebythree 1 month ago
When I heard this I legitimately thought this was from The Onion News.
Geez.
IRLpirate 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
This has been flagged as spam show
Newt Gingrich = Clown of the Universe
sargetech 1 month ago
Who the fuck wants to live on the moon anyway? It would be fucked.
fantasy0coach 1 month ago
Comment removed
sargetech 1 month ago
One of these days, one of these days alice
Bang zoom to the moon.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 1 month ago
And Ron Paul is the crazy one....
Turkxi 1 month ago
The Outer Space Treaty -signed by the US, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom on January 27, 1967- explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. The treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". Isn't Newt a Historian ?
shirbeezy 1 month ago 64
@shirbeezy the moon base was a system against the sovjet.. now what..
Lets all come in peace, be muslims my friends, and let peace be open this world.
love muhammed:)
haditqura 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@shirbeezy Who knows that? I am giving you a thumbs up for random knowledge...
lex811117 1 month ago
@shirbeezy
I believe he is a paleotologist.
shaochiavang 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I never would have clicked on this if I had noticed that it was YT.
However, NASA had plans for a return to The Moon with a permanently manned base until O'bama killed the plan in 2010.
NASA has turned itself into NAAGW (National Administration for Anthropogenic Global Warming). They need a shake-up and a mission/purpose. If we're not doing manned space flight, then privatize the whole thing.
Gingrich has studied these sciences for years. Maybe you should listen for once.
fascistcat 1 month ago
13,000 people for the moon to become a state, take THAT D.C.
dave19941000 1 month ago
honestly though, a moonbase is not that far-fetched. 12 people have already walked there, many decades ago, back when a cell phone would've been considered magic. and look up SpaceX, a private corporation with some really ambitious plans (and there are others as well, like Virgin Galactic). we WILL be going to space regularly in a few years, and not just astronauts but anyone with the money to buy tickets (costly at first, but prices will keep coming down). the next logical step is the moon.
xjaskix 1 month ago
@xjaskix Having a select few incredibly rich private citizens going into space as opposed to astronauts exclusively can in no way be equated to a moon colony. The moon inherently contains no resources worth harvesting so everything a viable site will need will have to be brought up via an expensive rocket launch. Did you know it currently costs NASA about $2.5 million to get a single person into space?
Does any of this actually sound viable to you in just 8 short years?
eagles980 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@eagles980 2.5 million... thats like, what... an hour in Afghanistan? lol. Then all these people think NASA is so expensive. So stupid...
ELM1941 1 month ago
What- a - goofball.
Domzdream 1 month ago
I want this guy in office so I can watch the fireworks from the stands
TheCagedTiger 1 month ago
you'd think a guy with the head the size of a goodyear blimp would be a bit smarter.
DoneWithDogma 1 month ago
How about you focus on creating jobs on this planet after that look outwards at the rest of the universe which is ripe for the picking.
htimSsalohciN 1 month ago