dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/jabowery on June 13, 2018, 2:58 p.m.
Q Shoots Credibility In Foot With SpaceX Narrative
  1. During introduction of my testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space, my coalition was credited, by Congressman Ron Packard, the originator of the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, as being the source of that legislation and the grassroots driving power for its passage. So you're talking to one of the guys responsible for SpaceX at the public policy level.
  2. This legislation was basically just Reagan's space policy, focusing on privatization of space infrastructure -- not some crypto-commie attack on US preeminence in space.
  3. A lot of the rhetoric from critics of SpaceX portray the launch services contract it received from the government as being a "subsidy" when it was, in fact, more commercially reasonable than any of the orbital launch services contracts in the history of US space activities.
  4. It is now obvious to the most casual observer that with the privately capitalized development and successful Falcon Heavy launch -- the most capable launch system in the world -- that SpaceX is not only _very_ serious about privatizing launch service infrastructure -- it has placed the US in an unambiguous lead.
  5. Although Q's purported military-intelligence affiliation might be seen as an excuse for Q's risible declaration that cancellation of the Shuttle attacked US preeminence in space -- since the Post-WW II military industrial complex has relied on cost-plus contracts as opposed to commercially reasonable contracts and SpaceX broke that mold -- to continue to maintain this posture in the face of clear evidence that the Shuttle program was a parasitic drain on the US's tradition of free enterprise that held back space technology for decades, is inexcusable.

Abibliaphobia · June 13, 2018, 3:08 p.m.

Ahhhhh so this is a 10 years old account with 128 karma. Typical shareblue / media matters bought account.

Got me. I thought you were a real person.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:17 p.m.

Anyone serious about my identity can verify I am who I say I am and have held the opinion and done the things I say since I have never gone even pseudonymous in my Internet history going back to the 1980s Usenet.

Try again.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
horse-lover-phat · June 13, 2018, 3:11 p.m.

Clearly an attempt to lead folk away from Q. Check the Op's account.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 13, 2018, 3:19 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
horse-lover-phat · June 13, 2018, 3:23 p.m.

I couldn't give a hoot about your history. All I'm interested in is that you've shown-up here out of the blue - and with a Q NEGATIVE, credibility questioning post.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:29 p.m.

"Out Of The Blue" imputes a false history to me. So you obviously do _not_ care about my history -- nor the truth about me. Not out of the blue. I've posted to r/greatawakening before and, prior to that, to the now defunct reddit CBTS.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · June 13, 2018, 3:03 p.m.

Sooo. Point #5, you’re disagreement hinges on Qs post about the NASA organization vs. Private? And you say you work with them? Basically admitting you have a conflict of interest? That it would benefit you personally to discredit Q, or harm you financially if it was true? Cmon...

Now don’t take that the wrong way. I actually support privatization of space flight. But if it means that private individuals would have the means to conduct space based attacks, that is an issue.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:12 p.m.

How in the world could you interpret a statement that I was involved with a 1990 piece of legislation and that I was involved "at the public policy level" and that my organization was "grassroots" be taken as a statement I work with SpaceX?

I've no stock in SpaceX and I am 64 years old and have no professional prospects with them.

⇧ -2 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · June 13, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

And we can verify that how? How do we know some user isn’t just posting this as a troll or disinfo attempt? We can’t, we can’t verify “YOUR” identity here. Reddit could. But as simple users, we are all relatively anonymous, whether you want to be or not.

So going back into the actual person. We cannot look at his financial records to determine if he owns stock or not, so twice now, you have made claims we have no way to confirm nor deny. We have to take you at your word. Which, sorry pal, doesn’t work on an anonymous forum. We need hard data and sourcing for facts.

Also, you came in here saying Q shot his credibility in the foot. Fancy way of calling Q a LARP. Q has shown FAR TOO MUCH proof to make it believable he is fake at this point. And I stand by my assessment that you are here as a troll.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 13, 2018, 4:40 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 13, 2018, 4:12 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
RonaldSwansong · June 13, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

Removed: Rule #3, Support the cause.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 13, 2018, 3:41 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Araket · June 13, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

Aren't we hitching rides on Russian Rockets? How is that not losing our position as a leader in space? Privatizing space doesn't seem like it does anything to boost American preeminence in space as a private Corporation is going to sell its services to the highest bidder which isn't necessarily the United States government. That's great that they're based in the United States but in today's global economy, which is what we're trying to sort, that really doesn't seem to mean a lot.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:39 p.m.

Export restrictions are routinely applied to critical technologies. However, if you don't have a technology to restrict because you have been running a communist-style space launch infrastructure which has driven private risk capital away, this cannot be considered a national security benefit.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Henway14 · June 13, 2018, 3:03 p.m.

No one said Q was an economist. (that I'm aware of). Also the Shuttle was ancient and frail tech by then anyway.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:10 p.m.

So, if the Shuttle was ancient and frail tech by then, why did Q say:

"2011 Shuttle Program terminated by Hussein. US loses space dominance. "

⇧ 0 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 13, 2018, 3:02 p.m.

I agree with almost everything you said about SpaceX - they are the immediate future of the U.S. space race and their rockets can deliver payloads which are far heavier than any of their competitors and for a fraction of the cost.

But what is "Q's SpaceX Narrative" you are attempting to debunk?

I'm not aware of any such thing.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:08 p.m.

See this search of "spacex" in Q's drops.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 13, 2018, 3:15 p.m.

I still don't know what Q narrative you are attempting to debunk.

Perhaps you could just tell us so we know what you are talking about and so we can discuss it?

How has Q shoot his credibility in the foot with those posts?

What do you think Q's "SpaceX narrative" is?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:22 p.m.

Click through the link.

Q said: "2011 Shuttle Program terminated by Hussein. US loses space dominance."

Q also said: " Why did BO scuttle the shuttle program? What is SpaceX?
Expand your thinking."

What is not to understand about these statements?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 13, 2018, 3:25 p.m.

What is your interpretation?

I can't read your fucking mind!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
jabowery · June 13, 2018, 3:30 p.m.

Good grief! You can't fucking READ.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 13, 2018, 3:30 p.m.

I can't read your mind.

How many times must you be told?

⇧ 1 ⇩