Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2012, 08:19 PM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 08:16 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 04:37 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html


Both parties are obligated by the constitution.

Neither party follows the Constitution. Have you ever read the Constitution? IF your answer is yes, then I would say that you haven't payed attention to politics very much since the creation of either party.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the Politics section??

Yeah I've read it and I don't participate in politics cause the derpy majority makes all the decisions.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 09:07 PM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 04:37 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Quote:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Both parties are obligated by the constitution.

But neither is held to account by the people, whence they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Plus: the Constitution is 215 years old. It is creaking. It was conceived in a different era. A different world.
It is badly in need of a fundamental overhaul. As are the executive, representative, and judiciary systems based on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 03:59 PM)Jeff Wrote:  From RealClearPolitics.com

"A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...15367.html

Are the Dems pro science? Unfortunately, to the extent one side is and one side isn't, yes the Dems are more pro science. The social cons in the GOP want faith based education. I part ways with the GOP on the "academic freedom" for primary and secondary educators to teach creationism. Primary and secondary educators are not paid for their academic opinion--just do your friggen job and teach the curriculum.

I don't consider the anti-vaxers left or right. They are kind of the crazy where the nuts of the left reach around and meet the nuts on the right. Antisemitism is another 'reach around' extremist phenomena.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 09:07 PM)Janus Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 04:37 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html


Both parties are obligated by the constitution.

But neither is held to account by the people, whence they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Plus: the Constitution is 215 years old. It is creaking. It was conceived in a different era. A different world.
It is badly in need of a fundamental overhaul. As are the executive, representative, and judiciary systems based on it.

The "original Constitution", that is the Bill of Rights which comprimise the first ten amendments of the Constitution are just a applicable and important today as they were when they were created. It all deals with limiting the size and power of the Federal Government and protecting the citizens of the United States from the government. No matter your era, our world, why wouldn't you want your civil rights to be protected. The problem is not the Constitution, it is that is is not being followed, and that later amendments to the Constitution conflicted with the original amendments (some amendments of Constitution are unconstitutional).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
11-09-2012, 06:53 AM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 09:46 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The "original Constitution", that is the Bill of Rights which comprimise the first ten amendments of the Constitution are just a applicable and important today as they were when they were created.

Spoken like a true conservative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(10-09-2012 09:46 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The "original Constitution", that is the Bill of Rights which comprimise the first ten amendments of the Constitution are just a applicable and important today as they were when they were created. It all deals with limiting the size and power of the Federal Government and protecting the citizens of the United States from the government. No matter your era, our world, why wouldn't you want your civil rights to be protected. The problem is not the Constitution, it is that is is not being followed, and that later amendments to the Constitution conflicted with the original amendments (some amendments of Constitution are unconstitutional).

No, if the legal process spelled out in the Constitution is followed, an amendment is by definition Constitutional. There are no "unconstitutional amendments".

The founders' intent is clear - the Constitution may be rewritten in its entirety by the Constitutional process of amendment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 08:57 AM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(11-09-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 09:46 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The "original Constitution", that is the Bill of Rights which comprimise the first ten amendments of the Constitution are just a applicable and important today as they were when they were created. It all deals with limiting the size and power of the Federal Government and protecting the citizens of the United States from the government. No matter your era, our world, why wouldn't you want your civil rights to be protected. The problem is not the Constitution, it is that is is not being followed, and that later amendments to the Constitution conflicted with the original amendments (some amendments of Constitution are unconstitutional).

No, if the legal process spelled out in the Constitution is followed, an amendment is by definition Constitutional. There are no "unconstitutional amendments".

The founders' intent is clear - the Constitution may be rewritten in its entirety by the Constitutional process of amendment.

If you think that having an amendment that prohibited me from putting a glass of beer into my stomach didn't violate my rights and didn't conflict with our founding fathers intentions then you are off your rocker.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2012 09:05 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(11-09-2012 06:53 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 09:46 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The "original Constitution", that is the Bill of Rights which comprimise the first ten amendments of the Constitution are just a applicable and important today as they were when they were created.

Spoken like a true conservative.

Yeah, I'm a cooky conservative that wants to be left alone. What kind of nut wants to be free from oppression?

You know what Janus, your brilliant rebuttal has changed my mind. More tyranny please!

For our European friends on the board, conservative in America is pretty much the opposite of a conservative over there.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 09:22 AM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(11-09-2012 08:57 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(11-09-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, if the legal process spelled out in the Constitution is followed, an amendment is by definition Constitutional. There are no "unconstitutional amendments".

The founders' intent is clear - the Constitution may be rewritten in its entirety by the Constitutional process of amendment.

If you think that having an amendment that prohibited me from putting a glass of beer into my stomach didn't violate my rights and didn't conflict with our founding fathers intentions then you are off your rocker.

Prohibition was foolish (as is the "War on Drugs") but it was by definition Constitutional. The founders wrote in to the Constitution the means for altering it. That was the genius of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
(11-09-2012 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-09-2012 08:57 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  If you think that having an amendment that prohibited me from putting a glass of beer into my stomach didn't violate my rights and didn't conflict with our founding fathers intentions then you are off your rocker.

Prohibition was foolish (as is the "War on Drugs") but it was by definition Constitutional. The founders wrote in to the Constitution the means for altering it. That was the genius of it.

I hope you understand what I meant by that. If Amendment one says x, and amendment two conflicts with amendment one, then amendment two is not legitimate. Of course the exception is when an amendments sole purpose is to stike down another amendment like we saw with amendment 18 & 19 respectively.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: