SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
Be afraid. A Democrat government is just the time something like that could get passed.

Seriously. I know we associate Republicans with the christian lunatic fringe, but Neil deGrasse Tyson has the right of it. While Republicans superficially pander to their nutjob adherents in the bible belt, ultimately, their God is monetary in nature. As a consequence, it was a CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN judge that squashed the idea of ID taught in science class. It's the REPUBLICAN party that gives more funding to NASA, while the democrats constantly cut it. Science makes the economy go round, and they need a steady flow of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(03-05-2013 11:34 AM)CompletelySolo Wrote:  Be afraid. A Democrat government is just the time something like that could get passed.

Seriously. I know we associate Republicans with the christian lunatic fringe, but Neil deGrasse Tyson has the right of it. While Republicans superficially pander to their nutjob adherents in the bible belt, ultimately, their God is monetary in nature. As a consequence, it was a CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN judge that squashed the idea of ID taught in science class. It's the REPUBLICAN party that gives more funding to NASA, while the democrats constantly cut it. Science makes the economy go round, and they need a steady flow of it.

While the Republicans may pander the economically wealthy more than the Democrats, the issue is not exclusive to a single political party. The two most important issues in the United States is corporate influence on the legislative branch and the political polarization of the American middle class. The only way to fix such problems is to enact the rights that our nations' founding documents have bestowed upon us. A united proletariat, the middle and lower classes, with eloquent leaders is the singular way to reenact previous legislation benefiting the public interest.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(03-05-2013 11:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The constitution defines the purpose by which the branches of government will operate, which they remain in accordance to.


The three branches of the federal government do not remain adherent to the dictates of the constitution. The federal government is continuously enacting legislation that is deemed unconstitutional... some of which is overturned and some of which is not.

Quote:The constitution has been, however, changed over the course of time to compensate for economic developments. If anything is to be criticized, it is the implementation of unregulated free market crony capitalism and its incessant corruption of politicians. As I have said, the issues came with the advent of the industrial revolution and not with the agrarian society it was tailored in.

There has never been an amendment to the constitution that has anything whatever to do with economics or the regulation/stifling of trade. There have been some, like the eighteenth, that had a deleterious economic affect but economics was never the stated purpose. As crony capitalism goes... it cannot exist in the absence of regulation. If there is no regulation, then anyone can enter any market and compete with any other business. In crony capitalism, regulations that favor the richest businesses are enacted by dishonest legislators (but I repeat myself) so as to stop or seriously curtail competition. Of the many things the federal government is and does, it can never, ever be accurately said that the federal government has left any aspect of commerce "unregulated". And yes, the industrial revolution did have a serious affect on the US but that had nothing to do with the constitution.

The industrial revolution brought forth the fastest economic growth, for the widest group of individuals that the world had ever seen. The industrial revolution ushered in an era where families no longer needed ten children working in fields for 12 hours a day. Instead, fathers who were formerly sharecroppers could earn enough money working in factories that their children could actually attend school and become educated. This newly educated generation of poor children then became the inventors and entrepreneurs that forever raised the standard of living in the entirety of western civilization.

This massive growth of wealth for all classes of American sent massive amounts of tax revenue to the state which, in turn, began to wedge its way into every conceivable facet of American life. Like the clergy, these parasites in the state created false disaster scenarios that allowed them to take over more and more of what previously had been provided by the free market. First roads, then schools, then water delivery, then waste disposal... and on and on and on until now we live in a world where most people simply cannot imagine that human beings can survive without nation states to give them everything they have.

What these people don't seem to understand (and what no state run school will tell them) is that government doesn't provide a god damned thing. People do. There is no such thing as government outside the realm of human thought. Just as you cannot show me a picture of your family with no people in it, you cannot show me a picture of government with no people in it. You can show me pictures of buildings or flags or tanks with names on their sides but in the end, none of that is anything more than material goods being manipulated by human beings who call themselves government.

And one last thing... the industrial revolution started before the US was formed.

Quote:For all intensive purposes, the constitution has done a remarkably efficient job at maintaining a somewhat balanced federal-state system. It is ridiculous to expect such a parchment to account for all economic developments, which is why it should and is considered to be successful.

The constitution has done nothing. People have. Some have ignored it and some have fought for it but in the end, the federal government of the US has been the fastest growing nation state and has become the most powerful nation state the world has ever known. If you care to compare document for document to see how the US constitution stands up against others... Great Britain, under constraint of the Magna Carta, remained the most free and least intrusive nation state in the world for about 700 years. Basically, until the US was formed. Of course, it was still an empire but in all those 700 years it never dealt the amount of misery to the rest of the world that the US empire has dealt in a paltry 200 years. And most of that occurred in the twentieth century.


Quote:The basis of the government which we both live under is still subject to change, but is solely dependent on the citizen's actions towards the problems of the era. It is of my personal opinion that a renaissance of the unionized proletariat is all that is required to steer the governments current inconsistent, corrupted voting record back in line. What is remarkable is the continuing polarization of world politics.

The proletariat don't change anything in the US. They choose as their masters every four years, one of two or three ornaments hand picked for them by the ruling class but they do not change anything.

Quote:A direct democracy is completely impractical concerning an entire nation on scale with the United States. A republic would also fall under the tyranny of the majority, even in reality, when one looks upon social and economic issues. The problem of the United States, which was criticized on the eve of the dual party system's conception by the founders of the United States, is total political polarization (which you are a victim of). There is no such thing as leftist politics in the United States.

The founders did not establish a two party system. In fact, they never spoke of parties or of regulations of who could run for office. The two party farce is a relatively recent phenomenon in US history.

Quote:I have never said our current understanding of evolution explains every specific detail concerning the social progression of an animal. However, humans are social animals, much like our "wild" brethren. Like other social animals, we create groups designed to spread conformity and order in a natural and instinctual manner.

Being social by nature says absolutely nothing about nation states. Humans can and often to cohabit in the absence of top down hierarchies. The state exists because of the historically violent nature of child rearing. We are raised in a hierarchy which demands conformity, blind obedience and unconditional, all too often undeserved respect and so we construct society to mirror that environment. We also invented religion on the same premise.

That we are social by nature does not mean we are violent by nature.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: