RE: It's official (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Hillwilliam -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 5:59:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

From the article...

"The proposal should have passed easily. But last week, Larry Hart, a former Republican congressional aide and current representative of the American Conservative Union (the country's oldest politically conservative lobbying group), sent a letter to House Republicans claiming that this position is far from benign. Hart writes that the laureate, appointed by President Obama, "will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.""


Doesn't have shit to do with being afraid of science but once again a lib has to lie to get his point across.

A science laureate will have exactly as much power over US scientific policy as the Poet Laureate has over the direction of modern literature.

Zero.

Have you considered that Mr Hart is the one lying out his ass because he's an ignorant bible Beater?




DesideriScuri -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:02:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CentralFLDomCPL
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Afraid of science, or afraid that the position will push political goals, rather than science?
The article even mentions it.

Oh yes...afraid of promoting the controlling of greenhouse gasses, so mankind might actually be alive in another hundred years. Or afraid of education on global warming, so we don't stick our heads in the sand and say "It's not manmade" when clearly it is. Since the year 1750, when the industrial revolution began and humans started polluting the air, poisonous gasses have also increased in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is up over 40%. Methane is up over 150%. And nitrous oxide is up approximately 20%. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that's leaving less and less room for that OXYGEN stuff we need to breathe in order to stay alive.
Neocons are in the pockets of corporations such as "big oil," so will always oppose any legislation to help the environment. The only problem with this is that we NEED the environment. We need clean air to breathe and water to drink, and we need a habitable planet on which to grow crops so we have food. Once we pass the tipping point where our environment is permanently ruined, we will suffer a slow and painful death as a species.
Remember you proudly support the conservatives when the economy collapses and we can't afford food, we have no air to breathe or water to drink, our children are illiterate, and everything else happens when there are no regulations in place to protect us.


Welcome to CM, and, may I just say, good luck on these boards.

Can issues get politicized? Abso-fucking-lutely, they can. Is it a good idea for there to be a "science role model" that is politicized? Abso-fucking-lutely not.

Am I against this legislation? Sure am. Would I have been against this legislation if W had proposed it? Depends on when it was proposed. I fully admit to not paying much attention to politics prior to 2005/6, and generally supported the GOP party line from what little I did pay attention to. After that, I started paying more attention was was appalled at what I found.

Why am I against this legislation? Because it makes the "science role model" a political appointee. I am against that.

Making the position one where National science groups nominate and determine the candidate would be much better, and less political. I would have no issue getting behind that.





Lucylastic -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:03:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Hmmmmm you are saying that Hill is a liar? AND a lib????




Did Hill write the article?

yeah Im sure you can understand my confusion
LMFAO




thishereboi -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

From the article...

"The proposal should have passed easily. But last week, Larry Hart, a former Republican congressional aide and current representative of the American Conservative Union (the country's oldest politically conservative lobbying group), sent a letter to House Republicans claiming that this position is far from benign. Hart writes that the laureate, appointed by President Obama, "will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.""


Doesn't have shit to do with being afraid of science but once again a lib has to lie to get his point across.

A science laureate will have exactly as much power over US scientific policy as the Poet Laureate has over the direction of modern literature.

Zero.

Have you considered that Mr Hart is the one lying out his ass because he's an ignorant bible Beater?



So it is ok for the author to lie because someone mentioned in his article lied too? Is that what you are saying? And having lied I am supposed to just believe him anyway? Yea, I don't think so. [8|]




Yachtie -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:16:17 AM)

FR

Hart writes that the laureate, appointed by President Obama, "will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.""

Is that the laureate's view? If yes, he's the perfect candidate for such position as his service shall be towards political ends and not science.




DesideriScuri -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:27:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
From the article...
"The proposal should have passed easily. But last week, Larry Hart, a former Republican congressional aide and current representative of the American Conservative Union (the country's oldest politically conservative lobbying group), sent a letter to House Republicans claiming that this position is far from benign. Hart writes that the laureate, appointed by President Obama, "will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.""
Doesn't have shit to do with being afraid of science but once again a lib has to lie to get his point across.

A science laureate will have exactly as much power over US scientific policy as the Poet Laureate has over the direction of modern literature.
Zero.
Have you considered that Mr Hart is the one lying out his ass because he's an ignorant bible Beater?


A politically appointed science laureate won't dictate US policy, but will be lifted up to a position of authority, even if it's just a symbolic one. While there is no policy dictating, there is the opportunity to push political points from that position of authority. When one is in a position of authority, it's easy to sway people one way or another simply by the position. As an example (not exactly the same, but similar), this is why it's illegal to dress and act like a LEO. There is much authority in that position, and it's easy to take advantage of people when someone assumes a person is an authority.

***Note: I am not saying LEO's shouldn't have authority.

Want to know what's funny about the article? This:
    quote:

    An aide for Randy Hultgren of Illinois, Republican co-sponsor of the bill, said: "This is not a presidential appointment, and there would be no taxpayer money involved. This bill is simply a chance to show our children that discovery science is important and that science can be an exciting and rewarding career."


Why is that funny? Well, Randy Hultgren is a co-sponsor, right? How is it that this isn't a Presidential Appointment when the bill (HR 1891) states:
    SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE LAUREATES OF THE UNITED STATES.
      (a) POSITION ESTABLISHED.
        —Congress recognizes that science contributes to the economic prosperity and general welfare of the United States, and that increasing the public’s awareness about the sciences will increase such benefits. Congress also recognizes that scientists who are both accomplished in their fields and who foster the public’s interest in science do a special service to the United States. To honor their service and to further increase the public’s awareness about the sciences, there is established the position of Science Laureate of the United States.

      (b) APPOINTMENT.—
        (1) IN GENERAL.
          The President shall appoint a Science Laureate on the basis of—


How can it not be a Presidential appointment when the bill specifically states that the President shall appoint people to the position?!?

IMO, the President (not just the current one, every one elected in the future) should have no say in this at all. And, neither should the Legislative Branch. I am not against there being a Science Laureate position, but I am against the laureate being an appointment of Government. As I put forth in another post on this, I'd have no issue supporting this if the Science Laureate position was filled by the National Science community (you know, like a "jury of one's peers" idea). IMO, a much, much better idea and one that is less likely to be an abused process.





Kirata -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 6:27:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

House Republicans are afraid of science.

Your source engaged in some convenient editing....

Supporters say the next step is to take the bill off its fast track and give legislators a chance to debate its merits. ~Full Story

Definitely want to keep ideas like that under wraps!

K.




DomKen -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 10:22:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

House Republicans are afraid of science.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/republicans-block-proposal-national-science-laureate-fearingscience



Popular Science is afraid of comments.

Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles.


Seems dissent shall not be tolerated.

Or maybe they've just been trolled to death by ignorant bible beating cunts.



Or maybe not.

Definitely.
quote:

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

IOW dumbass bible beaters and the scum who use them for political purposes flood articles they don't like with stupid comments that detract from the sites ability to spread sound scientific information.




thompsonx -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 1:45:22 PM)

Or maybe not. One thing is for sure, discussion of any nature has been silenced.

Bye bye open discourse.

QED

Tht would be moronic unsubstantited opinion. Hardly in the same zip code with qed




thompsonx -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 1:48:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri




Making the position one where National science groups nominate and determine the candidate would be much better, and less political. I would have no issue getting behind that.


Would that be one of the "enumerated powers" of the federal govt. which is going to pay this person's wages?




DesideriScuri -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 2:05:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making the position one where National science groups nominate and determine the candidate would be much better, and less political. I would have no issue getting behind that.

Would that be one of the "enumerated powers" of the federal govt. which is going to pay this person's wages?


Apparently, you missed the part about it not being a paid post. [8|]






thompsonx -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 2:49:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making the position one where National science groups nominate and determine the candidate would be much better, and less political. I would have no issue getting behind that.

Would that be one of the "enumerated powers" of the federal govt. which is going to pay this person's wages?


Apparently, you missed the part about it not being a paid post. [8|]





Aparently you missed the question about the "enumerated powers". How about it is that one of the enumerated powers?
This from the cite:

The poet laureate receives a small stipend of $35,000 a year
What is there that would make one think that this would not be applied to the next "national lauret"? That they say it is an unpaid position? How long will it stay so. Is paying the poet laurete within the "enumerated powers"
We are still waiting to hear what these "enumerated powers" are that you refuse to list for us.




DesideriScuri -> RE: It's official (9/25/2013 3:03:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Making the position one where National science groups nominate and determine the candidate would be much better, and less political. I would have no issue getting behind that.

Would that be one of the "enumerated powers" of the federal govt. which is going to pay this person's wages?

Apparently, you missed the part about it not being a paid post. [8|]

Aparently you missed the question about the "enumerated powers". How about it is that one of the enumerated powers?
This from the cite:

The poet laureate receives a small stipend of $35,000 a year
What is there that would make one think that this would not be applied to the next "national lauret"? That they say it is an unpaid position? How long will it stay so. Is paying the poet laurete within the "enumerated powers"
We are still waiting to hear what these "enumerated powers" are that you refuse to list for us.


    quote:

    SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE LAUREATES OF THE
    4 UNITED STATES.
      (f) COMPENSATION; REIMBURSEMENT.—
        (1) COMPENSATION.—A Science Laureate shall serve without pay and shall not be considered to be a Federal employee based on such individual’s appointment as a Science Laureate.
        (2) REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL.—The National Academy of Sciences may in its discretion provide a Science Laureate with reimbursement for travel expenses incurred while performing duties as a Science Laureate, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States 18 Code.


It seems the bill states that the position is unpaid. Perhaps that's "what is there that would make one think this would not be applied to the next 'national lauret?'"

Regarding the enumerated powers: you know where they are.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625