Bush asks Senate to increase science spending

[usmc-sooner]

Do you guys think it's just frivolous spending? or a good thing?

I think it's a good thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

[GDC]

More basic scientific research can only be a good thing.

[Vaevictis]

I think more money on science is good.

...I think more debt to pay for it is bad.

[StoopTroup]

Depends on what all it covers.

If it's for scientific research for the Oil Industry...I say no.



Democrats focused on the tepid nature of the growth, noting it was smaller than needed to keep up with population increases.

"Instead of doing something to address sky-high gas prices, expensive loans and outsourced jobs, this president is holding photo ops touting his policies that are failing small businesses," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.



Instead of bringing up what's wrong with his administration...I wonder why they didn't focus on whether this was a good idea.

Both parties continue to make it difficult to vote for either one of them.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?

If you wanted to invest in research as a private citizen then more power to you. If your state's constitution allows for the spending of public funds for research and the public agrees thenf ine.
But not the Federal government!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Just join the majority and don't vote ;)

[Vaevictis]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?

"general welfare" is hella vague.

[SicEmBaylor]

"general welfare" is hella vague.

Not when it is constrained by other existing constitutional provisions.
If you were to interpret the general welfare clause as broadly as possible giving Congress the authority to act in any matter it so chooses with the justification that it's in the general welfare of these United States then there'd be no point in any other existing limitation of Federal power. There would be no point in enumerating the powers of Congress or reserving all others to the individual states.

Any constitutional clause must be interpreted and viewed within the context of the rest of the constitution not as some sort of "super clause" that is broadly defined in and of itself with no other constraints.

[Vaevictis]

I still maintain that it's hella vague, and as such it gets stretched to fit all kinds of things that it probably wasn't meant to cover. Fix the wording; until you do, you have to deal with it as is.

[jeremy885]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?

If you wanted to invest in research as a private citizen then more power to you. If your state's constitution allows for the spending of public funds for research and the public agrees thenf ine.
But not the Federal government!


Why do you hate NASA?

[Frozen Sooner]

Why do you hate NASA?

Because it teaches the Devil-notion of the Earth being round.

[SicEmBaylor]

I still maintain that it's hella vague, and as such it gets stretched to fit all kinds of things that it probably wasn't meant to cover. Fix the wording; until you do, you have to deal with it as is.

The wording shouldn't need to be fixed. The only thing that needs to be fixed is people's understanding of the document combined with a bit of common sense.

If Congress were to determine that it's in the general welfare of these United States to eliminate the free press then by your definition they would be able to do so under a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. Of course they aren't able to do so becuase of the 1st Amendment. Just as the 1st Amendment constrains the general welfare clause so to do other constitutional provisions such as the enumeration and seperation of powers.

Congress can act in the general welfare of these United States consistent with the rest of the constitution. People have made this a difficult issue when it is not.

[reevie]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?

If you wanted to invest in research as a private citizen then more power to you. If your state's constitution allows for the spending of public funds for research and the public agrees thenf ine.
But not the Federal government!


Article I, Section 8:

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

[jeremy885]

Article I, Section 8:

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

That's for patents and copyrights not funding.

[SicEmBaylor]

Article I, Section 8:

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

Nice try. You've given Congress the authority to set up the US Copyright and Patent system, but not to give those inventors, authors, etc. money to advance their projects.

[Vaevictis]

The wording shouldn't need to be fixed. The only thing that needs to be fixed is people's understanding of the document combined with a bit of common sense.

If the wording can be misinterpreted to the extent that it's being misinterpreted (in your opinion) than the wording needs to be fixed. It prevents future misunderstandings. If you leave the document "unfixed", you'll eventually have the same problems again.


If Congress were to determine that it's in the general welfare of these United States to eliminate the free press then by your definition they would be able to do so under a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. Of course they aren't able to do so becuase of the 1st Amendment.

Um. Maybe you're not considering the fact that the Amendment is a... you know, Amendment. An Amendment overrides what is already there, not the other way around.


Just as the 1st Amendment constrains the general welfare clause so to do other constitutional provisions such as the enumeration and seperation of powers.

Like I said, the "general welfare" clause is hella vague, and can be interpreted as an enumerated power unto itself. I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation. I'm just saying, it's vague enough to be interpreted the other way, and IMO, it's vague enough that people will *want* to interpret it the other way. Solution? Amendment to fix it. That's why we have the ability to Amend, after all.


Congress can act in the general welfare of these United States consistent with the rest of the constitution. People have made this a difficult issue when it is not.

Your argument seems to be making all kinds of headway. Good luck with that. Viva la revolucion!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Oh Hell I would rather they get it than Wal-Mart's Parking Lot, 20 Million dollar bridges in Alaska to nowhere, or 10 million dollars to help change the name of Tobacco Road ;)

[Soonrboy]

Nevermind...was going to start bitching about the funding behind No Child Left Behind, but don't want to bring it up. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

If the wording can be misinterpreted to the extent that it's being misinterpreted (in your opinion) than the wording needs to be fixed. It prevents future misunderstandings. If you leave the document "unfixed", you'll eventually have the same problems again.

I don't like tinkering with document.


Um. Maybe you're not considering the fact that the Amendment is a... you know, Amendment. An Amendment overrides what is already there, not the other way around.

That's not necessarily true at all. An amendment only overrides an existing part of the constitution when it specifically does so, otherwise, it's an addition. Furthermore, an amendment isn't automatically assigned more constitutional weight than an existing article.


Like I said, the "general welfare" clause is hella vague, and can be interpreted as an enumerated power unto itself. I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation. I'm just saying, it's vague enough to be interpreted the other way, and IMO, it's vague enough that people will *want* to interpret it the other way. Solution? Amendment to fix it. That's why we have the ability to Amend, after all.

eh.

Your argument seems to be making all kinds of headway. Good luck with that. Viva la revolucion![/QUOTE]

We've been resgressing since '65. I have no faith anymore. None at all.

[Vaevictis]

That's not necessarily true at all. An amendment only overrides an existing part of the constitution when it specifically does so, otherwise, it's an addition. Furthermore, an amendment isn't automatically assigned more constitutional weight than an existing article.

... meh, if two parts of the Constitution conflict, one an amendment and the other not (ie, general welfare versus government shall not abridge free speech), it's pretty obvious that it's not the Amendment that yields.

... and yeah, the "headway" thing was mild sarcasm. You're never ever going to get anywhere with that argument. There's almost 100 years of precedent at this point. An amendment is the only way now, IMO.

[King Crimson]

Because it teaches the Devil-notion of the Earth being round.

Aristarchus had that figured out long before Nasa.

:P

[reevie]

Nice try. You've given Congress the authority to set up the US Copyright and Patent system, but not to give those inventors, authors, etc. money to advance their projects.

Yes, but that is the opening that established the government's aid to the science community. Congress used the phrase in their purpose/mission statement when they created the National Science Foundation.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes, but that is the opening that established the government's aid to the science community. Congress used the phrase in their purpose/mission statement when they created the National Science Foundation.

They use all sorts of things to justify unconstitutional acts. Doesn't make it right.

[SicEmBaylor]

Why do you hate NASA?
NASA needs to find a purpose for existing, and soon, then clean itself up or the whole damned thing should be scrapped and the savings used to pay down the defecit.

[Frozen Sooner]

NASA needs to find a purpose for existing, and soon, then clean itself up or the whole damned thing should be scrapped and the savings used to pay down the defecit.

You mean like developing the micorprocessor, GPS satellites, weather satellites, the pacemaker, the defibrillator, advancements in heating and cooling technology that have saved enormous amounts of energy...stuff like that?

[OUTromBoNado]

Why do you hate NASA?

MARS, B*TCHES!!

[OklahomaTuba]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?

Its the governments responsibility to invest in funding work like this, else we risk falling behind and losing influence.

There should be no political issue with the government, federal, state whatever, being a venture capitalist.

[OklahomaTuba]

You mean like developing the micorprocessor, GPS satellites, weather satellites, the pacemaker, the defibrillator, advancements in heating and cooling technology that have saved enormous amounts of energy...stuff like that?

Or, the very thing we are using to communicate at this very moment, the internet.

I mean, Al Gore had to get his funding some how.

[yermom]

and velcro, can't forget velcro

ooh, and Tang

we are lagging behind in Science and Math, it's pathetic

there are other places where you aren't an outcast if you favor book learnin' ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Its the governments responsibility to invest in funding work like this, else we risk falling behind and losing influence.

There should be no political issue with the government, federal, state whatever, being a venture capitalist.

Sign of the apocalypse #6 right there: Tuba and I agreeing on a political thread.

How YOU doing?

[King Crimson]

there are other places where you aren't an outcast if you favor book learnin' ;)

i believe that's fancy book learnin'.....

[Vaevictis]

we are lagging behind in Science and Math, it's pathetic

Government funding alone really isn't going to solve this. You have to be *really* interested in science to go into it, not just "capable."

You spend more time as a graduate slave^H^H^H^Htudent making peanuts than as an MBA, and a good business person with an MBA will make more than a good scientist with a PhD almost every time.

The opportunity cost for being a "normal" research scientist compared to a "normal" MBA (of like quality) is huge, usually starting in the million dollar range over the course of a career.

And anyone smart enough to be a scientist we really want is going to know it, too.

[Ike]

SicEm, what the hell are you trying to do? End our status as a Superpower?


Seriously, next to disbanding the military, the one thing we could do that would allow the likes of Iran and North Korea to quickly catch up to and eventually surpass us militarily, would be to end federal funding of undirected scientific research. I have to leave shortly, but if you want to know why (and I can point to many specific reasons), just ask and I'll reply later.

Quite frankly, I'd rather NOT be Iran's or North Koreas bitch.

Don't you think that goes toward the general welfare of These United States?

[Okla-homey]

It's bad. Where exactly does the Constitution give Congress the authority to invest the public's money on scientific matters?



That would be found in Article 1, section 8.

[SicEmBaylor]

Its the governments responsibility to invest in funding work like this, else we risk falling behind and losing influence.

There should be no political issue with the government, federal, state whatever, being a venture capitalist.

You have got to be kidding me.

[SicEmBaylor]

That would be found in Article 1, section 8.
Are you referring to the general welfare clause or the patent and copyright clause?

In either case, I've addressed both. Read the entire thread.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Haha Tuba is actually argueing with an argument based on the Republican Creedo which is don't spend government money.

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm, what the hell are you trying to do? End our status as a Superpower?


Seriously, next to disbanding the military, the one thing we could do that would allow the likes of Iran and North Korea to quickly catch up to and eventually surpass us militarily, would be to end federal funding of undirected scientific research. I have to leave shortly, but if you want to know why (and I can point to many specific reasons), just ask and I'll reply later.

Quite frankly, I'd rather NOT be Iran's or North Koreas bitch.

Don't you think that goes toward the general welfare of These United States?

Unless it has a national security application then no I don't. Researching a better way to direct an army in battle (GPS for example) or a better tank is one thing, but funding research on the mating habits of a gnat is quite another.

Now, I will say that one could make an argument that in many cases research has been done in areas that were not defense related that led to military applications.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Answer me these questions SicEm (and I don't want some BS about what the Constitution does or doesn't specify being a role of government): Where would the US be today if not for basic scientific research sponsored by the federal government? If not for the federal spending, which of the states has the resources to pick up the slack? Can any of them afford the hundreds of billions that the US has spent? Are there any private companies that have resources remotely comparable to the federal government's? Would any of them endeavor to spend billions on projects that won't have payoffs for maybe decades, if ever?

Perhaps instead of spending your life trying to parse every nuance of meaning out of a 200+ year-old document, you'd be better served thinking about what's in the best interest of the country right now and in the forseeable future.

[Ike]

Unless it has a national security application then no I don't. Researching a better way to direct an army in battle (GPS for example) or a better tank is one thing, but funding research on the mating habits of a gnat is quite another.

Now, I will say that one could make an argument that in many cases research has been done in areas that were not defense related that led to military applications.


The problem with that line of argument is that directed research, which is what the DOD does, completely stagnates unless it is complimented by extensive undirected research. The mating habits of gnats may indeed not have direct relation to better national security, but then again, some creative genius might find a way to use that knowledge to gather intelligence through gnats, or some other wacky **** that nobody ever thought of, nor would have thought of had nobody done the research on the mating habits of gnats in the first place.

Big advances that have directly impacted military technology, like, oh, the Atom bomb, the transistor, lasers, GPS...all of these were indeed directed research, but they would have been impossible without mountains of undirected research that was done over many many years prior to those advances. Eliminating funding for undirected research essentially ensures that it rarely or never happens in this country. Private companies won't go for it because they'll never know which research will lead to something they can use.

Cutting federal funding for undirected research essentially cuts us off from those advances which may lead to the next big thing, or in the best case, just puts us far behind other countries in development of the next big thing, which could have an impact on military technology. With much investment in public science, we have a better shot at being not only right there when the next big thing is discovered, but being in a great position to utilize that discovery for the advancement of our society well before it becomes common knowledge to everyone else. The large advantage we enjoy in military technology is a direct result of public investment in science.


The whole point of undirected research is to allow scientists to seek the answers to those questions which they find interesting. These may or may not lead to useful products or technologies...at the outset, nobody knows....but if we never seek the answers to those questions, we will certainly miss out on or be beat to the punch on future useful products and technologies. Who is anyone to judge which questions that are answerable scientifically are "worthwhile" or not? Those gnat mating habits just might lead to something that is highly useful and completely unforseen.

[OCUDad]

Perhaps we should consider government funding for research on the effects of Zima on the human thought process. At present, we have only one data point. :D

[royalfan5]

One thing at least Sic'em backs his politics with his booze, since Zima is a Coors product. Joe Coors would be proud of him.

[Frozen Sooner]

First you say you want to eliminate NASA. Now you say you're OK with government spending on directed research with national security implications. You might want to go ahead and pick a side of the fence you'd like to be on. You specifically mention GPS-without NASA there's no GPS. Without NASA, there's no microprocessors to run pretty much every part of a modern battle. Without NASA, there's no efficient methods of working titanium alloys to build battle armor.

[SicEmBaylor]

First you say you want to eliminate NASA. Now you say you're OK with government spending on directed research with national security implications. You might want to go ahead and pick a side of the fence you'd like to be on. You specifically mention GPS-without NASA there's no GPS. Without NASA, there's no microprocessors to run pretty much every part of a modern battle. Without NASA, there's no efficient methods of working titanium alloys to build battle armor.

I said that NASA needs to set some goals and spend its money better than it has been the last decade or so. NASA's budget is huge, and if it exists merely as a means for research then let's make that official and turn it into a research organization. If NASA wants to continue to explore space then let's set some goals and ensure that our tax-dollars are being used to achieve those goals. Otherwise it's just a massively funded poorly managed government bureaucracy.

In fact, I'm sort of at a loss for why this appears to be such a controversial statement. Every bureaucracy needs to spend its money better and most are in dire need of better management. NASA is no different. I don't mind a space program, but I'd like for that space program to have some defined goals that we can use to evaluate how well our tax dollars are being used to achieve those goals.

Those developments which you listed were devloped as a means for better achieving an end and were defense related. If I'm not mistaken, GPS was developed at the direction of the Pentagon.

[Frozen Sooner]

Ah. You're right. We, as taxpayers, need to know every single defense-related technology that NASA is working on so we can evaluate it. Because, you know, the average taxpayer is completely competent to evaluate scientific research and should know what technologies we're developing for national defense.

[SicEmBaylor]

Answer me these questions SicEm (and I don't want some BS about what the Constitution does or doesn't specify being a role of government):

Well, we all have our opinions as to what constitutes "good government." Each of us is going to expect different things from our government. Obviously, you expect a certain degree of investment in matters scientific and otherwise. I speak only for myself, but I firmly believe that any policy must conform with existing constitutional principles and must be directed at the appropriate level of government. I'm not trying to avoid your question or anything, but that's honestly the only way I know to answer it.


Where would the US be today if not for basic scientific research sponsored by the federal government? If not for the federal spending, which of the states has the resources to pick up the slack? Can any of them afford the hundreds of billions that the US has spent? Are there any private companies that have resources remotely comparable to the federal government's? Would any of them endeavor to spend billions on projects that won't have payoffs for maybe decades, if ever?

None of the states, individually, have the resources to invest in the more costly lines of research; however, collectively they certainly do. There's nothing barring individual states from pooling their resources together especially through the university system. This is just an opinion, but I believe that were those tax dollars spent on Federal research returned to the individual states the states could then collect that money and use it to invest in their state universities, private universities, or any other research and development organization they so choose. I'm not against funding research; I'm for funding it at the appropriate level of government.

There are hundreds of creative ways the states can use their resources individually (and for this I assume that the states are now blessed with the previously federally directed revenue) or pool their resources together for research. Even with private companies you can offer all kinds of incentives to encourage a partnership for research.


Perhaps instead of spending your life trying to parse every nuance of meaning out of a 200+ year-old document, you'd be better served thinking about what's in the best interest of the country right now and in the forseeable future.

I know it sounds stupid. I know I'm quite young, but I have a lot of faith and respect for that document regardless of how old it is. I'm aware of how wrong and misguided you believe that faith is, but it means a lot to me personally.

You could act in what you consider the best interest of the country, but look at what that would lead to...Who is to say that what you believe to be best for the country is true? More to the point, what stops anyone from doing anything they want becuase they believe it's in the "best interest of the country?" It seems to me that the only way to limit the personal ambitions of the individual in a position of power is to put limits on what that individual can do in the name of "for the good of the country." That of course is the Constitution. Sure investment in research sounds like a sensible idea; because, it is sensible. What is sensible to one individual might be insane to another. You can't simply pick and choose which aspects of the Constitution that you wish to ignore in the name of "for the good of the country" no matter how sensible it seemingly is.

I'm not trying to make anybody mad or anything, but the strict limitation of Federal power is as important to me as any other part of the Constitution. I guess people can condemn me for that but I'm not likely to change my mind on that issue.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ah. You're right. We, as taxpayers, need to know every single defense-related technology that NASA is working on so we can evaluate it. Because, you know, the average taxpayer is completely competent to evaluate scientific research and should know what technologies we're developing for national defense.

Well, I was referring specifically to NASA. Obviously, there is going to be defense related research that remains confidential. To evaluate that we must rely on our elected officials who have oversight.

At any rate, the average taxpayer doesn't need to do an item by item dollar by dollar evaluation on how NASA spends its money. If we pour 60 billion dollars a year into NASA for the completion of a project and there is seemingly no progress being made toward achieving those goals then it's going to be obvious to most people after awhile that they may not be spending their money appropriately.

NASA, as with any government agency, will of course make a compelling argument that every dollar they spend is vital. But as a conservative I'm naturally skeptical about what the government tells me and take it with a truck load of salt.

[Okla-homey]

Are you referring to the general welfare clause or the patent and copyright clause?

In either case, I've addressed both. Read the entire thread.

Art I, Section 8, para 1: [Congress has power to] Lay and collect taxes[...]to pay the debts and provide for common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Art I, Section 8, para 18: [Congress has power] To make laws which shall be necessary and proper* for executing the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now, advanced science is necessary for the stuff cited above in para 1. Para 18 says Congress can make laws facilitating the stuff in para 1.

* The Court has historically given broad deference to the Congress is defining what it considers "necessary and proper" BTW.

QED

P.S. Sorry, but if you disagree, you're just plain wrong based on several Supreme Court decisions which have yet to be overturned.

[SicEmBaylor]

I already addressed these points earlier..


Art I, Section 8, para 1: [Congress has power to] Lay and collect taxes[...]to pay the debts and provide for common defense and general welfare of the United States;

I've already acknowledged the right of the Federal government to spend money on defense related projects including scientific research that may (and I'll go so far as to say could) have a defense related application. That's going to include a hell of a lot of research projects and a hell of a lot of money...

As for the general welfare clause, I've already stated my point in that matter here:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433712&postcount=8
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433722&postcount=12
and here
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433751&postcount=19


Art I, Section 8, para 18: [Congress has power] To make laws which shall be necessary and proper for executing the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US, or in any department or officer thereof.

Within the limits of existing constitutional limitations.


Now, advanced science is necessary for the stuff cited above in para 1. Para 18 says Congress can make laws facilitating the stuff in para 1.

P.S. Sorry, but if you disagree, you're just plain wrong based on several Supreme Court decisions which have yet to be overturned.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, I'm also wrong about the constitutional right to an abortion so says the Supreme Court. Not to mention wrong about segregation for more than 5 decades...

[Okla-homey]

I already addressed these points earlier..



I've already acknowledged the right of the Federal government to spend money on defense related projects including scientific research that may (and I'll go so far as to say could) have a defense related application. That's going to include a hell of a lot of research projects and a hell of a lot of money...

As for the general welfare clause, I've already stated my point in that matter here:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433712&postcount=8
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433722&postcount=12
and here
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1433751&postcount=19



Within the limits of existing constitutional limitations.



P.S. Sorry, but if you disagree, you're just plain wrong based on several Supreme Court decisions which have yet to be overturned.

Apparently, I'm also wrong about the constitutional right to an abortion so says the Supreme Court. Not to mention wrong about segregation for more than 5 decades...[/QUOTE]

Son, you are a seriously deluded piece of work. Seriously. WTF have they been teaching you in Waco?

[SicEmBaylor]

Apparently, I'm also wrong about the constitutional right to an abortion so says the Supreme Court. Not to mention wrong about segregation for more than 5 decades...

Son, you are a seriously deluded piece of work. Seriously. WTF have they been teaching you in Waco

Every professor in the Baylor polisci dept. is very much left of center. The only one close to being a conservative is the one guy who happens to hunt.

So, instead of questioning Baylor which has nothing to do with it why not explain to me why an inorrect Supreme Court decision on say, abortion, is any different than a Supreme Court decision that is incorrect on another issue? If I'm missing something then let me know. But don't be an *** about it and call me a "piece of work." I don't recall having been that rude to you. So what is it then? The number of times the precedent has been upheld without being overturned? There has to be some reason why I should have blind faith in the Supreme Court on an issue that I happen to disagree with when the Supreme Court has been wrong in the past?

At any rate, I'm hardly the only one who shares these beliefs. I used to be a pretty boilerpate conservative until my position was moved from seeing the fallacy in many of my arguments with other people.

Hell, one of my bestfriends is about to receive his phd having done all of his academic work holding virtually the same positions that I do. I have anotherm friend about to enter his doctoral program this August who also shares my opinions and somehow managed to graduate with his opinions being at least feasible.

Perhaps they like to give doctorates out to any deluded bozo. :rolleyes:

[Ike]

Perhaps they like to give doctorates out to any deluded bozo. :rolleyes:


well, I'll be getting one in the fall, so yeah...

[usmc-sooner]

well, I'll be getting one in the fall, so yeah...

Doctor



picture Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd in spies like us. Doctor, Doctor:D

[SicEmBaylor]

well, I'll be getting one in the fall, so yeah...
Congrats.
We'll know for sure when I get mine. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Doctor



picture Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd in spies like us. Doctor, Doctor:D
That was a great movie.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'll have to agree with the retired fly boy on his opinion of sic'em

some of the **** you write, the ideas you espouse...scary

[jk the sooner fan]

stop it froz


stop.it.

;)

[Ike]

Doctor



picture Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd in spies like us. Doctor, Doctor:D


heh. you know, here on my experiment at the lab, there are 500+ PhD's.


When many of us/them go out to the bar, that is one of the scenes that we recite for fun. Its somehow funnier when you know its true.

[SicEmBaylor]

i'll have to agree with the retired fly boy on his opinion of sic'em

some of the **** you write, the ideas you espouse...scary

Yeah let's quake in fear at the idea of a vastly reduced Federal government and states taking up the slack. :rolleyes:

You're scared of that? :confused:

This is the way it used to be. I guess that's scary for a lot of people who are used to it being otherwise. It's probably scary for those who expect a bit more activity from their Federal government then I do.

If you'd take the time to ask or possibly even listen, you would find that I'm fairly moderate on state policy. I support some sort of state-based healthcare system, a retirement program similar to social security, funding for state cultural activities, etc. Since I would rather the Federal government not engage in those activities is when it becomes "scary" I suppose.

My opposition to the Federal government engaging in these activities doesn't come from any kind of "hate" for anything (if that's why you think it's scary because frankly I can't imagine). I just happen to think that these programs and services could be best implemented on the state level where they're more accountable to the people and more in tune with the beliefs of the people of that state.

Good gawd, you'd think I was advocating getting the ovens warm in anticipation of a fascist takeover.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Good gawd, you'd think I was advocating getting the ovens warm in anticipation of a fascist takeover.

Oh I thought that was what you was saying my bad...Just because you put placenta on toast doesn't make it a sandwich...;)

[jk the sooner fan]

i'd do a poor job of trying to explain it, but i can assure you its come from reading just about everything you've posted where politics are concerned.....the feeling isnt just from one or two posts....its from over a period of time

perhaps scary isnt the right word......."concerned" might be better

[SicEmBaylor]

i'd do a poor job of trying to explain it, but i can assure you its come from reading just about everything you've posted where politics are concerned.....the feeling isnt just from one or two posts....its from over a period of time

perhaps scary isnt the right word......."concerned" might be better

I'd like to know why exactly. I honestly can not figure out, for the life of me, why a conservative would find anything that I have to say concerning. I'm not trying to fight with you over this; I just want to know what concerns you.

[Cato]

i'll have to agree with the retired fly boy on his opinion of sic'em

some of the **** you write, the ideas you espouse...scary

I would consider all of the things he writes as . . . constitutional . . . or even . . . conservative.

You guys, and your sheepish following of the Republican Party is why we are in the mess we are in. You guys want to spend money just because you think some good can come of it. I suppose if Hillary Clinton was in office y'all would feel the same way. If you give the federal government the ability to spend even $1 more dollar than it has the Constitutionally mandated authority to do so, then the federal government will NEVER shrink. Last I checked, shrinking the government was a tenet of conservatism. Ask yourself how this nation survived for over 100 years without an income tax. It's because we actually followed the Constitution for a few years after our founding. The early leaders knew that the fed wasn't supposed to tax and spend on various endeavors not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

[Okla-homey]

I would consider all of the things he writes as . . . constitutional . . . or even . . . conservative.

You guys, and your sheepish following of the Republican Party is why we are in the mess we are in. You guys want to spend money just because you think some good can come of it. I suppose if Hillary Clinton was in office y'all would feel the same way. If you give the federal government the ability to spend even $1 more dollar than it has the Constitutionally mandated authority to do so, then the federal government will NEVER shrink. Last I checked, shrinking the government was a tenet of conservatism. Ask yourself how this nation survived for over 100 years without an income tax. It's because we actually followed the Constitution for a few years after our founding. The early leaders knew that the fed wasn't supposed to tax and spend on various endeavors not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

No fair pretending you are someone else supporting your wacky positions.

[Okla-homey]

Perhaps they like to give doctorates out to any deluded bozo. :rolleyes:

Academic degrees simply aren't evidence the holder has a grasp on political reality. Never have been.

Here's the thing. A great deal of the stuff you post with regards to your political opinions are just wacky to put it kindly. As you know (I hope) in the United States, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means per the Constitution itself. Sometimes the Court makes bad calls in the opinion of some. Fortunately for our society, they usually overturn the "bad" ones eventually...like Dred Scott for example. On the whole, they do a pretty good job. If Baylor is teaching you the stuff you seem to believe, your parents should demand a refund of your tuition because they are getting robbed.

[jk the sooner fan]

nothing like a one post troll to drum up support for yourself

the mere fact that you'd have an issue with congress authorizing funding to research science concerns me....

you've got this "pie in the sky" or "academia only world" ideal that we can some how go back to the tiniest of federal governments with 50 strong state governments

you're an anachronism...you're living in the wrong century

crap changes, things evolve (cept monkeys into humans).....the founding fathers probably didnt mean for alot of stuff to go the way it did, but they probably also could have never expected everything this country has been thru

your comments on the civil war.....while potentially in jest..concern me

you try to draw me into your line of thinking by calling me a conservative......you're way farther out on that line than i'll ever be.

[Vaevictis]

Didn't we already try what you're suggesting, SicEm? I'm having flashbacks of something called the "Articles of Confederation."

Strong states, small and weak federal government... why did we get rid of them and move to the new Constitution again?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Because then they couldn't have made the National Treasure thriller with Nicolas Cage!!!

[jeremy885]

At any rate, the average taxpayer doesn't need to do an item by item dollar by dollar evaluation on how NASA spends its money. If we pour 60 billion dollars a year into NASA for the completion of a project and there is seemingly no progress being made toward achieving those goals then it's going to be obvious to most people after awhile that they may not be spending their money appropriately.



It's 16.5 billion a year not 60.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/nasa.html

If we did spend 60 billion a year, I don't think we still be using the 70's era shuttle. We'd have like X-wing fighters, stargates, or something else that would be cool. ;)

[Okla-homey]

Didn't we already try what you're suggesting, SicEm? I'm having flashbacks of something called the "Articles of Confederation."

Strong states, small and weak federal government... why did we get rid of them and move to the new Constitution again?

Absolutely spot on bro. Under the Articles, the national government was hamstrung to the point of being feckless.

I'm willing to cut the kid some slack because he's young, but I'm not gonna sit idly by while he espouses warped interpretations of the greatest document of government yet written.

Perhaps interestingly, the grand wizard of "states rights" in the 19th century, John C. Calhoun came on as a strong advocate for "national improvements" with the federal government picking up the tab when those projects directly benefitted his home state of SC. Kinda stands for the proposition that all politics are in essence local.

When that same government started making noise that it might move to outlaw the right to own human beings in the United States, he became a states rights-er.

This matter was decided in 1865. Dragging up anachronistic arguments and Confederate ghosts just isn't accepting of reality and is frankly, silly.

[SicEmBaylor]

No fair pretending you are someone else supporting your wacky positions.

Homey, that is Cato the co-author of my blog. If you want to contact him personally and confirm then I'd have no problem with that.

[Scott D]

You know, it'd be nice if Bush would demand the Senate decrease Senate spending.

[SicEmBaylor]

nothing like a one post troll to drum up support for yourself

the mere fact that you'd have an issue with congress authorizing funding to research science concerns me....

you've got this "pie in the sky" or "academia only world" ideal that we can some how go back to the tiniest of federal governments with 50 strong state governments

you're an anachronism...you're living in the wrong century

crap changes, things evolve (cept monkeys into humans).....the founding fathers probably didnt mean for alot of stuff to go the way it did, but they probably also could have never expected everything this country has been thru

your comments on the civil war.....while potentially in jest..concern me

you try to draw me into your line of thinking by calling me a conservative......you're way farther out on that line than i'll ever be.

That post was not from a troll. I was discussing this argument with the co-author of my blog and he asked for the URL and decided to post his own reply. If you want to read his bio then you can do so under "Cato" at politicaloverload.com. If you want to contact him personally then I doubt he'd mind.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, that is Cato the co-author of my blog. If you want to contact him personally and confirm then I'd have no problem with that.

Yeah well, my Aunt Margaret agrees with me. She doesn't co-author a blog or anything quite so cool as that, but far more significantly, she understands our federal form of government and lives in this century both literally and figuratively. So there.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, I didn't mean to offend and I'm sorry you all are seemingly taking this so personally. All I can say is that I have the opinions that I have, and no they don't teach it this way at Baylor.

The only thing that I would continue to argue over is that there are plenty of people who think very much the way that I do. It's from talking to them that I've developed and fine tuned my own beliefs and even changed my opinions at times. These are people who are attorneys (a couple of constitutional attorneys and some trial lawyers who claim to be doing "god's work"..inside joke there..) and have spent their lives in politics. These aren't people my own age, but my mentors who are much much older and have far more experience than I do.

I'm sure Aunt Margaret is wonderful but "Cato" has at least a certain degree of credibility having just graduated first in his class from the Defense and Strategic Studies program in D.C. from MSU.

There's nothing else to argue about, but like I said if I offended anyone then that certainly was not my intention. I like having good natured arguments with people, but once it gets personal or nasty while no longer focusing on the debate at hand then it should probably just stop.

Finally, JK, no my comments about the south aren't in jest. It comes from being raised to have respect for family and tradition. You can think it's crazy all you want, but I have a genuine love for the southern people and the sacrafice they made in their bid for independence. I love these United States and I'm proud to be American. Nothing will ever change that fact, but I'm first and foremost loyal to my family and loyal to the people around me who are southern. As my family goes..I go. As my state goes..I go.. As the south goes..I go.. As my nation goes..I go. In that order.

I guess if I come across as being a lunatic for all that then that's far more of everyone else's problem then it is mine.

[Okla-homey]

No need to apologize friend. A bit of unsolicited advice seems in order. If you are indeed going to devote your life to politics; work on developing thicker skin; and try to avoid taking critiques of your political opinions personally. Believe me, it gets far nastier than anything that has ever graced these fine digital pages.;)

BTW, I must say I honestly used to feel a lot more as you do in terms of the regional allegiance you cite. Being in the military for a long time, befriending people from all over America and living in lots of places around the United States acted to "nationalize" me.

That said, in my home and my heart, Hamilton, Jefferson, Sherman, Lee, Lincoln and Davis share equal respect and relevance.

[jk the sooner fan]

offend? take personally?

neither of the two happened.......i just happened to disagree with you, but i sure as heck wasnt offended and i didnt take anything personally.....i just think you're a bit wacky ;)

but you're free to think the same of me!!!!! :) (everybody else does)

[Ike]

but you're free to think the same of me!!!!! :) (everybody else does)


only because it's true ;)