too much of this (new window)

Wololo: Merkin For The Weekend: I am absolutely not trolling. I live in the real world, where the Constitution is woefully out of date--

Oh god, I can already see where this is going. You do realize it's a lot easier to debate with someone when you're not ranting and spraying foam from your mouth in solid chunks of paragraph, right? I really can't argue with your level of crazy, sorry.

/Not Republican, for the record. Or a teabagger. Just a curious bystander playing devil's advocate.

Not crazy, just pissed off and tired of teabagger nonsense. I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming that you were one of their ilk- the way you struck out and edited my post led me to believe you were, and I tend to answer douchiness with more douchiness. 99.9 percent of the time, the people who go on about constitutionality are the sort of slobbering right wing teabaggers who send my blood pressure flying.

Now that that is out of the way, let me say this. All of those things such as 'general welfare,' 'domestic tranquility,' and 'blessings of liberty' are all direct quotes from the preamble to the constitution, which sets out the goals for our government. I was merely pointing out that funding science helps achieve all of those goals. It is one of the best things that the government can do with our tax dollars. It is, however, true that we left good sized chunks of our constitution behind ages ago, and for the most part, we are better off for it.

"The Republican Party needs an enema. Nothing can stop SCIENCE!"

/hot like a nurse

Merkin For The Weekend: Wololo: Merkin For The Weekend: I am absolutely not trolling. I live in the real world, where the Constitution is woefully out of date--

Oh god, I can already see where this is going. You do realize it's a lot easier to debate with someone when you're not ranting and spraying foam from your mouth in solid chunks of paragraph, right? I really can't argue with your level of crazy, sorry.

/Not Republican, for the record. Or a teabagger. Just a curious bystander playing devil's advocate.

Not crazy, just pissed off and tired of teabagger nonsense. I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming that you were one of their ilk- the way you struck out and edited my post led me to believe you were, and I tend to answer douchiness with more douchiness. 99.9 percent of the time, the people who go on about constitutionality are the sort of slobbering right wing teabaggers who send my blood pressure flying.

Now that that is out of the way, let me say this. All of those things such as 'general welfare,' 'domestic tranquility,' and 'blessings of liberty' are all direct quotes from the preamble to the constitution, which sets out the goals for our government. I was merely pointing out that funding science helps achieve all of those goals. It is one of the best things that the government can do with our tax dollars. It is, however, true that we left good sized chunks of our constitution behind ages ago, and for the most part, we are better off for it.

TL;DR

Yeah, it's good financial policy. Cut the money to the only area which could realistically lay a groundwork for us to remain competitive globally. fark the ignorant, short sighted GOP, these are the people who are destroying America's future.

Knucklepopper: T.rex: There is separation of Church and State, so i see no problem with separation of Science and State, as well.

It's only fair. And balanced.

Actually, it's not such a bad idea. Only I would say the separation Science and Politics. For example, the whole Climate Change/Global Warming thing has become so politicized that it's hard to tell what is good science from what is "politically correct science."

We do need to fund research, but with the current budget mess combined with inevitable wasting of federal grant money, I'm not sure this isn't such a bad idea. Are there better ways of funding research than begging for tax dollars?

I support funding for science and education, etc., but money isn't free... we have to get it FROM somewhere, and I personally am running OUT of money to give away. Someone else want to step up and offer theirs instead?

RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

Whoa! Enough with the racistfascistnaziredneckpalinamericanteabagger questions.

Don't you know that everything is a proper function of the federal government?

Science... that's the one with the dead babies and such, right?

VictorOfBorge: Knucklepopper: T.rex: There is separation of Church and State, so i see no problem with separation of Science and State, as well.

It's only fair. And balanced.

Actually, it's not such a bad idea. Only I would say the separation Science and Politics. For example, the whole Climate Change/Global Warming thing has become so politicized that it's hard to tell what is good science from what is "politically correct science."

We do need to fund research, but with the current budget mess combined with inevitable wasting of federal grant money, I'm not sure this isn't such a bad idea. Are there better ways of funding research than begging for tax dollars?

I was amusing myself by agreeing with him; but I see that you're insane.

GAT_00: You're new here so I'll let you read the site for a couple months. This is nothing out of the ordinary for the GOP. If you ever decide to read the article or notice the amendment they added, let me know.

I'll take your word for it, but I read the article AND the amendment they added. It seems that the democrats didn't want any more amendments added after the anti-pornography and denied any way for the Republicans to further alter the bill by using a 2/3rds majority vote. The Republicans shut it down, for better or worse.

I'm not assuming the GOP wants what's best or worst for America. I'm assuming that any group with power has a vested interest in maintaining that power, and to maintain power you maintain the status quo. If they're giving the appearances that they're shutting of science and technological funding, they're gambling on the possibility that democrats won't use this in election campaigning or that it won't matter to voters, which seems ludicrous. It will hurt them in November more than it will help them.

Mentat: The problem is that you're trying to parse the whargarrbl. You can't do that.

This is probably closer to the truth.

We are broke. We borrow money to pay our bills and there is no plan to stop. We should not support this or any other non-defense spending item until we can pay for it.

The GOP apparently believes we're going to deal with the future though a combination of praying and posturing.

Many Democrats, fearful that a vote against an anti-pornography measure could be used against them in election ads, went along with the GOP amendment.

F*cking gutless cowards. They should call the goper/Luddites out on this shiat and loudly. I mean go all saint sarah on their lame asses. The republican party needs to be kicked to curb and then pissed on. If the dims don't grow some spine, the same goes for them.

Knucklepopper: Merkin For The Weekend: Wololo: Merkin For The Weekend: I am absolutely not trolling. I live in the real world, where the Constitution is woefully out of date--

Oh god, I can already see where this is going. You do realize it's a lot easier to debate with someone when you're not ranting and spraying foam from your mouth in solid chunks of paragraph, right? I really can't argue with your level of crazy, sorry.

/Not Republican, for the record. Or a teabagger. Just a curious bystander playing devil's advocate.

Not crazy, just pissed off and tired of teabagger nonsense. I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming that you were one of their ilk- the way you struck out and edited my post led me to believe you were, and I tend to answer douchiness with more douchiness. 99.9 percent of the time, the people who go on about constitutionality are the sort of slobbering right wing teabaggers who send my blood pressure flying.

Now that that is out of the way, let me say this. All of those things such as 'general welfare,' 'domestic tranquility,' and 'blessings of liberty' are all direct quotes from the preamble to the constitution, which sets out the goals for our government. I was merely pointing out that funding science helps achieve all of those goals. It is one of the best things that the government can do with our tax dollars. It is, however, true that we left good sized chunks of our constitution behind ages ago, and for the most part, we are better off for it.

TL;DR

If your attention span is so short, I think I know of the perfect website for you: Link (new window)

Knucklepopper: You got him going; you have only yourself to blame. When he starts posting 17 inches of constitutional law, because a simple link could be perceived as "weak," we will all blame you.

Oh no, I didn't know he was THAT kind of troll. :/ Sorry.

I love the farking repuglicans. Kneecapping the nation just to take potshots at the other side. Keep farking that chicken you pathetic hacks.

Well, it appears science has faltered once again in the face of overwhelming religion.

bigsteve3OOO: We are broke. We borrow money to pay our bills and there is no plan to stop. We should not support this or any other non-defense spending item until we can pay for it.

You're basically saying that since we're short on cash, we have to stop buying gas for the car even though that's the only way we get to work every day.

Yeah, that'll work out just great.

WTF guys, i mean i looked at the bill, and it seemed good, now i didn't comb through the amendmnets, but wtf was the problem?

*facepalm*

The ONE THING we actually should spend enormous amounts of taxpayer money on, science education for our kids, and politicians think it's "too expensive".

Because bailing out the entire banking industry, and 2/3 of the domestic car market, well THAT'S okay.

The levels of shock and hate in this thread make me wonder 2 things:

1) did you even know about this bill before Fark told you it was blocked?

2) Why is politics-as-usual surprising to you?

Merkin For The Weekend: Wololo: Merkin For The Weekend: Establish Justice? Insure Domestic Tranquility? Provide for the common defence? Promote the general welfare? To secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? More noble, idealistic bullshiat spun with admirable PR catch phrases and hot words, with a hint of apocalyptic scenario if ideals are neglected?

The Department of Defense and the military has its own budget and established funding, states have their own federal fun money for enforcing (it's already established) justice and maintaining public infrastructure.

Securing the blessings of liberty? Are you serious?

Are you trolling? I'm open for debate if you're not trolling.

I am absolutely not trolling. I live in the real world, where the Constitution is woefully out of date, and the Government has gone about the business of governing for this last century realizing that. If we stuck to the absolute letter of the constitution instead of the spirit of it, we would live in a shiathole of a country. Sure, I think that it would have been nice if we had set better precedents for constitutional reform a century ago, but we didn't, and we move on. There was no constitutional mandate to put people on the moon, but we did it, and it was a good thing. There was no constitutional mandate for FDR to pull us out of the Great Depression, but he did, and it was a good thing. People have selective hearing/vision when it comes to the constitution. It is only ever cited when someone needs an excuse to biatch and moan about something they don't like, but they keep quiet when something that they like might not fit the exact wording of the constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment didn't make it in to the Constitution, but no one biatches about the fact that Equal Rights aren't specifically enshrined in the constitution because we have them anyway. The simple fact of the matter is that the government funds things- museums, science, space exploration, education, any number of things that aren't expressly allowed by the constitution, and we are better off for it. If you want to live in your hellish little teabagger dream world, go take over a third world country and impose your nonsense on them. Sure, our country is FAR from perfect, but it is certainly better off than it would be if your lot were in charge.

In English: "Yes, I am trolling."

Wololo: Knucklepopper: You got him going; you have only yourself to blame. When he starts posting 17 inches of constitutional law, because a simple link could be perceived as "weak," we will all blame you.

Oh no, I didn't know he was THAT kind of troll. :/ Sorry.

Right. You say you are open for debate while making the douchiest attempt at rebuttal I have encountered in a while, and then when I try to bring things back around to some semblance of civil debate, you ignore it and call me a troll instead. Stay classy.

I know what the Republicans are doing.

They know 2010 is lost to them. The Teabaggers--the useful Southern Strategy retards--have them by the balls. They're full of hope, full of ignorance, and full of chutzpah because they're easily led by the oh-so-willing Republican Media Machine and ready to strike out on their own.

So when the 2010 elections have them being massacred, the change can start.

The blame will be put on Palin, whose 'rogueness' will be stopped dead in its tracks. Fox News will be cut loose and have a few scandals that will castrate it as anything but CNN-lite. The Teabaggers, full of rage, will ruin themselves when their rage takes the blame for a few more violent incidents that will label them 'terrorists.' The purge will begin, but not of RINOS, but of the insanity. 2012 might be a healing time, but for the Republicans the leash has to be tugged and the Teabaggers are going to have to learn a lesson. They vote Republican, they have no other hope, and they are stuck with the corporatists.

Then the image-rebuilding will begin. The Teabaggers will come back to the party, disenfranchised, possibly even angry. But they have nowhere else to go.

The Republicans have already make sure they will lose 2010. They don't want the Democrats out of power. But they have to stem the bleeding, and the Teabaggers need to be whipped back into line. And it's going to take some years of failure before that is made abundantly clear.

Dinki: boost funding for the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies involved in basic and applied science, provided loan guarantees to small businesses developing new technologies and promoted science and math education.

And that is somehow a waste of money. The GOP is really unfarkin believable.

No, the waste of money isn't the ORIGINAL bill; the waste of money is all the additional, non-related BS that gets tacked on to the bill.

FTA:Republicans support science research, said Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas, top Republican on the Science and Technology Committee. But the Democratic bill "continues to take us in a much more costly direction and authorizes a number of new programs which have little to do with prioritizing investments" in science and technology.

We all know how it works- Start a bill funding something like exploration of alternative energy that costs $75 billion. Every other Senator and Representative adds their own little goodie to the bill, like funding for all new rest areas along the Interstate highways in their own state. Next thing you know...BOOM- $250 billion.

I know, I know, "That's how the system works". Well screw that- bring on the line item veto!

losalmon: Well, it appears science has faltered once again in the face of overwhelming religion.

You want to know why? Most religions are hell-bent on destroying science, while science doesn't even notice because it's trying to cure cancer or whatever. Most of the time it's like trying to save the life of a wolf stuck in a trap. it's trying to kill you at the same time you're trying to save it.

Bunch of farking savages in this country.

2wolves

"Fire bad!"


Tree pretty.

PJ_the_Barbarian: 1) did you even know about this bill before Fark told you it was blocked?

I was wondering the same. Basic and applied science funding, new technologies, and science promotion are a little too basic of ideas for me to get upset about. I hope those that are upset have a knowledge of the bill greater than what is provided by this article. If not, they're just biatching because it was blocked by the GOP.

Mentat: Wololo: Yes, of course. But I really didn't think they were stupid enough to pull something like this so close to elections. What did they think they were gaining from this? Voter sympathy?

The problem is that you're trying to parse the whargarrbl. You can't do that. It will break you. Instead, just repeat the litany:

I must not whargarrbl. Whargarrbl is the mind-killer. Whargarrbl is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my whargarrbl. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the whargarrbl has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

The funding must flow.

PJ_the_Barbarian: The levels of shock and hate in this thread make me wonder 2 things:

1) did you even know about this bill before Fark told you it was blocked?

2) Why is politics-as-usual surprising to you?

Yes.

And the politics as usual from the Republicans wouldn't be surprising if they were not running campaigns blasting politics as usual across the country.

Ok, it's still not surprising, but I've determined that I probably won't vote for any Republican for a long time based on their shenanigans and their hatred of science and progress.

Ya can't have it both ways. Ya can't rant and rave about NASA funding being cut and then vote down the science bill. You can't rail on how education fails to keep or country competitive then pull crap like this. The GOP needs to go the way of the Whig and Bull Moose parties.

I weep for the next generations.

Hero Tag, seriously? DIAF

/science rules
//decepticons forever
///slashies for some, physics for others

vartian: RobertBruce: vartian: RobertBruce: Why would funding this have been a proper function of the federal government?

Where in the constitution does it say congressmen can funnel billions for useless military programs in their home state? Start getting rid of those first and we can talk about basic scientific research.

I'll wait.

No I agree with you. Cut that shiat out too.

Really? Okay, well my apologies, I misjudged you. Question then: what do you think we should spend money on? No snark, actually curious.

(1) Police (and fire)

(2) Courts - civil and criminal

(3) Minimal "commons" infrastructure to aid in (1) and (3) and - where it can be demonstrated that there is equal benefit for ALL citizens that are paying for them: commons like roads, postal system, sanitation, etc.

(4) Military

That's really about it.

Merkin For The Weekend: Not crazy, just pissed off and tired of teabagger nonsense....

99.9% of the time, when people use wording as colorful as that to describe program funding, they're trying to sell something without actually looking at the value behind their product. And anything involving the government costs hundreds of thousands more than it should because of mismanagement, no accountability and no oversight or long-term follow through. Throwing $40,000,000,000 at something is not going to make everything better, in my opinion.

Now that that is out of the way, let me say this...

The entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. is still extremely relevant to enforcing law and achieving domestic tranquility. I don't really see how funding or not funding ZOMG ALL SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT with our government is a good idea anyway. Any good corporation devotes at least 20% of all capital in Research & Development. Is the government a corporation? What new technology are we trying to advance that can't be done without Federal-level intervention?