If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Magazine)   Scientists fact-check Obama's State of the Union's science content, discover politicians are less rigorous with their "facts" than scientists   (news.sciencemag.org) divider line 95
    More: Interesting, State of the Union, obama, Human Genome Project, Senate Appropriations Committee, climate policy, politicos  
•       •       •

5885 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Feb 2013 at 1:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-14 08:31:31 PM
Politicians have never been accused of letting facts get in the way of trying to make failures look successful.
 
2013-02-14 08:33:45 PM
Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.
 
2013-02-14 08:36:14 PM

LasersHurt: Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.


It's easy to be more or less accurate when you're being that vague. Which makes you wonder why Republican politicians and news outlets suck so hard at it.
 
2013-02-14 08:37:17 PM

LasersHurt: Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.


I really hate to agree.
 
2013-02-14 08:39:35 PM
We choose to go to the moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard

/Heres a fun fact: only 1.5 of the word/s in that sentence was not Germanic
 
2013-02-14 09:05:23 PM
This is nitpicking. Yes, the numbers were overblown but at least in the same direction as reality.
 
2013-02-14 09:34:45 PM
It says something when scientists, historically the most unreliable source of information, say that our most unreliable president is an unreliable source of information.
 
2013-02-14 09:50:06 PM

Mike_LowELL: It says something when scientists, historically the most unreliable source of information, say that our most unreliable president is an unreliable source of information.


Your skill has vastly improved from when I first started noticing your comments. Could only be better if you worked in how unreliable the liberal media is.
 
2013-02-14 09:51:16 PM
Maybe I'm going nuts, but doesn't the article contradict the headline here?
 
2013-02-14 09:54:18 PM

RexTalionis: Maybe I'm going nuts, but doesn't the article contradict the headline here?


Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-02-14 10:13:29 PM

RedPhoenix122: Mike_LowELL: It says something when scientists, historically the most unreliable source of information, say that our most unreliable president is an unreliable source of information.

Your skill has vastly improved from when I first started noticing your comments. Could only be better if you worked in how unreliable the liberal media is.


The liberal media is VERY reliable. Just look at their perfect record of kissing Obama's ass.
 
2013-02-14 10:20:15 PM
"Facts are stupid things."
 
2013-02-14 10:28:31 PM

jehovahs witness protection: RedPhoenix122: Mike_LowELL: It says something when scientists, historically the most unreliable source of information, say that our most unreliable president is an unreliable source of information.

Your skill has vastly improved from when I first started noticing your comments. Could only be better if you worked in how unreliable the liberal media is.

The liberal media is VERY reliable. Just look at their perfect record of kissing Obama's ass.


Math you as a Republican do to make yourself feel better.
 
2013-02-14 10:43:22 PM
It's hard to judge the dollar amount on the return on investment of the human genome.  There is no argument - NONE - that the return has been huge.  Not only was the genome sequenced ahead of schedule and under budget (thanks Craig Venter) but it has revolutionized biology.  As far as I'm concerned, it qualifies as a Wonder of the Modern World.

I've heard some derpers saying that these cuts to science are fair on the grounds that the cuts will be "even".  Looking at the direct costs, maybe that's true, but when you look at the opportunity cost, there is no question that cutting science funding is fiscal insanity.  The return on investment is disproportionate to the amount spent, and the loss of revenue and economic stimulation from cuts will similarly be disproportionate.  At the risk of bringing the household budget meme back into the mix, make "even" cuts to your food and clothing budgets and see which cuts hurt worse.  Slashing investment spending makes no sense at all.
 
2013-02-14 10:52:37 PM

EatenTheSun: LasersHurt: Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.

I really hate to agree.


Farkers check the headline and find it plays loosely with the article... that's unpossible

/we're through the looking glass here
 
2013-02-14 11:03:12 PM
Politicians are less rigorous than my 6 year old with their facts. Hell, scientists are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge!
 
2013-02-14 11:04:25 PM

ajgeek: Politicians are less rigorous than my 6 year old with their facts. Hell, scientists are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge!


oh goddamnitsomuch. Politicians are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge.

/I'm going to bed now.
 
2013-02-14 11:08:12 PM

ajgeek: ajgeek: Politicians are less rigorous than my 6 year old with their facts. Hell, scientists are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge!

oh goddamnitsomuch. Politicians are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge.

/I'm going to bed now.



You are less rigorous with your posts than the moldy food in your fridge?
 
2013-02-14 11:13:47 PM

unlikely: ajgeek: ajgeek: Politicians are less rigorous than my 6 year old with their facts. Hell, scientists are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge!

oh goddamnitsomuch. Politicians are less rigorous than the moldy food in my fridge.

/I'm going to bed now.


You are less rigorous with your posts than the moldy food in your fridge?


Has the moldy food been subjected to peer review?
 
2013-02-14 11:52:11 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-14 11:55:29 PM
Okay so the article actually says he was pretty solid. WTF, Fark Headline Trollmod?
 
2013-02-15 12:34:15 AM

unlikely: Okay so the article actually says he was pretty solid. WTF, Fark Headline Trollmod?


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-15 12:35:02 AM
I'm always amused when the headline contradicts the article. All the posters who DRTFA are quickly outed.

LOL
 
2013-02-15 01:24:32 AM
Mendacious headline is mendacious.
 
2013-02-15 01:29:43 AM

jehovahs witness protection: trying to make failures look successful.


Obama proposes we do some stuff, TFA looks at what he wants to do, and you turn that in to "he's trying to make failures look like successes".

Do you ever self reflect? analyze your own comments? have you ever thought to yourself "perhaps I don't have all the facts on this and I should do some research before I decide what my opinion on this is"? I dont know why I'm asking because I know you don't. but good god, you're wrong all the time on just about everything. you'd think you would notice that by now.
 
2013-02-15 01:33:16 AM

LasersHurt: Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.


Apparently headlines are less rigorous with their "facts" than politicians.
 
2013-02-15 01:40:05 AM
Bullshiat headlines on the Fark politics tab.

Welcome to Fartbama's Fartmerica.
 
2013-02-15 01:41:18 AM
A misleading headline? On MY Fark?
 
2013-02-15 01:55:06 AM

fusillade762: A misleading headline? On MY Fark?


It's more likely than you think.
 
2013-02-15 01:55:19 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Bullshiat headlines on the Fark politics tab.

Welcome to Fartbama's Fartmerica.


*sad bongo solo*
 
2013-02-15 02:05:31 AM
Farkers fact-check subby's headline, discover subby is less rigorous with their "Facts" than either scientists or Obama.
 
2013-02-15 02:07:15 AM

cman: We choose to go to the moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard of the Cold War.


ftfy
 
2013-02-15 02:36:31 AM

log_jammin: jehovahs witness protection: trying to make failures look successful.

Obama proposes we do some stuff, TFA looks at what he wants to do, and you turn that in to "he's trying to make failures look like successes".

Do you ever self reflect? analyze your own comments? have you ever thought to yourself "perhaps I don't have all the facts on this and I should do some research before I decide what my opinion on this is"? I dont know why I'm asking because I know you don't. but good god, you're wrong all the time on just about everything. you'd think you would notice that by now.


jehovah's witness protection is only slightly less asinine at this point than winterturd used to be, and just barely more tolerable than 10lbsofcowdroppings. He tries to get some response, but he's just about reached that sad point in a Fark political troll's life when nobody pays the slightest attention, and he's reduced to waving his pudgy arms and stomping his little feet and squeaking "Look at me! I'm still here!"
 
2013-02-15 02:58:30 AM
The lesson here is that President Obama is more honest than the subby.
 
2013-02-15 03:03:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: log_jammin: jehovahs witness protection: trying to make failures look successful.

Obama proposes we do some stuff, TFA looks at what he wants to do, and you turn that in to "he's trying to make failures look like successes".

Do you ever self reflect? analyze your own comments? have you ever thought to yourself "perhaps I don't have all the facts on this and I should do some research before I decide what my opinion on this is"? I dont know why I'm asking because I know you don't. but good god, you're wrong all the time on just about everything. you'd think you would notice that by now.

jehovah's witness protection is only slightly less asinine at this point than winterturd used to be, and just barely more tolerable than 10lbsofcowdroppings. He tries to get some response, but he's just about reached that sad point in a Fark political troll's life when nobody pays the slightest attention, and he's reduced to waving his pudgy arms and stomping his little feet and squeaking "Look at me! I'm still here!"


Except you 2 have given him attention by responding.

And so have i. DAMMIT BOTH OF YOU!
 
2013-02-15 03:47:14 AM

Gyrfalcon: "Look at me! I'm still here!"


I would just like to say, damn you and your profile. everytime I look at it I'm forced to google "The Cleveland Torso Murderer", then the next thing I know, 5 hours have passed.
 
2013-02-15 04:11:08 AM

RedPhoenix122: Mike_LowELL: It says something when scientists, historically the most unreliable source of information, say that our most unreliable president is an unreliable source of information.

Your skill has vastly improved from when I first started noticing your comments. Could only be better if you worked in how unreliable the liberal media is.


Hey, don't you tell Mike how to be unreliable. He's got that shiat down to a science.
 
2013-02-15 04:21:14 AM

log_jammin: Gyrfalcon: "Look at me! I'm still here!"

I would just like to say, damn you and your profile. everytime I look at it I'm forced to google "The Cleveland Torso Murderer", then the next thing I know, 5 hours have passed.


And he's still unknown to this very day...
 
2013-02-15 04:28:12 AM

LasersHurt: Not to burst anyone's hate-bubble, but it does seem like they found his statements more or less accurate and fitting.


Or at least inaccurate in a "no harm, no foul" way, which isn't bad for a politician.
 
2013-02-15 04:33:54 AM

Gyrfalcon: log_jammin: Gyrfalcon: "Look at me! I'm still here!"

I would just like to say, damn you and your profile. everytime I look at it I'm forced to google "The Cleveland Torso Murderer", then the next thing I know, 5 hours have passed.

And he's still unknown to this very day...


I refuse to google that. It's 4:30 am and the coyotes are howling out there.
 
2013-02-15 04:59:16 AM

Mentat: It's hard to judge the dollar amount on the return on investment of the human genome.  There is no argument - NONE - that the return has been huge.  Not only was the genome sequenced ahead of schedule and under budget (thanks Craig Venter) but it has revolutionized biology.  As far as I'm concerned, it qualifies as a Wonder of the Modern World.

I've heard some derpers saying that these cuts to science are fair on the grounds that the cuts will be "even".  Looking at the direct costs, maybe that's true, but when you look at the opportunity cost, there is no question that cutting science funding is fiscal insanity.  The return on investment is disproportionate to the amount spent, and the loss of revenue and economic stimulation from cuts will similarly be disproportionate.  At the risk of bringing the household budget meme back into the mix, make "even" cuts to your food and clothing budgets and see which cuts hurt worse.  Slashing investment spending makes no sense at all.


You assume that research wouldn't be done if the government wasn't funding it. That assumption is not correct.
 
2013-02-15 05:13:36 AM

Gyrfalcon: log_jammin: Gyrfalcon: "Look at me! I'm still here!"

I would just like to say, damn you and your profile. everytime I look at it I'm forced to google "The Cleveland Torso Murderer", then the next thing I know, 5 hours have passed.

And he's still unknown to this very day...


The only one I haven't studied extensively is the Tylenol Killer. I'm so bored with Jack the Ripper by this point if I see one more documentary the note I leave will be that he's claimed another victim.
 
2013-02-15 05:15:25 AM

DrPainMD: You assume that research wouldn't be done if the government wasn't funding it. That assumption is not correct.


you assume something is stopping privately funded research. That assumption is not correct.
 
2013-02-15 05:27:05 AM

jehovahs witness protection: The liberal media is VERY reliable. Just look at their perfect record of kissing Obama's ass.


That's why Romney lost.
What conservatism needs is a network devoted to conservative points of view.
If they have that, they will win every election.
 
2013-02-15 05:52:02 AM

quatchi: A Dark Evil Omen: Bullshiat headlines on the Fark politics tab.

Welcome to Fartbama's Fartmerica.

*sad bongo solo*


For some reason that evoked for me the percussive intro to the Marketplace Morning Report on NPR.

/I'm David Broncoccio and this... is Marketplace
 
2013-02-15 05:59:10 AM
I guess the Interesting tag outs it as a trolling headline ... the Obvious tag would mean it was true.

/It's like a code or something
//or dog whistles
///Here boy!
 
2013-02-15 06:11:57 AM

whistleridge: It's easy to be more or less accurate when you're being that vague. Which makes you wonder why Republican politicians and news outlets suck so hard at it.


Wait, both sides aren't bad?
 .
 
2013-02-15 06:33:24 AM

ryarger: quatchi: A Dark Evil Omen: Bullshiat headlines on the Fark politics tab.

Welcome to Fartbama's Fartmerica.

*sad bongo solo*

For some reason that evoked for me the percussive intro to the Marketplace Morning Report on NPR.

/I'm David Broncoccio and this... is Marketplace


You shut your mouth. There are no hosts but Kai Rhyssdahl. Even when Kai is away and some other horrible voice subs in, it's still just Kai Rhyssdahl doing terrible impressions.
 
2013-02-15 06:55:55 AM

Mentat: Slashing investment spending makes no sense at all.


It makes perfect sense if your aim is to harm the economy, hoping that it makes the President look bad, which is your number one priority. The Republican strategy while there is a Democrat in the White House is to do as much damage as they can and hope it mostly rubs off on the President. The funny party being the ones most likely to be in harms way from such policies are Republican voters. The less funny part is everyone else gets screwed as well, and that it has worked far better than it should have.
 
2013-02-15 07:30:31 AM
FTA: Gregory Lucier, a major donor to Republican candidates. Lucier contributed $50,000 to Mitt Romney's presidential bid and nearly $31,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2012

Seriously?  $81,000 doesn't even get you in the front door of the hotel the Republican fundraiser is being held at.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report