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.

(Huffington Post)   Sen. Tom Coburn has absolutely no interest in learning how much you really hate him or the rest of the Senate   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 131
    More: Obvious, Limiting National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation, human beings, Dana Rohrabacher, research funding, Jim Sensenbrenner, Mount St. Helens, climate policy  
•       •       •

3275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 07:29:41 AM
FTA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the
economic interests of the United States.'"


Simple way to bypass this limitation - define those research topics as sociology or social psychology research. Tada. No longer banned under the terms of the amendment.

Besides, this is a tiny portion of the NSF's mission and Coburn knows this is just a symbolic amendment and wouldn't actually do anything truly substantial.
 
2013-03-21 07:35:04 AM
This must be another Republican thing like banning research on gun violence - they're pretty sure any actual research would undermine their positions with stupid reality and facts. I don't know why they care, though, their base doesn't give a shiat about research or facts.
 
2013-03-21 07:57:21 AM
TFA:"There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free."

That's no shiat.

This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?
 
2013-03-21 08:28:35 AM
Funding for political science research?  Meh, study that crap on your own.
 
2013-03-21 08:35:27 AM
Senate Democrats passed this piece of shiat?
 
2013-03-21 08:37:25 AM
The amendment creates an exceptionally dangerous slippery slope. While political science research is most immediately affected, at risk is any and all research in any and all disciplines funded by the NSF. The amendment makes all scientific research vulnerable to the whims of political pressure

In other news, the National Science Foundation is unfamiliar with the concept of the tune being called by whoever's paying the piper.

We know the Senate is full of self-regarding dipshiats. What else did we require, sabermetrics?
 
2013-03-21 08:48:03 AM
I'm surprised that the scum who kept mum to the authorities about David Vitter's whoremongering (and subsequent "suicide") and Jon Ensign's staff-schtupping, claiming he had privilege of confidentiality as their spiritual advisor, would want information of any sort suppressed.
 
2013-03-21 08:52:21 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA:"There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free."

That's no shiat.

This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?


True.

But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?
 
2013-03-21 08:54:07 AM
A Republican who doesn't care what the voters think?  Unpossible!
 
2013-03-21 08:56:26 AM
How do all of these patriotic Mericans think that we will continue to be an economic superpower if they de-fund science, warp education with Jesus talk, and shun intellectualism?
 
2013-03-21 08:57:45 AM
(sigh)
 
2013-03-21 08:58:22 AM
FTFA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the
economic interests of the United States.'"


So we can no longer federally fund the effects of Republican policies........smart move Tea Party.
 
2013-03-21 08:59:01 AM

Citrate1007: How do all of these patriotic Mericans think that we will continue to be an economic superpower if they de-fund science, warp education with Jesus talk, and shun intellectualism?


Manifest Density.
 
2013-03-21 08:59:18 AM
 fund *studying the

/more coffee
 
2013-03-21 09:10:22 AM
One of thoseamendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as "promoting national security or theeconomic interests of the United States."

Since the GOP is the greatest threat to both, it should be no problem for the NSF to continue doing what they were doing.
 
2013-03-21 09:12:06 AM
The GOP has finally begun the war on reality itself.
 
2013-03-21 09:15:07 AM
FTA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.'"

Any project that helped to reduce the number of Republicans in positions of power would do both.
 
2013-03-21 09:17:39 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Citrate1007: How do all of these patriotic Mericans think that we will continue to be an economic superpower if they de-fund science, warp education with Jesus talk, and shun intellectualism?

Manifest Density.


I was going to say "American Exceptionalism", but that's just really a 20th century restatement of the same
principle.
 
2013-03-21 09:17:50 AM

starsrift: Dancin_In_Anson: TFA:"There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free."

That's no shiat.

This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?

True.

But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?


In Washington, 250K in 2013 has a way of becoming 250M in 2033, and very rarely does the process work in reverse.
 
2013-03-21 09:18:59 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?



You mean like these things

upload.wikimedia.org

... which cost like $13,500,000,000.00 each?
 
2013-03-21 09:19:31 AM

Gulper Eel: starsrift: Dancin_In_Anson: TFA:"There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free."

That's no shiat.

This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?

True.

But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?

In Washington, 250K in 2013 has a way of becoming 250M in 2033, and very rarely does the process work in reverse.


Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
 
2013-03-21 09:19:46 AM
FTA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.'"

Certified by whom? I work for a granting council (not in the US) and these research projects are carefully vetting, first by the universities and then by peer review committees. You do not want to open the floodgates of polticians picking and choosing what research counts as "real science."
 
2013-03-21 09:19:58 AM

Gulper Eel: In Washington, 250K in 2013 has a way of becoming 250M in 2033, and very rarely does the process work in reverse.


This is scientific funding, not some no-bid contract kickback to a corporate campaign contributor.  If you're seriously worried that NSF is going to start giving out a quarter of a billion dollars per grant award in 2033, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2013-03-21 09:20:20 AM

starsrift: But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?


Or 50,000 months of Total Fark where I can learn on a daily basis what a bunch of retards inhabit the Senate chambers....and FWIW, that's a waste too as you are viewing the same for nothing.

Quit looking for ways to justify shiatty spending no matter how small. $250K here and $250 there10 eventually adds up to solid money.
 
2013-03-21 09:20:55 AM

phaseolus: You mean like these things


Exactly.
 
2013-03-21 09:21:37 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: FTA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.'"

Certified by whom? I work for a granting council (not in the US) and these research projects are carefully vetting, first by the universities and then by peer review committees. You do not want to open the floodgates of polticians picking and choosing what research counts as "real science."


Spittin' da truf
 
2013-03-21 09:21:44 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: You do not want to open the floodgates of polticians picking and choosing what research counts as "real science."


You do if you are a reactionary conservative who is hostile to the very idea of science.
 
2013-03-21 09:21:57 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: starsrift: But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?

Or 50,000 months of Total Fark where I can learn on a daily basis what a bunch of retards inhabit the Senate chambers....and FWIW, that's a waste too as you are viewing the same for nothing.

Quit looking for ways to justify shiatty spending no matter how small. $250K here and $250 there10 eventually adds up to solid money.


I think the phrase you're looking for is "drop in the bucket".
 
2013-03-21 09:23:06 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA:"There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free."

That's no shiat.

This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?


Because it's impossible to think of a reason why Senators might want an answer to the question "Why have we been at sub-15% approval ratings since before the iPhone?" beyond "my guy's great, his guy sucks". Perhaps getting a more in-depth answer would make Coburn's job easier, if he knew what people wanted out of the Senate.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the reason we hate the Senate is BECAUSE of chucklehead moves like Coburn's, so...
 
2013-03-21 09:23:32 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Quit looking for ways to justify shiatty spending no matter how small. $250K here and $250 there10 eventually adds up to solid money.


Funny how when the conversation turns to taxing the rich to generate revenue, the conservative position shifts to "but that wouldn't immediately solve the problem forever, so we shouldn't do it".
 
2013-03-21 09:25:24 AM
Why should he care? OK will keep electing him until he dies. This is not a national popularity contest, only regional.
 
2013-03-21 09:26:01 AM
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) submitted a series of amendments to the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, the Senate bill to keep the government running past March 27. One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as "promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States."

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 09:27:21 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Funny how when the conversation turns to taxing the rich to generate revenue


Good luck with that.
 
2013-03-21 09:27:32 AM

phaseolus: Dancin_In_Anson: This also raises the question about how many thousands of little bullshiat line items like this are Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer shelling out for?


You mean like these things

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x232]

... which cost like $13,500,000,000.00 each?


but PBS and volcano research costs 13,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
 
2013-03-21 09:27:36 AM

squidgod2000: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) submitted a series of amendments to the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, the Senate bill to keep the government running past March 27. One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as "promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States."

[i.imgur.com image 152x161]


At least the amendment is somewhat related to the bill it's being tacked on to.
 
2013-03-21 09:27:42 AM
Hey, they'll still have internal polling telling them those things.  They just won't have to share the information with the public.
 
2013-03-21 09:28:13 AM
"One of those would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as "promoting national security or the
economic interests of the United States."
"Studies of presidential executive power and Americans' attitudes toward the Senate filibuster hold little promise to save an American's life from a threatening condition or to advance America's competitiveness in the world..."


...I'm ok with this

/good jorb
 
2013-03-21 09:29:27 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: FTA: "One of those amendments would prohibit the NSF from funding political science research unless a project is certified as 'promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.'"

Certified by whom? I work for a granting council (not in the US) and these research projects are carefully vetting, first by the universities and then by peer review committees. You do not want to open the floodgates of polticians picking and choosing what research counts as "real science."


I suspect he does.
 
2013-03-21 09:30:47 AM

DamnYankees: Senate Democrats passed this piece of shiat?


the fark face snuck it in to the continuing funding bill.
 
2013-03-21 09:32:15 AM

WI241TH: Hey, they'll still have internal polling telling them those things.  They just won't have to share the information with the public.


If it's the Republicans they will have internal polling telling them what they want to hear.
 
2013-03-21 09:36:19 AM
I wonder who the Democrats who joined Coburn in attaching this amendment are. At least the good news is that these amendments go away in 6 months when the Act expires.

I think that's more interesting about this whole process is that it's reversed the order of the budgetary process. From what I can tell, this bill was drafted and passed by the Senate before the House took it up for consideration.
 
2013-03-21 09:40:09 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: starsrift: But this also comes down to one simple thing - 250k is what, two people's jobs? One scientist and two four five all of his grad students?

Or 50,000 months of Total Fark where I can learn on a daily basis what a bunch of retards inhabit the Senate chambers....and FWIW, that's a waste too as you are viewing the same for nothing.

Quit looking for ways to justify shiatty spending no matter how small. $250K here and $250 there10 eventually adds up to solid money.


What makes your posts more legitimate is how you were such a strict fiscal conservative when Republicans had both chambers of congress and Bush was President.
 
2013-03-21 09:41:12 AM

basemetal: Funding for political science research?  Meh, study that crap on your own.


Damn straight. The last thing any of those people want to hear is what we actually think of them - and I don't blame them. I wouldn't either.
 
2013-03-21 09:42:01 AM
Found the text of the actual letter he sent the NSF: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id= 6 0c99a67-2f0d-4c83-9b3d-1d65225d6abb

He is directing them to stop just-funded projects and replace them with topics of his choice. These projects are usually 3-5 years in duration, and if they're anything like my agency's, 80% of the money goes to hiring grad students, and the rest for equipment and the occasional trip to conferences or archives.

Here's an extract:


Every dollar spent on projects such as these could have instead supported research to design a next-generation robotic limb to treat injured war heroes or a life-saving hurricane detection system.


While your agency has said sequestration will not impact existing standard grants, NSF projects the total number of new research grants could be reduced by as many as 1,000.5Instead of simply rejecting innovative new research topics, I would encourage NSF to reconsider

existing projects that may not hold the same potential, such as those examining or supporting:

•Americans' attitudes towards the U.S. Senate filibuster 6

•SiteJabber.com, a new website to rate the trustworthiness of other websites7

•ecoATM, a company commercializing an "ATM" to give out cash in exchange for old cell phones and other electronics8

•Participants' expenses to attend an annual snowmobile competition in Michigan through 20159

•Depiction of animals in National Geographic from 1888 to 2008 10

•A game to teach scientists about ethics in the peer review process 11

•How a shrimp running on a treadmill responds to alterations in oxygen and carbon dioxide levels12 13

•The rise of candidate-centered elections over those dominated by political parties14

•Meditation and self-reflection for math, science, and engineering majors 15

•American Presidents' level of cooperation with Congress when they utilize executive orders 16
 
2013-03-21 09:42:01 AM
I hate Oklahoma
 
2013-03-21 09:42:17 AM
Phase 1 in banning anti-government speech. The Senators are your Gods, who are you to question their decisions and processes.

fark Coburn, and fark Harry Reid for allowing this, and fark Obama for signing this into law. All of them should burn in hell
 
2013-03-21 09:43:15 AM
There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans' attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free

hahaha science dumb tee hee bleep bloop
 
2013-03-21 09:43:31 AM
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) submitted a series of amendments to the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, the Senate bill to keep the government running past March 27.

Isnt this the same act they took the assault weapons ban amendment out of?
 
2013-03-21 09:45:29 AM

NateGrey: What makes your posts more legitimate is how you were such a strict fiscal conservative when Republicans had both chambers of congress and Bush was President.


Yeah, I had a beef with the growth of government then too. Ain't that a kick in the head?
 
2013-03-21 09:47:06 AM
Every dollar spent on projects such as these could have instead supported research to design a next-generation robotic limb to treat injured war heroes or a life-saving hurricane detection system.

Or we could save a hell of a lot more money by not sending Heroes off to get their limbs blown off in farking useless wars.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report