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.

(Addicting Info)   Comrade Lamar Szmith of Soviet Texasz introduces bill to require Politburo approval before being allowed to publish any scientific papers. до свидания моя родина   (addictinginfo.org) divider line 85
    More: Sick, politburos, scientific papers, gold standards  
•       •       •

6700 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2013 at 1:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-04 12:24:49 AM  
15 votes:
Hey, remember a few threads ago when I accused Smith of wanting to put zampolits in charge of the NSF?  And remember those folks who told us we were overreacting and that Smith's requests were perfectly reasonable?  Fark all of you.
2013-05-04 02:53:50 AM  
9 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


After all, the only things we need as a society are things that CEOs can profit off of, right? Or will corporations sink money into research with no immediately-obvious profit potential?
2013-05-04 01:41:31 AM  
9 votes:
This was expected when the noted anti-science Texan was appointed to the Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Damn terrifying that this jackass has this much political clout.
2013-05-04 02:43:02 AM  
7 votes:
It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.
2013-05-04 09:10:09 AM  
6 votes:
What "small gubbmint" means in practice:

1. Determining what science is, and is not (actual science is "religion", and vice versa)
2. Determining what proper sexual and marital relationships are
3. Snooping into every tiny detail of your life because TERROR
4. Cutting taxes and kicking off wars while fulminating about deficits
5. Building tanks that are not needed, as stated repeatedly by the Pentagon, while at the very same time fulminating against "stimulus through government spending" on things like bridges on the point of collapse
6. Defining rape as a crime committed by a woman against a man when she wants to murder his baby after having had totally consensual sex, cause otherwise she wouldn't be pregnant
7. Apologizing to international oil companies when their rigs blow up and spill millions of gallons of oil
8. Thundering condemnation against disaster relief until it's needed in your own state
9. Ensuring that you can easily buy a gun with no background check or registration whatsoever
10. Undermining, underfunding, and packing with hacks those parts of government that your constituents support (EPA) but your corporate funders hate, and then condemning the ineptitude of what you have sabotaged.
11.  Complaining about religious persecution (against Christians) while demanding religious persecution of Muslims.
2013-05-04 11:21:41 AM  
5 votes:
I'd rather see all legislation be reviewed by the scientific community.
2013-05-04 08:53:04 AM  
5 votes:
The bill says research should not duplicate other research.

I guess Lamar Smith (CCCP-TX) has never heard of replication and independent verification.  If anything there should be more duplication than there currently is.
2013-05-04 05:30:55 AM  
5 votes:

Apos: This was expected when the noted anti-science Texan was appointed to the Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Damn terrifying that this jackass has this much political clout.


It's not 'clout', it's what passes for strategy in the modern GOP:
Step 1: Decry 'wasteful' spending (FDA, EPA, Planned Parenthood, Science Committees, etc.)
Step 2: Appoint people with a vested interest in seeing these agencies/committees fail, to run them
Step 3: When the agencies start failing, point at them and say "SEE! WASTEFUL AND USELESS PORK!"
Step 4: Gut program, Profit
Step 5: We all win! (No wait, the other thing...)
2013-05-04 02:01:16 AM  
5 votes:

skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?


you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.
2013-05-04 01:51:28 AM  
5 votes:
When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.
2013-05-04 11:44:01 AM  
4 votes:

Shaggy_C: I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?


Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?
2013-05-04 09:49:37 AM  
4 votes:
Forget terrorists.  This is a much bigger threat to America.
2013-05-04 06:40:06 AM  
4 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.
2013-05-04 03:57:58 AM  
4 votes:

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


I fear it may be code.

"Finest quality" = "intelligently designed"
"Ground breaking" = "fits with the latest rebranding"
"Utmost importance" = "high potential for kickbacks"
2013-05-04 03:00:16 AM  
4 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?
2013-05-04 02:10:29 AM  
4 votes:
Why is this farkstick in charge of anything having to do with science?
2013-05-04 02:07:54 AM  
4 votes:
Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

i39.tinypic.com

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?
2013-05-03 10:38:09 PM  
4 votes:
Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.
2013-05-03 10:08:39 PM  
4 votes:
So stupid I cant even form a worthwhile comment
2013-05-04 09:22:32 AM  
3 votes:
Republicans treat committee members like ideological suicide bombers.  They slip into position and then detonate their payload for maximum effect.
2013-05-04 09:01:48 AM  
3 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


Quit using electronics, then.
2013-05-04 05:09:40 AM  
3 votes:

LordJiro: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

After all, the only things we need as a society are things that CEOs can profit off of, right? Or will corporations sink money into research with no immediately-obvious profit potential?


Apparently he sees no irony at all in posting this comment on the internet.
2013-05-04 03:20:08 AM  
3 votes:
The party of small government, ladies and gentlemen!
2013-05-04 03:11:34 AM  
3 votes:

Zeppelininthesky: Why is this farkstick in charge of anything having to do with sciencepossession of his own skin?


This is what tarring and feathering were made for.
2013-05-04 02:58:41 AM  
3 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


and research universities should be defunded. All those graduate students are wasting their time and should get real jobs in the food services.
2013-05-04 02:51:33 AM  
3 votes:

make me some tea: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.


Credibility has resided in multinational reviewed journals pretty exclusively for a little over half a century now.  Though, that said, European and American researchers certainly have a leg up on the "actually considered real scientists" thing since China and eastern Asia in general have produced a large volume of blatantly incorrect papers in the last few decades.

Basically, if the government of the UK or France or whatever publishes something, it won't be particularly considered necessarily reliable either.  Which is why we mostly just fund it and it's reviewed and published by, y'know, science orgs instead of governments.
2013-05-04 01:08:40 AM  
3 votes:
fta If the findings are not agreed to, the research is taken from the researchers and disposed of by Congress as it sees fit.

On the side wall of everyone's cubicle will be an oblong slit protected by a wire grating. Inside will be a current of warm air.
2013-05-04 12:00:58 PM  
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.
2013-05-04 11:55:21 AM  
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


What part of PEERS don't you understand?
2013-05-04 11:50:18 AM  
2 votes:
the majority of research is done with federal tax dollars??


i'm smelling some serious socialism in that one.  where are all those republican socialism haters??????  hummmmm.
2013-05-04 10:09:47 AM  
2 votes:
Spot the Difference:
www.50states.com
www.theflagshop.co.uk
2013-05-04 09:08:07 AM  
2 votes:

Shakin_Haitian: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

Quit using electronics, then.


Also, don't eat any farmed food.
2013-05-04 06:49:15 AM  
2 votes:

dickfreckle: You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.


Yes, I know that plenty of guerrillas farked with us in 1969. I just meant that at the time America was something to have pride in. Dude, a man walked on the moon to spite the Soviets. These days we seem to eschew science and tech.
2013-05-04 06:42:12 AM  
2 votes:

dickfreckle: Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.


Amen:

www.addictinginfo.org
2013-05-04 03:31:15 AM  
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.


Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,
2013-05-04 02:30:51 AM  
2 votes:
Its the party of "small" government at it again.

i.qkme.me
2013-05-04 02:13:42 AM  
2 votes:

skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up

Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision

ah, the old "any criticism of undesirable thing X is valid regardless of veracity". You win


Point and you are in separate time zones
2013-05-04 02:03:57 AM  
2 votes:

skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?


There was a link to the draft bill. Here, read it yourself.
2013-05-04 01:55:44 AM  
2 votes:
Eppur si vitun muove, saatana!!
2013-05-03 10:38:06 PM  
2 votes:

mtlls: So stupid I cant even form a worthwhile comment


It's not as if you've received approval to submit such a comment anyways.
2013-05-05 10:28:31 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


That's US legislation for you; or at least, US legislation that isn't being written and proposed by some corporate backer.

Skullcrusher is, for once, actually a bit(but just a bit) right on this one. The bill only requires the Director to post a public statement that each funded research project is all that crap under section a on their website. If made into law, this would certainly lead to an increase in "paperwork" at the NSF (they'd need someone to write out all that pablum for each project), but it wouldn't really stop any funding since all it requires is that the Director say those things about each project.

What's actually wrong about this is two-fold. First, research doesn't work that way. Science isn't like a Masters of Orion tech tree; you don't just say, "I'm going to research 20% more efficient heart meds", assign six scientists, and out pop those heart meds 6 years later. Research is a lot more nebulous than that, and as such, you can't always say exactly what the marketable result of any specific research proposal is going to be before starting it, or if it will have directly marketable results. For instances, understanding redshift is hella useful, but nobody makes actual money off of it; if cosmological and physics research of the early 1900s had endured Mr. Smith's rule we'd be a hell of a lot stupier, and know a lot less about molecular physics right now. Secondly, while Skull's right that it doesn't explicitly establish a political review committee, it does potentially subject NSF-funded research to political review depending on who, exactly, gets to make those section b "Transfer of Funds" decisions. The bill is vague on that (and everything), but considering Congress is the branch of government which holds both the purse-strings, and Smith sits on the Science committee, and there's a long tradition of Congressional committees making those sorts of determinations, it's not much of a leap to suggest it'll be Congress and the Science committee specifically. Even if hearings weren't held, Congress could still aplly a political test legislatively though a follow-up bill defining section b procedure. For instance, another bill could be proposed and passed which would lay out how section b decisions are supposed to be made in detail, and that rubric -which the NSF would be forced to comply with- would be include the political test to proposed research in its body, thereby applying such a test without direct Congressional intervention on each instance.
2013-05-04 02:36:14 PM  
1 votes:

Epoch_Zero: Spot the Difference:
[www.50states.com image 384x256]
[www.theflagshop.co.uk image 533x333]


Iran is more highly educated.
2013-05-04 12:54:36 PM  
1 votes:
Vague bill is very vague. I read it... It seems to want the director to post that this is approved by the director before funding... and then a year later report to the senate.
2013-05-04 12:21:06 PM  
1 votes:
Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.
2013-05-04 12:19:12 PM  
1 votes:
"GOP, the party of small government". Try saying this without laughing
2013-05-04 12:10:22 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.


Not if you want to approve funding just for the projects that you agree with.

Which I imagine was the real intent behind this bill.
2013-05-04 12:07:45 PM  
1 votes:

Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.


I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.
2013-05-04 12:05:03 PM  
1 votes:

utah dude: Bondith: don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

haha you used the word 'merit' and the word 'NSF' in the same... hahaha. . h.ah.a.ha.hahahhahhahahh


If you've got nothing meaningful to contribute, the kids' table is over there.  Meanwhile, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.
2013-05-04 12:02:51 PM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


We already do this though. NSF peer reviews all of the grants they give before funding them. It's a multi-year application process with grant ranking and committee reviews of topics, with potential outcome assessments.
2013-05-04 11:52:10 AM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.



and, of course, the public (tax money) funds the liability (risks) of research while the Corporations make all the profits.   i bet you love that Socialism, don't ya??
2013-05-04 11:27:32 AM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding.  You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.
2013-05-04 10:51:53 AM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


Someone else who doesn't understand science funding I see.
2013-05-04 10:49:18 AM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?
2013-05-04 10:37:28 AM  
1 votes:

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.


No, it's not surprise. Just like you, Lamar Smith had the pre-conceived notion that government should suck, so he's trying to make sure it does.
2013-05-04 10:20:10 AM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?


Your tacit approval of this sort of thing is noted.
2013-05-04 10:18:41 AM  
1 votes:
Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?
2013-05-04 10:13:37 AM  
1 votes:

TheMysteriousStranger: The bill says research should not duplicate other research.

I guess Lamar Smith (CCCP-TX) has never heard of replication and independent verification.  If anything there should be more duplication than there currently is.


Well, that's how that influential paper on national debt/austerity vs. growth got debunked, and they can't be having that happen.
2013-05-04 10:13:13 AM  
1 votes:
It's also interesting how the party of small government is now sticking its nose into science.
2013-05-04 09:58:16 AM  
1 votes:

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.


And if you are studying something important to the future of the country, but it stands in the way of the agenda outlined by Lamar Smith's donors?  Just out of luck on that one, I suppose?

This is why you people are so dangerous.  What did this country do to you that was so heinous that you'd pretend this is a good idea just to bring us down?  What imagined slight was so insulting?  I'd really like to know.
2013-05-04 09:41:21 AM  
1 votes:
I with they'd stop beating around the bush and introduce legislation to turn the US into a Theodemocracy which is what they want to do.
2013-05-04 09:40:03 AM  
1 votes:
Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.
2013-05-04 09:24:31 AM  
1 votes:
"Health"? This isn't the NIH, dumbass.
2013-05-04 09:24:30 AM  
1 votes:

tankjr: ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!

You done bit on one of our more infamous trolls.

/Welcome to Fark.


He finally earned his place on my Twitlist.  Took him a while, but dedication and effort got him there.

/I need to go put the same dedication and effort into finishing this gorram thesis
//If it wasn't got 11th hour miracles, I'd have no grad school career at all
2013-05-04 08:16:07 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: Ah, the last one was an attempt to strip the peer-review requirement for federally funded research.

SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements

So not really "fresh" as much as "re-heated".


More like he had all this leftover bad legislation that nobody wanted, so he chopped it up and stuck it in a crust. Now he's trying to serve it up as if it's more appetizing.

So, not so much "reheated" as "retarted."
2013-05-04 08:03:23 AM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Mithiwithi: AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.

Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,

The government was frantically looking for a solution to the polio problem. Salk was being funded out of a pointed government effort to find a vaccine. That he discovered it accidentally is a bit of serendipity, but it wasn't because he was blindly funded to study the construction of handicraft ovum holders in aqueous solutions.


Hey, Asshole!  You are posting on forum that exists solely because the Government invested in a project that was run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--bolding the part about research should give you a clue.

You are healthy enough to post solely because of Government research into vaccines, food stuff, and other medical "miracles" that did not exist 100 years ago.

I could go on, but just suffice it to say that hopefully in the near future, Government research will eliminate the stupidity that you and your ilk seem to suffer from, so that future Farkers do not have to experience the discomfort, nausea and disgust that comes from reading your poorly thought-out and just plain ignorant remarks.
2013-05-04 05:33:46 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements


That was one of my better headlines, but seriously, fark Lamar Smith and fark all the blind, reasonless republicans.
2013-05-04 05:21:56 AM  
1 votes:
Thanks to Texas gerrymandering and splitting Austin up into 6 different districts, this asshat is my representative. I went from one of the most liberal house members (Lloyd Doggett) to the most derpiest without ever changing addresses back in 2010.

But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.
2013-05-04 04:49:26 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, Texas.  Just wow. Your elected representatives suck.
2013-05-04 03:35:40 AM  
1 votes:
I'm pretty sure this means I can submit a grant request for $50,000,000 to determine if "The Yellow Rose of Texas" is objectively the greatest song ever written and have a giant box labeled "Wad o' Cash From Gub'mint" on my porch no later than Tuesday.
2013-05-04 03:23:05 AM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?

If a student is dead set on investigating a topic, then he should pay for the chance to research it. If a school feels that such research is worthwhile, the school ought to provide additional funds to allow the student to see the research to fruition. Those funds can come from tuition, private grants, alumni endowments, partnerships with business, or bake sales, if that's what it takes to raise those funds.

Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.


That is so full of stupid... I dont even... Poes Law?... Troll... Its starting to burn!
2013-05-04 03:22:38 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?



Damn good question.
2013-05-04 03:20:18 AM  
1 votes:

ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?


If a student is dead set on investigating a topic, then he should pay for the chance to research it. If a school feels that such research is worthwhile, the school ought to provide additional funds to allow the student to see the research to fruition. Those funds can come from tuition, private grants, alumni endowments, partnerships with business, or bake sales, if that's what it takes to raise those funds.

Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.
2013-05-04 03:17:26 AM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


It takes someone who received a SPECIAL brand of EDUCATION to make a comment that enlightened.
2013-05-04 03:12:28 AM  
1 votes:

ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!


You done bit on one of our more infamous trolls.

/Welcome to Fark.
2013-05-04 02:55:51 AM  
1 votes:
Sounds about like what I would expect from a defanged head crab.
2013-05-04 02:48:19 AM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.


Seems a bit like Animal Farm, Part 2.
2013-05-04 02:30:46 AM  
1 votes:
WTF? this bill needs to die so fast it catches fire.
2013-05-04 02:21:44 AM  
1 votes:
These hillbilly POS d!ckheads need to secede or STFU. I don't want to be in a country that's associated with these dumbshiats anymore. These rednecks need to GTFO or STFU.
2013-05-04 02:17:51 AM  
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late. I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Nope. There are multiple topics where if the research comes out of America, we need to substantiate the hell out of it from other sources outside at which point, why not just use that other research?
2013-05-04 02:10:31 AM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up


Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision
2013-05-04 02:01:40 AM  
1 votes:

Apos: Is this a repeat or some fresh bullshiat from Lamar?


Wondering that myself.

*checks*

Ah, the last one was an attempt to strip the peer-review requirement for federally funded research.

SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements

So not really "fresh" as much as "re-heated".
2013-05-04 01:48:03 AM  
1 votes:
why would you link to the bill in question if your plan is to dishonestly characterize what it says?
2013-05-04 12:52:48 AM  
1 votes:
Is this a repeat or some fresh bullshiat from Lamar?
2013-05-03 11:17:41 PM  
1 votes:
2013-05-03 10:58:46 PM  
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report