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)   House Republicans declare war on science   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 231
    More: Dumbass, House Republicans, humans, Dana Rohrabacher, group object, Mount St. Helens, Jim Sensenbrenner, Competitive Enterprise Institute, climate policy  
•       •       •

10007 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2013 at 5:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-13 07:58:07 PM  
 
2013-09-13 08:00:46 PM  

AntiNerd: Higher education leads to liberalism so I don't think you could expect anything different from them.


Not necessarily to "liberalism" in the economic sense, but it definitely makes someone far more likely to question traditional dogmatic belief systems, like Bible literalism, traditional gender roles, the established societal pecking order, etc.  It also tends to make people more tolerant and less fearful/hateful of the "other" (other ethnic or religious groups, gays, etc.)

The problem is that the modern conservative movement is fundamentally based on the type of traditional dogmatic thinking that can't stand up to facts, scrutiny, and critical thinking.  Since higher education promotes critical thinking skills, people tend to be less conservative/traditional in their beliefs when they graduate.

Conservatives see this intellectual transformation as "ivory tower leftist indoctrination", when in reality what is happening is that when people are given the tools to think for themselves, they are able to see the flaws in traditional dogmatic beliefs.
 
2013-09-13 08:07:30 PM  

vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.


I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?
 
2013-09-13 08:09:06 PM  

jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?


I oppose GMO foods but not because I think they're unsafe to eat, they're about as safe as anything else you can pull off a store shelf these days. What I oppose in GMO foods is Monsanto splicing in terminator genes into their seed stores. That's a farking agricultural holocaust just waiting to happen.
 
2013-09-13 08:11:28 PM  

HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.

I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?


The problem is not the first part. Yes, first do the research. But when it came to SDI, the GOP was wrong because the research wasn't necessary: it was obvious to all it couldn't work so they didn't have to first do research. And that made Republicans again wrong for some reason.
 
2013-09-13 08:16:32 PM  
I think the fact both parties vote to defund science organizations, like the NSF and NASA,  is a bigger war on science than the Republicans voting against a science cheerleader position, but that's just me.

Increase funding for science. Only good things will happen.
 
2013-09-13 08:19:59 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Neighborhood Watch: The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.

Fracking? Really dude?

I already thought you were a dick, but you want to poison the water table just as we enter an age of water scarcity?


How else are we going to usher in the Endtimes?  Did you ever think of THAT?
 
2013-09-13 08:26:14 PM  
I have no issue with fracking per se.

I just have issues with how shady and secretive the fracking industry is with their processes.

Local governments: "Can we know exactly what you're injecting into the ground?"
Fracking industry: "No...mind your own farking business!"

Yeah...no matter how many cheesy PR ads you try to air during Pirates and Penguins games, it's still not convincing me.
 
2013-09-13 08:30:39 PM  

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


News Corp.  And like the Taliban, they're not just powerful nationally, but internationally.
 
2013-09-13 08:31:44 PM  

machoprogrammer: I think the fact both parties vote to defund science organizations, like the NSF and NASA,  is a bigger war on science than the Republicans voting against a science cheerleader position, but that's just me.

Increase funding for science. Only good things will happen.


And it's supply-side economics. There is absolutely zero reason for Republicans to vote against science funding.
 
2013-09-13 08:46:24 PM  

Mentat: Trust me when I say I understand your view firsthand. That said, you still have to inspire the next generation of scientists. If you pull back in the hopes that things get better eventually, then you'll have the exact opposite problem when the Boomers and Gen Xers retire. We have to fight to improve the lot of active scientists but we also have to get the next generation ready in the hopes that things will be better when they hit the job market.


I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then.  Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china?  I haven't, I tell them the truth.  Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.
 
2013-09-13 08:50:31 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: First things first.Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.


Not that you'd ever have or propose or be able to discuss a metric by which any results would be measured. As usual your sociopolitical opinion is unsubstantiated, anecdotal and worthless. Certainly not worth influencing public policy in any way.
 
2013-09-13 08:54:34 PM  

lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.


I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.
 
2013-09-13 08:55:35 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


5
 
2013-09-13 09:01:43 PM  

Mentat: lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.

I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.


K, my bad.  I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying.  I mean, I'm pretty good.  World wide, I suppose I'm really good.  But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%.  I'm not even in the ballpark.
 
2013-09-13 09:07:33 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So up until now it was an undeclared war then?

/dnctfl


police action.
 
2013-09-13 09:17:11 PM  

alizeran: Neighborhood Watch: Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.

Oh they read.
[i43.tinypic.com image 437x584]


Actually, I've read that one. It's pretty good, and not at all derpy.
 
2013-09-13 09:18:04 PM  

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


The Flat Earth Society?
The Church of the Subgenius?
 
2013-09-13 09:18:35 PM  
Fark all Republicans, and everything they stand for.

Fo reals.
 
2013-09-13 09:20:35 PM  

Somacandra: Neighborhood Watch: First things first.Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.

Not that you'd ever have or propose or be able to discuss a metric by which any results would be measured. As usual your sociopolitical opinion is unsubstantiated, anecdotal and worthless. Certainly not worth influencing public policy in any way.


He attended a government school.
 
2013-09-13 09:24:05 PM  

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


A lot of conservative parties throughout the world (Conservative in Canada and the UK, Liberal in Australia), are all pretty much skeptics when it comes to Global Warming.

Because much like Republicans here in the US, those parties tend to be the "pro-business" party and things such as environmental standards get in the way of business in their eyes.
 
2013-09-13 09:30:14 PM  

nova_gamer_gettysburg: AntiNerd: Higher education leads to liberalism so I don't think you could expect anything different from them.

Not necessarily to "liberalism" in the economic sense, but it definitely makes someone far more likely to question traditional dogmatic belief systems, like Bible literalism, traditional gender roles, the established societal pecking order, etc.  It also tends to make people more tolerant and less fearful/hateful of the "other" (other ethnic or religious groups, gays, etc.)

The problem is that the modern conservative movement is fundamentally based on the type of traditional dogmatic thinking that can't stand up to facts, scrutiny, and critical thinking.  Since higher education promotes critical thinking skills, people tend to be less conservative/traditional in their beliefs when they graduate.

Conservatives see this intellectual transformation as "ivory tower leftist indoctrination", when in reality what is happening is that when people are given the tools to think for themselves, they are able to see the flaws in traditional dogmatic beliefs.


I wish I could get people on the right to read and comprehend this piece of poetry right here....but then I'd be classified as an ivory tower left wing indoctrinist instead of them actually trying to provide a thought out rebuttal.
 
2013-09-13 09:52:09 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: it's amazing how nothing was ever invented, no new discoveries made, no scientific breakthroughs, just zippo de nada, when the Republicans have had control of government.  Fark, why do we even put up with those dicks.

I bet a Science Laureate could tell us who gassed those kids in Syria, but nnnnoooooooooo, we don't have one because of an evil oompa loompa.


Wow.

I guess the fact that this idea had broad bipartisan support until the radical right got involved and then the Republicans all stood to attention and said "Sieg Heil!" and blocked it means nothing to you, eh?
 
2013-09-13 10:02:18 PM  

Leishu: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.


So, American conservatives.
 
2013-09-13 10:03:23 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: it's amazing how nothing was ever invented, no new discoveries made, no scientific breakthroughs, just zippo de nada, when the Republicans have had control of government. Fark, why do we even put up with those dicks.


One of the projects I worked on in science was the creation of a novel class of chemotherapeutics that would specifically target cancers.  We proved they work exactly as we hoped through a variety of assays in vitro and in vivo in model organisms, so next we wanted to give a mouse cancer and prove our chemotherapeutic cured that cancer.  We missed the payline by 2%.  Before Republicans took control of the government, the payline was about 7-8% higher.

I just wanted you to know.  Maybe this class of therapeutics would have cured some cancers, maybe not.  We won't ever know, the project was dropped.  But vote (R) anyway.
 
2013-09-13 10:12:33 PM  
for every republican derp, there is an equal and opposite herp.


/science, biatches
 
2013-09-13 10:14:42 PM  

lennavan: Mentat: lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.

I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.

K, my bad.  I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying.  I mean, I'm pretty good.  World wide, I suppose I'm really good.  But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%.  I'm not even in the ballpark.


You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.
 
2013-09-13 10:15:43 PM  

The Name: Leishu: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.

So, American conservatives.


I don't think one can fairly put the Jenny-McCarthyites at any particular segment of the political spectrum, since both endpoints have an intrinsic distrust of the medical establishment.
 
2013-09-13 10:17:26 PM  

vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.

I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?

The problem is not the first part. Yes, first do the research. But when it came to SDI, the GOP was wrong because the research wasn't necessary: it was obvious to all it couldn't work so they didn't have to first do research. And that made Republicans again wrong for some reason.


So are you suggesting that it's scientific (or rather, not unscientific) to want to do unnecessary research? Sorry for being dense, but I still don't follow you. Doesn't that still speak to a political or economic motive for SDI, rather than a scientific one?

lennavan: One of the projects I worked on in science was the creation of a novel class of chemotherapeutics that would specifically target cancers.  We proved they work exactly as we hoped through a variety of assays in vitro and in vivo in model organisms, so next we wanted to give a mouse cancer and prove our chemotherapeutic cured that cancer.  We missed the payline by 2%.  Before Republicans took control of the government, the payline was about 7-8% higher.


That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.
 
2013-09-13 10:25:36 PM  
They could have approved it if they had limited the list of science specialties.
 
2013-09-13 10:50:27 PM  

because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.


HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.


I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.
 
2013-09-13 11:00:19 PM  

lennavan: because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.

HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.

I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.


Good luck with med school.  I'm in a similar frame of mind, but I may struggle for a while longer.
 
2013-09-13 11:08:54 PM  

HighZoolander: So are you suggesting that it's scientific (or rather, not unscientific) to want to do unnecessary research? Sorry for being dense, but I still don't follow you. Doesn't that still speak to a political or economic motive for SDI, rather than a scientific one?


Your difficulty seems to be thinking that my problem is that he took a position on research. It isn't. My problem is that he didn't take a CONSISTENT position on research. He changed his position based on whether it was a GOP or Democrat issue.

You have two issues: x, and y.

"It's stupid not to do research on x before deciding on whether it's valid."
"It's stupid to waste time doing research on y. It's obviously wrong."

The author held both views at the same time. Why? Because x was championed by Democrats and y was championed by Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 11:10:17 PM  

HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)


You haven't read much of what ViagraMule writes, either. The "serious flaw" is that it criticizes Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 11:17:54 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.
 
2013-09-13 11:34:58 PM  

lennavan: because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.

HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.

I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.


I'll echo HighZoolander and wish you luck. I hope it all works out. As far as encouraging young people, I think we still want to get the best and brightest to pursue science, but at the moment I feel like the best opportunities may not be in America. Here in Australia people are still doing good research, but they don't have that same mentality where you're expected to not have a personal life. In fact, we're forced to take vacations.

Of course, that may change.
 
2013-09-13 11:45:58 PM  
I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it comes on the heels of a propaganda repeal. But on the other hand, I'm pro global warming ...
 
2013-09-13 11:48:22 PM  

Hickory-smoked: since both endpoints have an intrinsic distrust of the medical establishment.


I think that is because the medical community things they're sick and wants to cure them. That the medical community is right doesn't matter to zealots.
 
2013-09-13 11:51:33 PM  
msg-ctrl.com
 
2013-09-13 11:51:59 PM  
I'll just leave this here:

www.anneofcarversville.com
 
2013-09-13 11:53:15 PM  
Damn!  Wrong thread!  Well... uh... kind of... works... I guess.

1/10
 
2013-09-13 11:58:54 PM  
"a needless addition to the long list of presidential appointments."

While the GOP is notoriously full of crap, I kind of agree with this.
 
2013-09-14 12:03:48 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I'll just leave this here:

[www.anneofcarversville.com image 465x916]


The Republican answer: Cut even more money from the DOE, whine about teachers if they get anything close to a decent wage, and put creationism, global warming denialism and revisionist history in textbooks.
 
2013-09-14 12:05:18 AM  

jjorsett: Sounds more like a war on making yet another government-paid unnecessary job, and that's a good thing.


Because we should waste money on a job that the government is not paying for. Oh, wait. It is a non-pay position.
 
2013-09-14 12:10:24 AM  
Postmodernists and right wingers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 
2013-09-14 12:15:55 AM  

lennavan: K, my bad. I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying. I mean, I'm pretty good. World wide, I suppose I'm really good. But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%. I'm not even in the ballpark.


No big deal.  Everyone's discouraged right now.  I'm going to spend all day tomorrow sending out resumes and cv's.  It's not fun, but I try to remember it's not just about me and that we need to think about 20 years down the line.  No one cares though, so who knows what will happen.
 
2013-09-14 12:31:42 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


They are doing it for free, and they're getting harassed to hell and back by the Know Nothings.
 
2013-09-14 12:38:21 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.
 
2013-09-14 12:38:30 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


The 'troll' comment refers to the fact that I have you farkied as 'cannot care about other people', so either you're a  stunningly unaware sociopath or a troll. Do you know what a poet laureate is? A science laureate would be the same thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes or global warming. It has to do with recognition of achievement within a field.
 
2013-09-14 12:49:51 AM  
Now I think I know why the GOP needs all of those excess tanks and fighter jets.....the war on science is looming....and they must prepare for battle.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report