|
|
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
|
Don't wanna derail but I have a Question in relation to abortion and the republication party figure someone in here can PM me the answer please, FYI I don't follow American politics closely.
It seems to be the republican party is against government interference in relation to the majority of things thus more freedom and choices less legislation however when it comes to abortion they want to stop abortions happening all together effectively government legislation on what women can and cant do to there bodies? Doesn't this contradict what the party stands for?
|
On August 25 2012 14:18 nicknack wrote:
Don't wanna derail but I have a Question in relation to abortion and the republication party figure someone in here can PM me the answer please, FYI I don't follow American politics closely.
It seems to be the republican party is against government interference in relation to the majority of things thus more freedom and choices less legislation however when it comes to abortion they want to stop abortions happening all together effectively government legislation on what women can and cant do to there bodies? Doesn't this contradict what the party stands for?
Well, you have to look at it from another standpoint. They see an "unborn child" as being the thing worth protecting, worth protecting the rights of. It's the act of abortion that infringes on the life of the "unborn child."
|
On August 25 2012 14:18 nicknack wrote:
Don't wanna derail but I have a Question in relation to abortion and the republication party figure someone in here can PM me the answer please, FYI I don't follow American politics closely.
It seems to be the republican party is against government interference in relation to the majority of things thus more freedom and choices less legislation however when it comes to abortion they want to stop abortions happening all together effectively government legislation on what women can and cant do to there bodies? Doesn't this contradict what the party stands for?
You're confusing republicans and their conservatism with libertarians. Republicans have a large tendency to lean libertarian, especially when it comes to economics, but they generally don't let libertarianism get in the way of social policy.
This article explains a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
|
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that he would send U.S. troops to Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.
"I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies," Romney said in an interview with CBS News.
Romney specifically noted that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been involved in the region.
The former Massachusetts governor has limited foreign policy experience, but has so far outlined bullish positions on potential threats in the Middle East. He also told CBS News that he'd be willing to go to war to stop Iran from "becoming nuclear."
"No question in my view that we can put all manner of pressure on the regime that's there, but they have to also know that a military option is one which we'd be willing to consider if they do not take action to dissuade a course towards nuclearization," Romney said of Iran.
Source
|
On August 25 2012 14:18 nicknack wrote:
Don't wanna derail but I have a Question in relation to abortion and the republication party figure someone in here can PM me the answer please, FYI I don't follow American politics closely.
It seems to be the republican party is against government interference in relation to the majority of things thus more freedom and choices less legislation however when it comes to abortion they want to stop abortions happening all together effectively government legislation on what women can and cant do to there bodies? Doesn't this contradict what the party stands for?
Yes and No. Republicans are an odd alliance between fiscal libertarians and old-fashined social conservatives (very religious people). Therefore, on "morality" questions, they tend to follow Catholic church stances.
Yeah, it goes against the theory, but it has to or the party would likely disintegrate.
|
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
|
On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
|
On August 25 2012 14:32 Fighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:18 nicknack wrote:
Don't wanna derail but I have a Question in relation to abortion and the republication party figure someone in here can PM me the answer please, FYI I don't follow American politics closely.
It seems to be the republican party is against government interference in relation to the majority of things thus more freedom and choices less legislation however when it comes to abortion they want to stop abortions happening all together effectively government legislation on what women can and cant do to there bodies? Doesn't this contradict what the party stands for?
You're confusing republicans and their conservatism with libertarians. Republicans have a large tendency to lean libertarian, especially when it comes to economics, but they generally don't let libertarianism get in the way of social policy. This article explains a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
nail on the mother fucking head, thanks 
|
On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt...
|
On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt...
So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt?
|
On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt?
Sure, if there is a billionaire who comes in here and says "I'm voting for Romney because he'll cut my taxes", then my statement would apply to them as well.
|
On August 25 2012 23:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt? Sure, if there is a billionaire who comes in here and says "I'm voting for Romney because he'll cut my taxes", then my statement would apply to them as well.
A pity they don't do that, but instead pour a lot of money into super pacs that will get the message out for them and their candidate
|
On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt?
Not at all, tax cuts always, and I mean always, pay for themselves. At least that's what the Republican politicians seem to think.
Also, there's nothing wrong with rational behavior, voting in your self interest is perfectly reasonable. Not something you should be criticized for.
The religious portion of the Republican party doesn't really follow the Catholic Church, but they agree on a lot of social issues. Most christians in America are protestants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
|
On August 25 2012 23:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt? Sure, if there is a billionaire who comes in here and says "I'm voting for Romney because he'll cut my taxes", then my statement would apply to them as well.
That begs the question: Why should you vote for a candidate? Motives like "I like to go out and drink beer with that guy" and "he is not [insert prerogatory (about being rich, muslim etc.)]..." sound even worse to me.
|
On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt...
getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition.
i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway
|
On August 26 2012 00:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:57 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt? Sure, if there is a billionaire who comes in here and says "I'm voting for Romney because he'll cut my taxes", then my statement would apply to them as well. That begs the question: Why should you vote for a candidate? Motives like "I like to go out and drink beer with that guy" and "he is not [insert prerogatory (about being rich, muslim etc.)]..." sound even worse to me.
You should vote for someone who you think is capable of representing you adequately and will work in good faith to fashion the system in a fair and prosperous manner.
|
On August 26 2012 00:12 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition. i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway
And I think this is sad.
|
On August 26 2012 00:20 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 00:03 radiatoren wrote:On August 25 2012 23:57 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... So the big tax cuts Romney is planning for the top earners aren't considered "free shit" and don't put us in more debt? Sure, if there is a billionaire who comes in here and says "I'm voting for Romney because he'll cut my taxes", then my statement would apply to them as well. That begs the question: Why should you vote for a candidate? Motives like "I like to go out and drink beer with that guy" and "he is not [insert prerogatory (about being rich, muslim etc.)]..." sound even worse to me. You should vote for someone who you think is capable of representing you adequately and will work in good faith to fashion the system in a fair and prosperous manner.
Logical and completely impossible to get any idea about before an election... Using the science-budget as a measure for who has got a longer term view doesn't seem far fetched.
|
Glad to see Romney chose Ryan, someone who is actually sincere and effective in his policy goals and can compromise as a means to that end, like the reform bill he drafted together with Wyden (D) of Oregon. In fact, it encourages me even more that he chose someone based on who he is and what he does, and not because they were Hispanic, a woman, etc. That shows courage in the age of personality politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
