Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guynemer
    replied
    Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
    We've had this conversation before and statements like this wre the highlight of the argument you put forth.
    To be fair, rah was right; that is how it works in theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • onodera
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinner View Post
    Both sides do have some anti-science people in their ranks but the big difference is the anti-science folks control the Republican Party while the anti-science hippies on the left get laughed at for babbling about homopathy and new age crystals.
    Using gays to cure sickness? No wonder they get laughed at.

    Leave a comment:


  • DinoDoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
    That is ADORABLE.
    We've had this conversation before and statements like this wre the highlight of the argument you put forth.

    Leave a comment:


  • DinoDoc
    replied
    Originally posted by snoopy369 View Post
    Requiring the NSF to certify that every grant goes to something big is exactly the opposite of how it should work. The big things are taken care of by the market. The small things are what's important, and the breadth of research so we have knowledge we can later build on (and perhaps find some things by accident). We can _have_ the alzheimers research Obama wants, because we did lots of 'pointless' research five or ten years ago that means we now know a lot more about the brain than we did before.
    I could deal with not funding research into duck penises.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guynemer
    replied
    Originally posted by rah View Post
    At least, in theory, congressmen are elected and are supposed to represent their constituents.
    That is ADORABLE.

    Leave a comment:


  • snoopy369
    replied
    Erm, that's the post-WWII loan we made to fund your welfare program ... do something. We wrote off the lend-lease act (see: your wiki link). Also, how about repaying us for all the lives lost defending your country?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrFun
    replied
    good for you

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied
    I didn't pay it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrFun
    replied
    good for you

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied


    Paid off in 2006.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied
    Originally posted by snoopy369 View Post
    Let me know when you've paid us back for WWI and WWII.
    War debt was repaid a few years ago. Look it up. Think WW2 only though. WW1 was a write off in the 30s I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied
    Originally posted by gribbler View Post
    No one thinks the UK would perish if not for the US. It would just be poorer than it already is.
    That's a symmetrical point.

    Leave a comment:


  • snoopy369
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    Oh I don't know, we'd have saved a fortune on a couple of wars for one thing.
    Let me know when you've paid us back for WWI and WWII.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrFun
    replied
    The real motive for Rep. Lamar Smith to put forth such inane proposals is probably simply part of the whole culture war raging in America.

    Why doesn't he just admit that he's a religious fanatic who has a blind hatred for anything secular?

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    Originally posted by gribbler View Post
    No one thinks the UK would perish if not for the US. It would just be poorer than it already is.
    Oh I don't know, we'd have saved a fortune on a couple of wars for one thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X