backtop


Print 174 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on Oct 5 at 8:59 PM

The world loses its second largest particle accelerator, America loses its ambition

(This article contains editorial commentary, which is the opinion of the author.)

FermiLab, one of the biggest particle physics labs in the country, received sad news in April. After 25 years of operation, the Tevatron, the last large particle accelerator in America and the second largest accelerator in the world, was being shut down.  And while FermiLab's staff tried to put a cheerful spin on the news, this is a somber time for the veteran research institution.

I. The End of Big, Ambitious Science in America?

In 2010 the U.S. federal budget surpassed $3.4 trillion dollars.  FermiLab earlier this year asked for $100M USD -- less than a third of a thousandth of a percent of the federal budget.  Yet it saw its request rejected by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Fermilab's Director Pier Oddone regretfully commented to The Chicago Tribune, "The present budgetary climate did not permit DOE to secure the additional funds needed to run the Tevatron for three more years.  While we would have liked to run the Tevatron for three more years, our life going forward is full of promising projects and great opportunities for major discoveries."

To the average American, $100M USD seems like a lot, but in government terms, that's pocket change.  That's part of why it's so astounding that the American government decided to terminate this marvel of engineering, which for two decades was the biggest particle accelerator in the world.

To put this in perspective the nation budgeted an estimated $15.5B USD [source] to the U.S. Drug Czar to carry out the "war on drugs", much of which goes to banning marijuana, a drug top physicians say is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.  Just a quarter of that money would be enough to fund the Tevatron for nearly 39 years.

And on that topic America incarcerates more of its population than any other nation in the world -- nearly 1 percent (~2 million) of the population -- at a projected cost of $80B USD or more [source] in 2010.  Of those incarcerated 70 percent were imprisoned [source] for non-violent crimes and drug offenses.  If only a quarter of those petty offenders were released for a single year, it would be pay for 140 years of Tevatron operation.

Prisoners
Fig. 1: The U.S. can afford to imprison more of its citizens than any other nation, but it can't afford to keep up with cutting edge research. [Source: David Sanders for The New York Times]

And then the $17B USD [source] the U.S. government handed out in 2009 to the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Pakistan.  Of these nations, Egypt has seen its government overthrown since on allegations of corruption, while Afghanistan has struggled under the weight of similar allegations of sweeping bribery and corruption.  And Pakistan has been implicated in sheltering Osama bin Laden, the world's most famous terrorist.  If just a quarter of this money was handed to the Tevatron project, it would be enough for 42 years of operations.

And then there's the countless pork barrel projects of the Obama and Bush administrations, such as the half billion dollar loan that the Obama administration handed bankrupt solar startup Solyndra, ignoring warning signs.  That money, unlikely to be recovered, could have kept the Tevatron's doors open five more years.

Former Democratic Congressman Bill Foster, currently seeking reelection to Congress worked for 22 years as a physicist at FermiLab.  He bemoans the closing.  In an interview with MSNBC he comments, "The decline of particle physics in the U.S. is really a symptom of the erratic and sometimes anti-scientific attitudes in Washington and the incompetence of Congress in managing science.  And it's sad for Batavia."

The closing of Tevatron is perhaps indicative of a greater abandonment of big, ambitious engineering, science, and manufacturing projects in America.  Sure, America still funds more research programs that any other country in the world.  But slowly, that funding is drying up, with the biggest programs finding themselves first on the chopping block

As the Chinese juggernaut creeps ever closer to seizing the lead in global GDP, America is phasing out some of its proudest research programs.  It killed the Space Shuttle.  And now it's killed America's only large particle accelerator.

II. Tevatron Changed Physics as we Know it

And oh what a marvel that accelerator was.

Stretching a four mile (6.4 km) loop underground, the accelerator was the biggest one in the world at the time of its creation, and one of the largest manmade structures in the world.  While only approximately a fourth of the length of Europe's new Large Hadron Collider, it remains an engineering marvel even two and a half decades later.  Located just east of Batavia, Illinois, the accelerator was capable of sending anti-proton and proton beams at near light speeds.  That capability held the key to solving some of the universe's most compelling mysteries.

Tevatron
Fig. 2: The Tevatron is today the world's second largest particle accelerator, having been passed by the LHC.  It has unlocked many subatomic secrets. [Source: FermiLab]

Long before LHC was even a thought in the imagination of physicists, the Tevatron was making major discoveries.  It was the first accelerator to create a top quark, the first to observe two different types of sigma baryon, the first to observe the "Cascade B" (Ξ
b
) Xi baryon, and the first to discover the Ω
b
, a "double strange" Omega baryon.

The Tevatron's work was so magnificent that when FermiLab saw its budget slashed in 2008, a private donor stepped in to keep the Tevatron online.  Sadly that generous contribution appears to have only prolonged the inevitable.

Tevatron diagram
Fig. 3:  The Tevatron is housed in a four mile in circumference manmade underground circular tunnel in Batavia, Illinois. [Source: FermiLab]

Sadly, for all its great discoveries, the Tevatron is closing on the eve of a hollow note.  Reports of an exotic non-Higgs boson particle discovery turned out to be likely a statistical fluke after the readings could not be confirmed in follow-up tests.

Still, there's hope that the Tevatron may find the legendary Higgs-boson before the LHC.  It's packing its final days with test runs at a frantic pace, amassing a large body of data on particle collisions.  By analyzing that data next year, FermiLab physicists believe they will be able to confirm or deny the possibility of existence of the Higgs-boson, nicknamed the "God particle" by some creative members of the media.

Of course the final results will have to be confirmed by the LHC, as there will be no more Tevatron runs to validate the discovery.  But Mr. Oddone does not begrudge CERN's particle accelerator likely getting the glory.  He comments, "It's not a competition, it's about the science.  There is some competition, but also a huge amount of collaboration.  My wish for the LHC is that it would have as wonderful and productive a life as Tevatron."

III. FermiLab Settles Into Reduced Role, but Remains Optimistic

So what's next for FermiLab?  Well the optimists at FermiLab are hoping to convince the federal government to fund the $2B USD "Project X", a neutrino accelerator which while lacking the power of other super-accelerators would produce the world's most intense neutrino beams, hence yielding the most collisions.

Project X Superconductor
Fig. 4: FermiLab wants to build a new $2B USD high-tech accelerator equipped with superconducting RF categories.  But it's unclear if it will get the funding necessary to carry through with the plan. [Source: FermiLab]

Project manager Steve Holmes comments, "The idea is to look for things that happen very rarely, and the way to find them is to create lots of examples and see if you find something.  [FermiLab has a decade worth of funded programs] but beyond that, we really need to enhance the capabilities of the complex here if we are going to have an accelerator-based particle physics program in the U.S."

Of course if the government refuses to give $100M USD, the prospect of getting 20 times that amount to build a new accelerator seems somewhat of a long shot, barring a change of heart among federal politicians.

FermiLab researchers also hope to upgrade the atomic clock, which they use in the MINOS Project to measure the speed of neutrino beams.  That could allow the lab to validate CERN's stunning claim that neutrinos -- a fermion particle -- are capable of faster than light travel.

As for the Tevatron itself, like the Space Shuttles, it's scheduled to become a historic attraction.  Pier Oddone says the accelerator will likely receive minimal maintenance in order to allow lab visitors to take in the awe-inspiringly massive manmade monument as the last stop in their tour.  Those visitors will perhaps be reminded of an era when America committed to great, expensive scientific and engineering endeavors.

Space shuttle at sunset
Fig. 5: FermiLab, like the Space Shuttle will be resigned as a museum piece, a memory of the era of big, ambitious American science. [Source: The Associated Press]

But for now that era appears to be drawing to a close.  Comments Roger Dixon, FermiLab physicist and Tevatron chief, "We're thinking of it as if we're pulling the plug on our favorite uncle."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 2:56:29 PM , Rating: 5
Cut science and research funding, and keep their buddies in cushy jobs where they get to do nothing most of the time.

This government sucks. Both parties.




RE: Of course
By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2011 3:00:48 PM , Rating: 5
Losing our space program, and losing our science... What our government doesn't understand is this means all the bright minds, the innovators, the discoverers, the real job creators, the people that drive a country to greatness and world power... they are going to start going elsewhere; attritioned away much like they were from Europe to the United States ahead of World War II. And with them will go the high skilled jobs, the research sector, and the real money making industries for our country. Since we have also lost most of our manufacturing the same way to other global entities, what will be left for America to produce and market at this rate?

They just don't get it: we can't compete in a global economy if we have nothing to market, and it was research and development tha's been our forte for so long.

It's sombering for me, since science is my field, and here I watch it slowly atrophying away. Soon there'll be nothing but Wal-marts.


RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 3:16:22 PM , Rating: 5
I get what you mean, and I agree. While the good and great minds of the country get booted and have to do less with their gifts, blowhards and lazy bums get to sit around and collect all the money they don't deserve.

We need a president who will run an intensive Six Sigma analysis on all federal agencies and boot all the useless morons from their cushy government jobs. Then start trimming all the unnecessary government regulation agencies. Then restrict welfare and medicaid to the people who actually need it, and quit sending it to a bunch of people who simply refuse to work. Then we'll have plenty of money for science and research that will actually do some good.


RE: Of course
By mcnabney on 9/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By Alexvrb on 9/29/2011 8:22:29 PM , Rating: 5
There are good regulations and bad regulations. You do realize some of the bad regulations that we have in place helped cause this recent banking crisis, right? The ones that forced banks to make bad loans, with the underlying understanding that if things went south, the government would cover their losses?

(It did, and we did cover their losses)


RE: Of course
By Klinky1984 on 9/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2011 11:20:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Banks did backflips to get people into bad loans so they could sell them on


Of course! Because the Government gave them incentives them to do it. Duh! Banks weren't doing it before because it was risky and they didn't have the government essentially subsidizing high risk loans. Banks used to basically tell your ass that if you couldn't come up with the 15 or 30 percent down on the loan you could hit the damn door. But Clinton and the Democrats decided that this was "racists" because it unfairly "disenfranchised" minority home buyers.

If you leave cheese out, the mouse is gonna come out and get it. Banks were forced, true, they were just interfered with by the Government and, predictably, an unintended consequence arose.

quote:
There was no regulation needed, the banks willingly wanted to make the loans & ship them upstream.


Irrelevant. Those loans DID NOT EXIST before. Government created the sub-prime market and it's predictable crisis, end of story.

Instead of spouting "deregulation" like some MSNBC puppets, why don't you do a simple Google search on the history of sub-prime mortgages and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)?? You might actually learn something.


RE: Of course
By sgw2n5 on 9/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By Manch on 9/30/2011 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 3
Always personal attacks, never any facts. Instead, how bout posting a link or somthing.


RE: Of course
By chick0n on 10/2/2011 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
you seriously need to get ur facts straight b4 any more bs comes out of ur mouth, or typed with ur fingers.

I don't watch fox news at all but I do know it's the government that created this mess. or maybe u're too freaking dumb and native to understand?


RE: Of course
By SilthDraeth on 10/2/2011 12:36:36 PM , Rating: 1
To native. I like that. lol.

Sorry guys, I am to native to understand.


RE: Of course
By snakeInTheGrass on 9/29/2011 10:48:21 PM , Rating: 4
As Kinky points out, you're eating the political crap right out of the Republican party's hand if you believe that banks were 'forced' to make bad loans.

There were low income programs in place (Low Income Housing and Tax Credits, for example), but if you think that stuff had ANYTHING to do with banks issuing loans for huge, overpriced homes to people who had insufficient incomes to cover them, cooking up Alt-A, subprime, interest-only & no-money-down loans, and simultaneously pushing to raise the baseline for 'conforming' loans (non-jumbo), you might want to look into it further. Banks made money at closing (lots of juicy up-front fees) and were able to bundle these 'assets' for investors everywhere as though they had real value even when a fair piece of those assets were almost certain to be worthless. The people making the decisions made money THEN, and if it all came tumbling down it didn't matter - they had their money already.

The Dems have plenty of thier own flaws, but de-regulating banking wasn't the main one... well, actually, they allowed the deregulation in exchange for banks promising to help low-income people more, so they did have a hand in it as well, but it was the total lack of oversight and the short-term profits that had Wall St. pushing loans to anyone with a pulse.

The GSE's (Fannie, Freddie) had a hell of a lot more thorough underwriting requirements than Wall St. They now have more crap on their books thanks to the government taking them over and using them to purchase bad assets from Wall St. banks, but certainly didn't lead the pack in bad assets going into the mortgage crisis.

There also happened to be no explicit guarantee for the GSE loans (implicit - as in 'they'd never let it happen', but nothing actually guaranteeing it), and certainly not for the other banks. You can thank ALL of our political leaders for making sure that WE now own the bad loans through Fannie and Freddie, and that the bankers got their big bonuses and bailouts.

And if you're looking for another 'bad regulation' that helped create the crisis, look to the Fed and the low interest rates put in place to try to cover up the previous recession (.com bubble) by pretending that real estate / housing was so strong that the economy had no issues.

Anyway, 'forced banks to make bad loans' is just a f'ing irritating Limbaugh-style crock. Top execs 'forced' to take $200 million+ bonuses based on unregulated bad business? They had 'no idea' anything bad could happen to their companies? And it was all to give homes to the poor? Ya really think so?

Sadly, many people really do. Sorry, I worked in that industry, and the political spin on it just really gets me... the clowns behind it are running the government's financial policies with a revolving door policy between Washington and Wall St. regardless of which party is in power, but the deregulation push is more the doing of the party screaming the loudest about how the poor were behind the mess. What a joke.


RE: Of course
By lamerz4391 on 9/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By jfish222 on 10/3/2011 1:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
One will never please the trolls (ie: Lamerz w/ the brilliant critique of your post.)

I happen to work in the financial industry and find your observations to be quite accurate.

Given the time you've spent providing such a thoughtful explanation, it may be helpful to provide links to 3rd party explanations from credible news sources (my way of saying not fox or msnbc.)

Again, less for the idiots and more to be helpful in explaining the situation to those who do not have an "insider" view. Though we have understanding, this being a forum causes us to lack credibility.

I'm posting a link below . . . .
The issue is a bit more nuanced than this interviewee describes. (I haven't heard him discuss Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr era deregulations but haven't finished. I also haven't heard the Fed's use of low interest rates to boost the economy far longer than should have occurred.) But many of the nuts and bolts are quite valid and backup snake's observations.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

Yes, I went for the audio interview as I don't expect my fellow DT'ers to read on such a lengthy topic.
;)


RE: Of course
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 10:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody forced banks to make the loans. CRA1977 had nothing to do with it, Jimmy Carter wasn't responsible.

The GOP bill Gramm-Leach-Bliley was voted into law in 1999 and signed by Bill Clinton. It was a deregulation bill that was hailed as a new phase in our prosperity but it allowed financial institutions that had no business to be in banking to get into banking.

Massive corruption followed, lots of curious financial instruments were created, lots of fraudulent loans were handed out, and of course lots of money was made by very few. It wasn't going to last...

Blame the homeowners all you want, but in the end it was the industry that came up with Alt-A's, Subprimes and it was the industry that securitized the loans and sold them off to transfer the risk and garner quick profits.

The blame the government shares was allowing its incestuous relationship with an obviously corrupt financial sector.


RE: Of course
By fteoath64 on 10/5/2011 8:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
@dgingerich: You missed the most important thing about these people. They are corrupted to the core!. The whole group needs to be removed and a new system put in place. The work process has been also corrupted so you are really screwed if there is an attempt to make a gradual fix.

Just look at the number of federal czars being created. They just creates new empires amongst themselves and with almost uncontrolled power, it corrupts. The system is getting from bad to worse and real reboot and reset/retrograde upgrade needed. IF a pres wants to do this surely he will not live long, just look at JFK.


RE: Of course
By jecs on 9/29/2011 5:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I am a graphic artist but I understand your arguments and I think you are absolutely right. And I might understand if the government consider some projects are end of life but that they understand and believe in other most ambitious science investments. But how could someone in Washington know where the next big development will come from. You just need to invest more and cover more ground not abandon the field where it is generally perceived the next big discovery will come from, as the Higgs boson. The risk is always a factor but all the government needs to do is a very moderate investment on a project that is already running. Not something you need to start building today.


RE: Of course
By TheEinstein on 10/2/2011 8:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
I would have rather funded this than all the stupid solar projects.

Think of it... Solyndria lost 5 times what this project asks for, and we get more from potential fusion break throughs than a fail of Solar fiction


RE: Of course
By TheEinstein on 10/2/2011 8:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and as a Politician, I endorse this message I just wrote.


RE: Of course
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 10:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The failure of Solyndra spoke volumes about executive corruption in the private sector, not about the viability of solar power.


RE: Of course
By bug77 on 9/29/2011 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
Oh well... You'll always have Hollywood ;-)
That's there seems to be on the mind of the American politician these days.


RE: Of course
By WinstonSmith on 9/30/2011 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Losing our space program, and losing our science..."

The signs of the decline of a country. Meanwhile, trillions in public funds continue to be spent worldwide to rescue those wealthy interests who should be have been allowed to go bankrupt back in 2008 due to their own stupidity and greed.

By the way, the Large Hadron Collider which was judged to be "too expensive" for us to build unilaterally in the US or even to take part in has cost $9 billion dollars total thus far, less than three months worth of the US military involvement in Afghanistan (@ $3.6 billion per month).


RE: Of course
By Solandri on 10/1/2011 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Large Hadron Collider which was judged to be "too expensive" for us to build unilaterally in the US or even to take part in has cost $9 billion dollars total thus far

To be fair, that's about half of NASA's budget, or about as much as the entire shuttle program cost in a year. By the standards of non-health related science funding here, it was indeed "too expensive".


RE: Of course
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Supercolliders have one problem....they don't make investors money. Thats a crime to an American, everything must make money.


RE: Of course
By TSS on 9/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By EricMartello on 9/29/2011 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry to say this (and to get another -1 but oh well) but the american people suck. It's your elected representatives that made this decision, thus by extention, the people.


America hasn't had a representative government for ages. It's a lobbyist government where the only ones getting meaningful representation are rich corporations. A growing number of Americans - myself included - are quite fed up with the cancerous government system that has infected our country.

quote:
Maybe if you where less occupied with American idol, Fox news and banning plant food (CO2), physics would occupy a larger part of your culture.


The mainstream populace of any first world country is going to be a bunch of dim-witted sheeple. Europe is no different...the average person there is just as dumb as the average American.

quote:
There's NOTHING stopping you for voting anything else other then republican and democrat. There's NO REASON why these 2 parties need to be in power constantly. Even with their massive campaign spending and everything, what makes us human is Choice. And if people choose damnation, they are entitled to damnation. I heard there's a 3rd party, called liberals, which almost nobody votes for. Why is that?


LOL, as dumb as americans are they're not stupid enough to vote in a liberal. I guess that is one plus point for us.

quote:
I understand you might not agree with their points but that doesn't mean you can't vote on them purely out of protest. Ron paul is close to an household name and was last elections as well, and was an independant party, why did nobody vote for him? Just to spite the existing rulers?


Protest or spite? LOL...that's why we have Obama right now. What did he do for the USA except take Bush's failures and amplify them?

quote:
I understand you might not agree with their points but that doesn't mean you can't vote on them purely out of protest. Ron paul is close to an household name and was last elections as well, and was an independant party, why did nobody vote for him? Just to spite the existing rulers?


Most people will not vote for someone they disagree with...and you're reasoning is flawed. The americans who are fed up don't want to worsen the situation, they want a positive change to come about. The best solution is going to be a complete overhaul of the current system, which means tearing the current regime down and going back to the representative form of goverment that the USA was founded upon. Lobbyism needs to go.

quote:
The only reason i'm not planning to shoot the politicians responsible, is because it's looking like next elections the socialists will be the next big party. Why? Because they've NEVER been in power.


Socialists have never been in power? Stalin says hi.

quote:
We have our own problems, sure. But atleast there's still some fight in the people over here to get a better future. I cannot say the same for americans. Home of the brave? Hah. Home of the docile. This comming from a guy who, as a kid, considered the USA to be the greatest country in the world. Now, i don't even dare go on holiday over there.


How's that gun control working out for you there in Europe...oh wait...your citizens have been disarmed by their government and now you're all at the mercy of those in power.


RE: Of course
By HolgerDK on 9/29/2011 4:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Socialists have never been in power? Stalin says hi.

communist =/= socialist

Besides that, im pretty sure he means the socialists in Holland/The Netherlands.

quote:
How's that gun control working out for you there in Europe...oh wait...your citizens have been disarmed by their government and now you're all at the mercy of those in power.

So, how many people gets killed by guns in the US every year?....


RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 5:02:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So, how many people gets killed by guns in the US every year?....


Less than 1/3 of the people who are killed by cars.

In 2009 (the latest statistics I could find), over 46,000 people died by car accidents. 12,600 died of intentional gun related violence, this includes intentional murders and killings during other crimes. 613 died of accidental gunshot wounds.

Sure, 17,000 died of suicide by gun, but those don't really count because those people would find a different way to do it anyway. (I'm partial to sitting the bathtub and putting ammonia and bleach in the toilet, it's less messy and less painful.)

Of the 46,000 people killed in auto incidents, over 30,000 were speed related, and 11,000 were loss of control due to careless or reckless circumstances. In other words, stupidity kills more than twice the number of people than guns do in the US.

Don't ban guns, ban stupid people.

Oh, and it's Libertarian. They're government minimalists. I like them, but they are a bit extreme for my taste.

A different party isn't the answer. If we just get stupid people to stop voting, then we'd actually have a decent government. Like I said, ban stupid people.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/29/2011 5:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
+1

quote:
If we just get stupid people to stop voting, then we'd actually have a decent government. Like I said, ban stupid people.
So your saying we should ban reps and dems?

So a different party is the answer? ;-)
quote:
Oh, and it's Libertarian. They're government minimalists. I like them, but they are a bit extreme for my taste.
Please note that the way our gov't is set up, no one faction will ever have their way completely. So look at third party platforms a a direction that you want to head and not necessarily where you want to end up. Plus, along the way you may actually want to end up there. Libertarianism is nice that way. Once you have a good look at what's happening, you actually will be able to head on back to the situation we are in now if you like. With socialism it is not so easy I think.


RE: Of course
By sigmatau on 9/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 11:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
um, no, I didn't bring up guns, the other guy did.

I also didn't compare anything to "Stalin" Europe.

Where do you get this?


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 2:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that I don't agree with what you are saying, but...
quote:
quote:
communist =/= socialist

Communism = socialism, but socialism is not neccesarily communism. Communism is a subset of socialism if I am not mistaken.


I think you misinterpreted.. =/= as in a slash through an equal sign.. as in not equal. I'm more into PHP myself, so I'd have gone with !=

And communism is not at all socialism.. Think of communism as a construct, and socialism as a philosophy. A system that severely controls a populace to maintain dominance and relative equality, versus a philosophy that we as humans should do what we can to help each other. In a way they are compatible, but still not at all alike.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you misinterpreted.. =/= as in a slash through an equal sign.. as in not equal. I'm more into PHP myself, so I'd have gone with !=
LMAO!

quote:
And communism is not at all socialism.
I think you are totally wrong here. And I am sure about it this time. I do know that communism = the elimination of private property. What other motivation for this would there be if not a socialist one? But I do know what you are saying otherwise and agree with your construct v. philosophy explanation.

So what I am saying is that if someone calls himself a socialist and his neighbor calls him a communist then their neighbor is in error.

And if someone calls himself a communist and his neighbor calls him a socialist then there is no error.

By your definition, Ron Paul is a socialist since he wants to do his best to help others. Though he believes that a constitutional republic (a.k.a. a 'free country' lol) is the best way to get there instead of a different political structure such as communism. I guess I too am a socialist to a degree since I am a FOSS user, suporter and advocate regardless of the fact that I vote libertarian. I can agree to that. But I think when the term socialist is thrown around the political arena, they mean someone who wants to "point a gun" at someone else and make them "be nice" to others ;-). Anyway, this has been a good discussion. Cheers.


RE: Of course
By EricMartello on 9/30/2011 7:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
communist =/= socialist

Besides that, im pretty sure he means the socialists in Holland/The Netherlands.


Stalin was considered a socialist.

quote:
So, how many people gets killed by guns in the US every year?....


What does that have to do with anything? People are killed by many things each year, and no gun ever killed a person - although a person may have used a gun to kill another person, it doesn't justify disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why don't you ask how many lives were spared from becoming victims of violent crimes because they were armed with a gun and able to fend off their assailant? Fcking idiot.


RE: Of course
By Solandri on 10/1/2011 12:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
communist =/= socialist
Besides that, im pretty sure he means the socialists in Holland/The Netherlands.

Stalin was considered a socialist.

This is the problem with arguing with idealists. If a practical attempt to implement their ideal doesn't work, they point to all the little reasons why the attempt didn't match their ideal, and thus doesn't qualify. Communism was indeed an extreme form of socialism. In fact that's its whole rationalization of a worker's revolution. That it didn't work out in practice, and got subverted into a mechanism to keep a few cronies in power is real-world data on the feasibility of (extreme) socialism. When you take away power from individuals under the rationale that individual ambition (greed) is bad, and concentrate it in the state, the state tends to become corrupt.

You cannot compare an ideal to a practical implementation. If you wish to talk about idealized socialism, then you have to compare it to an idealized democracy, or even idealized fascism. If you wish to compare real, existing Western democracies to socialism, you have to compare them to real, existing socialist experiments like communism.

quote:
quote:
So, how many people gets killed by guns in the US every year?....

What does that have to do with anything? People are killed by many things each year, and no gun ever killed a person - although a person may have used a gun to kill another person, it doesn't justify disarming law-abiding citizens.

The gun-related homicide rate in the U.S. is more or less offset by the higher suicide rate in the EU. Here are the suicide rates (per 100,000) for various countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

24.6 - Japan
18.3 - Finland
17.6 - Belgium
17.0 - France
15.8 - Sweden
15.1 - Switzerland
12.8 - Austria
11.6 - Ireland
11.4 - Norway
11.3 - U.K.
11.1 - U.S.
9.5 - Germany

Gun-related homicides in the U.S. were about 4.2 per 100,000; total homicides about 4.8 per 100,000. Homicides in Western European countries about 1.5 per 100,000.

So the overall suicide + homicide rate of the EU more or less matches that of the U.S. It's just that when someone is killed, people blame the killer or the device used to kill. But when a social system creates factors which cause someone to kill themselves, people blame the victim instead of the social system.


RE: Of course
By Iaiken on 10/2/2011 12:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo on not being able to tell the difference between when someone takes their own lives and when someone takes the life of another person. Lay off the drugs.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/29/2011 5:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe is no different...the average person there is just as dumb as the average American.

You are completely missing his point. He is saying that they having stepped out of the box a bit instead of repeatedly going back to the same 2 parties (or one party) are actually different than us.

I think he is talking about things like the tea party movement that does want to return the federal gov't back to its roots as a minor role in our lives (this is contrary to the beliefs of either of the 2 parties). He is wondering why there are not more people like this instead of the people who just believe and do whatever the 2 parties say.

And I think he means libertarian and not liberal. You should've been able to figure that one out. You know liberal really means free when taken out of the politi-speak, right? That means free as in free markets, free speech, etc. Being liberal (freedom) is really a good thing, unless you want the gov't to control whether or not you shack up with a man or a woman, or whether you want to abort a fetus. Social issues aside, republicans are actually supposed to be 'liberals' as far as the markets go and the role of gov't itself. But we have seen for decades that they fail to adhere to this (probably because they can't compete like that when the dems are buying votes). This effectively make our two party system into one party: the party of big gov't, and less freedom. And we've been voting for them for decades.

There are lobbyists here and that is hardly the problem. Those people lobby the gov't based on the desires of their customers. If you don't like what Anheuser-Busch InBev (for example) is doing in D.C. then it is our responsibility as free people to stop supporting their efforts. But we are too docile as he pointed out and keep buying their lobbyist-fund-raising beer.

It is in the damn preamble of our beloved Constitution, "We the people..."

We know we are in charge. He is wondering why we don't act like it.

Get off the guy's back. He is not acting like Holland is all that better. He pointed out several times that they have their own problems that you think you needed to point out to him. Plus English seems to be his second language. His main point is that he thinks they are waking up while we remain docile.

My only contention to him is that I think we are waking up (see tea partiers or Ron Paul followers, etc.)... just very slowly, and it may be too late before it all goes to crap. Go to a tea party rally or any rally and help keep the discussion on limiting gov't so we can enjoy the freedom that our ancestors fought and died for. Otherwise the loud minority (including the media) will keep the discussion on social issues and we will continue to see headlines such as,"Tea partier brandishes allegedly racist sign" or "President Obama make allegedly racist speech". I don't give a flying f if he is or they are racists. They certainly don't speak for the majority of Americans.

Though those things are wrong, we should keep focus on the bigger fish. And to me, that is limiting gov't...step 1: buck the 2 party system.


RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 6:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
I want to correct the label of "liberal" you mention. You said "liberal" means "free" when that is far from the "liberal" platform these days. In the US, "liberal" means more government regulation and taxes, less freedom to do business (any attempt to make a profit from hard work is considered evil), and all white men are racist and sexist. There is nothing "free" about the liberal platform in the US these days.


RE: Of course
By ClownPuncher on 9/29/2011 7:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
That's just because we have corrupted the word.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. I mentioned 'politi-speak' but words are hard.


RE: Of course
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2011 7:21:09 PM , Rating: 1
Which is exactly why we should stop referring to them as "liberals" and instead call them "leftists" or "authoritarian statists" which more accurately describes them.


RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 2:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
I really appreciate these sentiments.. but you can't possibly think Ron Paul and the misnamed Tea Party are the answer, right..?

If so, I am afraid for my country.. Sure, some may want to go back to our roots, thus moving backwards -- but this is in no way a proper answer to our current situation. Instead, I feel that holding on to our roots too tightly is what landed us here to begin with.. Our republic lasted two hundred years, and we should be proud of that, but what we really need is to move forward -- not backwards.

And while I certainly respect Ron Paul for his conviction, I don't think he should have any place in modeling our nations future.. he's just not all too bright (though much more intelligent than any Tea Party candidate I've had the pleasure of meeting). This is the same guy that wants to abolish every government program from the Department of Education to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.. The same guy that feels that the government shouldn't be in the business of building bridges, roads, and much other needed infrastructures.. The same guy that doesn't believe in deregulation, but rather -- no regulation.. But, some libertarian.. he still hates the gays..

Is that what you call a step forward..?


RE: Of course
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 10:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes its a step forward to keeping our nation.
Study the rise and downfall of Rome, They are doing many things similar to the ancient Romans.

When you have a firm grasp what makes a sound economy you will understand that all these Regulations, Laws, Tarifs, Taxes, Federal Agencies are doing to our economy. I Suggest you watch "Free to Choose" on Youtube by Milton Friedman. Read on the differences between Austrian and Keyes Economics. Understand how wealth is acquired and built on.

Freedom is what makes everything we have today possible, and Government control is eroding our accomplishments. So I see big Government as a step backward akin to a Monoarchy.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 11:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the same guy that wants to abolish every government program from the Department of Education to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
First off let's get this out of the way... why do YOU think we need these bureaucracies? You do know that each State already has a dept of education, right? The FEDERAL dept of education is what Paul wants to eliminate. He would have the States free to abolish or not abolish their own dept of edu if they want. And that goes for "the gays" as well. He personally "hates the gays" as you say, but politically speaking (where it counts) he thinks states should be able to decide such moral issues as who can marry who and how old you have to be, etc. That is how it has been handled since the beginning and should not change unless you think all the states should be the same and we should take their freedom and just abolish them altogether.

And the DMV? I don't know where to start there. It is the butt of every "gov't is bad" joke, is it not?
quote:
“There are days when we don’t let the line move at all” –Patty and Selma, The Simpsons
quote:
misnamed Tea Party
If you are talking about the vanilla GOP groups in sheep's clothing (which is what everyone hears about on the news) I hear you loud and clear. On the other hand the greater tea party movement IS properly named since they are upset that they are not being represented properly. The original Boston Tea party was misnamed if you think that the word party can only mean "political party" instead of something like a "war party" because it wasn't a "political party" as we define them today. It was a group on the warpath. And a significant portion of the so-called tea-party-backed candidates have come from out of the established 2 party molds. So how is "the tea party movement" misnamed?
quote:
Sure, some may want to go back to our roots, thus moving backwards -- but this is in no way a proper answer to our current situation. Instead, I feel that holding on to our roots too tightly is what landed us here to begin with.. Our republic lasted two hundred years, and we should be proud of that, but what we really need is to move forward -- not backwards.
Do you not celebrate our independence every July 4th? Or respect our founding fathers for all the good they did for us and the world? Do you think everything that the federal gov't has done since its inception has been progress? If so, let's get prohibition going again, are you with me?!! No of course getting back to our roots doesn't mean that (or slavery for that matter!!) It means focusing on freedom instead of focusing on making the US the best in the world at the expense of our freedoms. That is what the Miracle on Ice was all about. We didn't care enough to make sure that we had the best hockey players out there enough to have the gov't train them from birth. We believed in freedom and it was wonderful to see freedom triumph over the alleged efficiency of communism. The whole cold war was freedom vs. communism. (Ironically we lost much freedom along the way to "victory" IMHO.)

And you are wrong about Ron Paul and "no regulation." He is pro-private or even state regulation (e.g. ESRB, Underwriters Laboratories, anti-smoking laws, Consumer Reports, Good Housekeeping, 80 Plus, etc.). Though he may not agree with these various regulations or certifications, he thinks that this should be up to the states and consumers/voters. For example, if CR says that you should not buy a Lexus, you still can do it if you find somehow that CR is mistaken. But if the NHTSA says you shouldn't buy a Lexus, then you actually cannot buy a Lexus. And the USDA won't let me buy raw milk from a farmer if I should so choose. With highway safety it can be argued that other people may be negatively affected by another person's decision, but raw milk?! Sheesh!

Such regulation takes the responsibility (legally speaking) away from the company and places it on the gov't. Which of course cannot go out of business. And rarely are the individual gov't employees that made mistakes ever held personally responsible. Get rid of such regulations and the consumer and the manufacturer will be held responsible (under well-established existing law) for the agreement that they enter into as their transactions are made.


RE: Of course
By Iaiken on 9/30/2011 11:23:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
he thinks states should be able to decide such moral issues as who can marry who and how old you have to be, etc.


If the federal government wasn't able to put it's foot down on social issues, blacks would still not be allowed to vote in southern state elections or attend the same schools as whites.

Smarten up, or at least stop being a retard.


RE: Of course
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 1
Nice Strawman.


RE: Of course
By Iaiken on 9/30/2011 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 3
It's only a straw-man in your imagination.

Had the federal government not stepped in, it is possible, even likely that racial segregation in the south would still be going strong. The governor of Mississippi went as far as to incite riot to prevent James Meredith from being enrolled at Ole Miss.

Once again we have a group of people who want the same rights as everyone else and once again it is going to be up to the Federal Government to stand up for them against prejudicial states.

Hiding behind a statement like "gay couples can just move to another state if they really want to get married" is no more acceptable than saying "black students can just move to another state if they really want to go to school". :P


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 6:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had the federal government not stepped in, it is possible, even likely that racial segregation in the south would still be going strong.
What do you base that on? Nice unfounded speculation.

Next I suppose you will say, "Its a good thing the French freed the English colonists in the soon-to-be US," or how about, "Its a good thing the Russians stepped in to free the Indian people from the English," or "Its a good thing the gov't hired MLK to lead a "million" men to the feet of Lincoln," or "Good thing we had a second civil war to emancipate the women!"...because they happened anyway. These people did these things of their own accord and moved mountains. Oh how did we function before the Civil War? We were never perfect and it is stupid to think that the federal gov't can suddenly do as much. We have always been a work in progress..."in Order to form a more perfect Union" we established the Constitution.

I personally think that it is 1) pretty narrow minded and offensive to assume that the black slaves would never fight for their freedom of their own accord and 2) narrow minded and offensive to assume that the rest of the population would stand up for such abuse much longer. It was clear to see that the abolitionist movement was gaining steam. That is why the south succceded in the first place. Had the federal gov't just let the states do as they please, they would only have the individuals and political groups to contend with. I really believe that the war did more harm than good as it usually does. I feel it would be wrong of me to claim that this is certain. But that is also my view of your opinion...that it is to say, you can't prove it and shouldn't blindly assume that it is fact. So it is right of you to say "it is possible, even likely that racial segregation in the south would still be going strong." Especially since it IS still going on...just not as strong...and not just in the south.

We needed an amendment, but I don't agree that it needed to be at the point of a gun. There is nowhere in our constitution that says war is a part of the process of amending the constitution.

I mean if you don't agree with me then you can't really argure that the war in Iraq was a bad thing regardless of how we got there. I mean we are liberating people, right? So, way to go Bush! You are the new Lincoln!

Obama can do even better if we liberate the n. Koreans! Talk about oppression!


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 11:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be negating the simple fact that our southern states seceded from the USA over the simple fact that they thought they had the right to deny basic human rights to those of a different race.. Moreover, it was an aristocratic sense of pride that they held themselves above the rest of mankind.

In many ways, this same philosophy still stands today, though these former southern 'aristocrats' have devolved into toothless rednecks with barely a pot to piss in. These same states still believe that Christianity should be the state religion, and all equal rights should be abolished in it's name. To this day, many more maintain that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual unions than a federal statute mandating equal treatment -- an outright affront to equality under any guise.

Personally, I am enraged whenever I see some ignorant **** flying the confederate flag on his pickup truck, and have been known to set a great many on fire. You don't want freedom for all -- go somewhere else.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
take Iakens advice stop being a retard, and stop lying about setting fire to confederate flags, the rednecks would stomp your racist dumbass into a mudhole.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
wow... I invite you to fly a confederate flag in front of me and see what happens. Too many have sacrificed their lives to protect our freedom, I have no tolerance at all for the ignorant ****s that choose to negate it.

If you don't want equality and freedom for all, do us all a favor and leave.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 10/1/2011 7:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you're a tough talker over the internet. If I had a confederate flag I would wipe your ass with it, then shove it down your throat


RE: Of course
By Iaiken on 10/2/2011 12:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, you're a tough talker over the internet.


First his says this:

quote:
If I had a confederate flag I would wipe your ass with it, then shove it down your throat


Then he does this.

I love me a tough-talking internet hypocrite.

They save everyone the work of making them look stupid.

Truck on yokel. Truck on.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 10/3/2011 2:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to be negating the simple fact that our southern states seceded from the USA over the simple fact that they thought they had the right to deny basic human rights to those of a different race.
Yeah that may be so, but the federal gov't (of the North) was just as the South. It was the States who individually decided to liberate the slaves on their own terms. Had we had a totalitarian federal gov't this sort of progress would've would've never happened as soon in the first place.

And with regards of the stars and bars, I actually like them being a freedom lover (states' rights-wise). But unfortunately their may be racist undertones. I mean basically I'd guess that <10% of the time it is meant to be racist and the rest of the time it is just to say that you are a rebel or you love the south or whatever. Too bad the the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons have turned it into something that it isn't. Like Hitler's mustache lol (a.k.a the Chaplin). If that moron Al Sharpton knew what antebellum meant, he would probably call for a boycott of "Lady Antebellum" lol. Let's not turn things into something that they are not.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 10/5/2011 3:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
its called irony and sarcasm, so quit making yourself look stupid. You racist moron.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
You should take your own advice and stop being a retard.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 10:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm as patriotic as any other.. but I'm not so blind as to be conceited or easily fooled.

I'm personally of the mind that our confederacy (yes, confederacy, as each state operates almost completely autonomously) is antiquated, and needs to be reformed if not entirely dismantled.

Quite simply, so many states do such a horrible job managing themselves, I personally feel that many state rights should be abolished. For example, a public education here in Ohio is in no way equivalent to that of a state such as NY or CT -- a high school degree means absolutely nothing, unless it's taken into the context of from where it was rewarded. Additionally, welfare programs such as medicaid, though mandated on a federal level, are managed on a state-by-state basis, many detrimentally/inadequately so. Again, our federal government mandates and contributes to the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure including interstates, bridges, and utility supply; though many states outright embezzle these funds while neglecting the public works that need to be managed.

You may argue that the federal government holds too much control (by our Constitution's design it certainly does, though I subject it's a necessity), but in my opinion this fact only exists because the states cannot guarantee a minimum standard quality of life to it's citizens. We have areas of this country that have much akin to third world nations, a fact that I consider an affront to our nation as a whole. In reality, the federal government doesn't at all control what goes on in any state, but instead threatens to withhold federal funding when a state refuses to submit to minimum standards set forth by federal statutes. Yet still, the rest of the nation is continuously brought down by mismanaged states such as SD, AL, IN, KY, LA, MS, NE, and my own dear Ohio.

In my opinion, this entire confederacy should be reformed into a freely operated republic (basically, provincial in form), where a state signifies not much more than a postal code to send mail to. Continuously, mismanaged states (such as my own) bring the rest of the country's standards down to the most barely acceptable levels, making the entire nation suffer as a whole.

In summation, we have 3 choices in moving forward.. maintain the current keel and hope for the best, return to an antiquated confederacy that is guaranteed to ruin our nation, or move forward into an outright socialist nation that can guarantee the ability to sustain itself as a whole.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, you're from Ohio, that explains it. Apologies to the non-idiots from Ohio.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:27:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I live in Ohio, I'm from California.. In the same sense that I can't stand the idiocracy of my current location, I left my previous one for many of he same reasons.


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 10/1/2011 7:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
So why don't you leave the U.S. altogether, to somewhere more to your liking, like Cuba?


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 10/3/2011 3:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, I'm as patriotic as any other.. but I'm not so blind as to be conceited or easily fooled.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you think that we today as a group are better/smarter individuals than the founding fathers...that is conceited. So I don't know what you mean.
quote:
I'm personally of the mind that our confederacy (yes, confederacy, as each state operates almost completely autonomously) is antiquated, and needs to be reformed if not entirely dismantled.
Ok, let's talk about that then. Are you for a global state? One nation world? Do you also want to get rid of municipal gov't as well and have it all controlled by one bureaucracy at the federal level? I'm just asking because I'd like to know how far you would like to take that idea. And if you did, how would the people ever control such a giant beast of a gov't?
And if you say this...
quote:
Yet still, the rest of the nation is continuously brought down by mismanaged states such as SD, AL, IN, KY, LA, MS, NE, and my own dear Ohio.
...then why would you want the rest of the states connected with them? Why should one state be punished for the mistakes made by the other? Especially when we all have different cultures and lifestyles. For example: Some states like Nascar.
Why should the treehuggers in CA subsidize the lifestyle of those states? Because that is what you propose. And when a state like CA spends itself into oblivion, why should modest MO bail them out a la 2008? This is one of the main reasons that the tea party movement started from what I gather.

It is funny how you and I have different thoughts on the Midwest seeing how I moved to MO 4 years ago and love it (I don't know anything about OH though). I also love my native CA, but it is crazyville politically speaking.

But we both are no longer there. I'm guessing you also moved because of a job. That is not much of a coincidence these days as no one wants to do business there anymore.


RE: Of course
By Starcub on 10/5/2011 8:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My only contention to him is that I think we are waking up (see tea partiers or Ron Paul followers, etc.)... just very slowly, and it may be too late before it all goes to crap. Go to a tea party rally or any rally and help keep the discussion on limiting gov't so we can enjoy the freedom that our ancestors fought and died for.

No the people are not waking up, and your post is proof of it. Have you noticed that the people who wear the 'tea party' label are all actually republicans? The tea party is a reactionary creation of the republican party created as a hedge against what the republicans knew would be immensely unpopular. In fact, I'd love to see that lady with the caked on face become president. Should the republicrats decide to pass another stimulus bill, she would be the ultimate slap in the face of the american sheeple; sheeple that will continue to play ping pong between mammon v.1 and mammon v.2.

Alternatively, you have the doomed quixotic third party candidates who haven't decided to join the parties. Good luck with them. Imagine Ron Paul trying to run as the libertarian he professes to be. One only needs to look as far as Ross Perot to see how easy as it was for the republicrats to make a legitimate responsible third party candidate into a non-factor. So much easier it would be to marginalize someone tied to what has historically proven to be an irrational suicidal political philosophy. Although that is what the republican party has essentially become.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 2:26:38 AM , Rating: 5
Wow... seriously?

I do absolutely agree that we have a lobbyist gov't, though by design we've always stayed a bit more of a confederacy than a republic, in my eyes one of the major failings of our form of government (as in, there is no standard.. quality of life, education standards, and civil protections vary greatly from state to state).

And to say that Europe is as bad off as us.. not even close. Sure, their entire economic system wavers incredibly with the slightest shudder of our markets, which is merely just a testament to our sheer size and discretionary purchasing power. Other than that.. the last 5 decades, we've repeatedly fell behind on education and sane regulation.

quote:
The mainstream populace of any first world country is going to be a bunch of dim-witted sheeple. Europe is no different...the average person there is just as dumb as the average American.

Our education system is a joke at best -- we have kids graduating that don't know how to read, while in Europe many children learn 2-3 languages even before entering primary school, and repeatedly trounce our students in math/science testing. Yet again and again, every politician we have, regardless of party, always chooses to pillage the funding of our children's education to make up for their budget shortfalls, while protecting tax breaks that allow massive corporations like GE to literally pay no taxes at all.

Our medical system is broken.. and I'm sorry, I can't imagine anyway to fix it. Had we gone the way of FDR's second bill of rights back in the 40s, we'd be in a lot better shape right now; but instead, disease and infections run rampant here, as most simply can't afford any adequate medical care (I say this having just swallowed a handful of ibuprofen, as I can't afford to spend a few thousand on x-rays of my back). Costs have skyrocketed for no reason at all -- such as the massive increases to the cost of malpractice insurance, despite the fact that the amount awarded in these cases has plummeted severely over the last two decades. Another example is the millions spent marketing and advertising pharmaceuticals, while to me it seems that a doctor is the only one qualified to pick out a patient's medications. The whole entire industry has been bloated to an astronomical affair, almost completely due to lack of government oversight and regulation.

quote:
How's that gun control working out for you there in Europe...oh wait...your citizens have been disarmed by their government and now you're all at the mercy of those in power.

And guns...? Seriously? Guns?! And the way you put it, it sounds like you are completely on the side of that nutjob gunman who attacked that congresswoman last year.. Besides hunting, what use is there at all for any gun other than to inflict or promote violence? Sure, gun related crimes have indeed slightly dropped in most places in the US, but you don't seem to realize that gun violence is virtually nonexistent in the rest of the civilized world. In my small rural county of 20,000 people, gun violence is on the rise.. in the last month alone, we've had 4 murders -- three domestic, the other done in outright execution style in the middle of a local bar. Before that, we had two 20yr old kids shot in the back of the head over a few hundred dollars in pills alone, leaving the one girl's infant daughter to fend for themself. Quite simply -- all handguns and assault weapons need to be outright banned, and the distribution and sale made into severe felonies. There just isn't any logical argument against it..

If you want to rail on about socialists and liberals, I suggest you go back to freshman political science and learn what the terms actually stand for. A simple fact is that that all 5 of the most prosperous nations in the world (Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway -- though Luxembourg and Lichtenstein were excluded from the index) are all arguably socialist governments (we made #7.. right behind Canada.. :\ ). What this country truly needs is a real liberal president, akin to FDR, to usher in a new age of American prosperity. By definition.. Obama is centrist-right wing -- just not good enough.

The tone presented here in many of these arguments is eerily akin to the same agenda that has been pushed on us over the last three decades -- the intentional bankrupting of our government, in order to have enough of an excuse to slash nearly all social program funding (social.. like socialist..? now you're getting it..). First it's education funding, then it's low income assistance and subsidized housing projects, then comes social/family community-based counselling funding, and after that -- the outright abolishment of Social Security (there's that nasty 'social' word again) and Medicare, leaving our elderly to rot in the gutters. Meanwhile, get rid of the taxes on the incorporated rich and abolish banking/business/antitrust regulations for being 'non business friendly'; letting the 'free market' decide what is best. The poor get poorer, uneducated and unable to fight for themselves, confused into thinking that all are woes can be blamed on illegal immigrants and China -- and the rich get so, so, sooo much more richer.. You act as if during our recent economic crises all that money simply vanished, while instead it just passed from the hands of many into the pockets of a few. It's been a long concerted effort spanning decades against every single one of us here, and things are only going to get much worse.

Meanwhile, the deciding factor for our next President will likely be -- who hates gays and abortions the most.


RE: Of course
By Paj on 9/30/2011 8:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
This.


RE: Of course
By inighthawki on 9/30/2011 9:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And guns...? Seriously? Guns?! And the way you put it, it sounds like you are completely on the side of that nutjob gunman who attacked that congresswoman last year.. Besides hunting, what use is there at all for any gun other than to inflict or promote violence? Sure, gun related crimes have indeed slightly dropped in most places in the US, but you don't seem to realize that gun violence is virtually nonexistent in the rest of the civilized world. In my small rural county of 20,000 people, gun violence is on the rise.. in the last month alone, we've had 4 murders -- three domestic, the other done in outright execution style in the middle of a local bar. Before that, we had two 20yr old kids shot in the back of the head over a few hundred dollars in pills alone, leaving the one girl's infant daughter to fend for themself. Quite simply -- all handguns and assault weapons need to be outright banned, and the distribution and sale made into severe felonies. There just isn't any logical argument against it..

Your argument against guns fails in the same way as most. If you take guns away from people, only the ones who shouldn't have them will. There's always a way to access guns and weapons, so cutting off the general public from being able to buy a handgun will not lower the number of criminal with them, it will only lower the number of people who buy them for self defense. You are so short minded and clearly biased for your side of the argument it's actually funny.

The number of people killed vs the number of guns owned in the entire country is a pathetically small ratio, bordering on a negligible statistic. All you would effectively be doing is preventing some people from getting self defense.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
I admit at this point, yes -- it's already a bit far gone. We've avoided and negated gun regulations for all too long, the result of which is that there are already way too many unaccounted for guns out amongst the public -- which is entirely the fault of private gun owners. But that doesn't mean it's too late to make things better..

There are many that argue that concealed carry states have lessened crimes, though statistical analysis had repeatedly proved otherwise. The simple fact is, if you have a gun in a moment of personal weakness, you are likely to use it. Keep in mind, though, that in most states open carry is entirely legal.. I don't have all that much of a problem with it, as I personally feel I have an absolute right to know if the person standing next to me is carrying a firearm. In my own county, after a cut of funding to our sheriffs department, a local judge advised citizens to arm themselves -- a ridiculous notion, only leading to propagate more violent crimes (refer to my statements above, local domestic situations ending in the murder of a spouse -- which otherwise wouldn't have occurred).

Having lived in this rural area for quite some time, I recognize two classes of gun owners. There are hunters, that are wise enough to understand and fear what a firearm is capable of; and always use them in that regard. Then you have those who feel like a handgun is an extension of themselves, almost a validation of their manhood. My own best friend has already mandated to me that his bachelor party will include several hours at a firing range, much to my chagrin (as I'm the best man...) -- I have nothing to prove, I know how to operate a firearm (I'm a dead shot, btw), and I have absolutely no reason at all to enjoy firing a weapon at human shaped targets. Admittedly, though... emptying a clip from a knockoff AK-47 into an empty stretch of woods is indeed quite enjoyable -- yet I'd gladly give up that right to deny it to those that choose to abuse it.

You may argue, what about the urban areas, where crime runs rampant? Don't you have to carry a gun to guarantee your own protection? Quite simply, if you carry a gun -- you make yourself a target. Having traveled this nation extensively (47/50 states), I've always had an affinity to enjoying the roughest neighborhoods. Yes, I have had a gun pulled on me in several occasions, but I'm wise enough to know that if I was carrying a gun, I'd of likely gotten shot instead if being forced to work out the misunderstanding. Even being a clean cut white guy strolling around East Oakland in the middle of the night, I've never found any trouble that I didn't invite upon myself.

Quite simply, fear alone and your own personal feelings of inadequacy, are indeed the most pathetic excuses to own a firearm.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 6:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to say that Europe is as bad off as us.. not even close. Sure, their entire economic system wavers incredibly with the slightest shudder of our markets, which is merely just a testament to our sheer size and discretionary purchasing power. Other than that.. the last 5 decades, we've repeatedly fell behind on education and sane regulation.
Last I heard, Europe wasn't policing the world with the biggest military on Earth. This might account for something. (Not that it is right IMO.)


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 6:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words...vote libertarian.


RE: Of course
By inighthawki on 9/29/2011 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry to say this (and to get another -1 but oh well) but the american people suck. It's your elected representatives that made this decision, thus by extention, the people.

While that's what is advertised, it is never what we have gotten. The problem is, despite being "voted in" and "chosen" by the people, the president is hardly ever an accurate representation of what people want. By the time election time comes around, you have the choice between one candidate from each party, and more accurately, it pretty much comes down to a single republican candidate vs a single democrat candidate. Neither of these two people ever accurately represent the country's wants as a whole. It's impossible for a single person to accurately represent even a majority of the people, so it really boils down to voting for the person who best represents the most important issue to the person, not the best for the country.

Our election process is completely awful, and our political system really has just about every possible way it can improve, but saying that this has anything to do with "the American people" and how much they "suck" is just a prime example of stereotyping the US as most other countries do for very little reason. You're greatly stereotyping the country and its people.


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2011 3:59:55 PM , Rating: 3
That last paragraph is just really offensive an off base. Who the hell are you to look down on us? Europe isn't any better off, it's worst in fact. A total economic collapse is staring you in the face and you think political musical chairs will save you?

What the hell with you people? You would not stand for an American to apply his nationalistic view of how politics should work in Europe. And yet you stand here with your typically European pompous attitude spewing ignorant ramblings about what's wrong with us?

Blaming the voters is the easy conclusion, and it's also completely wrong. American Government was meant to be bound by the Constitution so that it did not matter who was voted into office, they could not radically alter the balance and face of the country. You're looking at American parties from a typically European view of parties "ruling". In America no party or agenda was meant to "rule" the nation, merely to watch over it and keep things running until they were voted out. Over here Presidents are NOT kings, and Congress is NOT a Parliament.

The checks and balances on Government power placed on it by our Constitution have been undone, completely. THAT is the root of our problems, and until it's addressed it's not going to matter who we vote into office. Because ANYONE we vote into office today has too much unchecked power for our own good.

quote:
Now, i don't even dare go on holiday over there.


That's okay, you will not be missed.


RE: Of course
By Spiffy25 on 9/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/29/2011 6:18:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Blaming the voters is the easy conclusion, and it's also completely wrong. American Government was meant to be bound by the Constitution so that it did not matter who was voted into office, they could not radically alter the balance and face of the country.

quote:
The checks and balances on Government power placed on it by our Constitution have been undone, completely. THAT is the root of our problems, and until it's addressed it's not going to matter who we vote into office. Because ANYONE we vote into office today has too much unchecked power for our own good.
I guess it doesn't matter if the gov't was MEANT to be bound if the checks and balances were thrown out the window.

Who do you think undid those checks and balances? I'm thinking officials both elected and appointed (judicial branch I am looking at you!) by voters and their representatives.

So you are saying that it is the voters who are to blame and he is completely right. Or those potential voters who would rather watch AI instead of applying their own checks on the gov't (i.e. voting). After all a non-vote is effectively a vote that you don't care or are in agreement with the current state of gov't.

Do you really think that the face of this country/gov't hasn't changed substantially over the past 50 years or so? That is radical change in my opinion.

I'm not trying to offensively use your own words against you. It sounds good and all, but I honestly wonder what you mean by this. I see this horrid change from what the country was built on as completely the fault of the people. Thank you.


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2011 7:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do the "voters" get to decide on things like the FCC, FTC, CIA etc etc? I'm sorry but your post doesn't seem like it's ground in reality. Today, the vast majority of Government power is held by appointed bureaucrats that the voters can do nothing about.

The Supreme Court, another example. Do we hold elections for who becomes judge? Nope.

I'm not saying the voters are completely blameless, my god Obama won. I'm just saying pawning off this mess on them exclusively is a bit silly.


RE: Of course
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 11:36:13 PM , Rating: 3
“Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.”
? Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

The downfall of democracy is the tyranny of the minority cloaked in the mask of the majority, where it is either overthrown by its own excesses or eaten away by bureaucracy. First, a Civil Service law masked in the lie that it is the only way to correct demagogic excesses and spoils systems. Then the accumulation of power in places the voters could not touch. And finally, aristocracy. - Frank Herbert

A bureaucracy that does not answer to the people, specifically the FCC, FTC, EPA, etc, are the bane of democracy. they don't answer to the people, therefore create an aristocracy that rules over the people. This is something Frank Herbert say over half a century ago. Others have seen it and warned about it too. The voters in the US are just too stupid to see the dangers. We will fall and there is nothing we can do about it until after it happens. Europe and the US will fail and fall, soon. he economy is not likely to get better from here. We'll just get used to it after a little while and call it normal. Then things will collapse further, freedoms will be lost, people will starve, and we'll call it normal again. Eventually, we'll be nothing like the country that stood just 30 years ago, proud, accomplished, and flourishing. We'll just be consumed by aristocratic bureaucrats.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 2:54:02 AM , Rating: 1
Head in the clouds, quoting science fiction.. typical right-winger..


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 12:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm...I got the joke.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
Given our tertiary form of government, I don't imagine how it could operate otherwise..

Are we supposed to flush out the entirety of federal government every time the next prick assumes the role of the presidency? Of course not, and we as a nation passed a constitutional amendment to guarantee such..

As a whole, most federal agencies operate completely outside of the political realm, and rightfully so. Sure, the public doesn't get an explicit voice, but our political system is just too incredibly slow to allow for that.

The perfect examples of which are the FCC, the Department of Justice, and (I almost weep admitting this) the CIA/FBI. The FCC over the last decade had made many incredible landmark decisions on the side of us consumers, while politicians were too caught up in rhetoric to be of any use. And our federal police agencies for the most part do an incredible job operating without much involvement of politicians, who can be directly blamed for most of those agencies blunders. Also, our DOJ is an incredibly transparent and evenly managed subset of our executive branch, more often than not taking on many huge corporations or even the gov't itself over injustices that affect the populace as a whole (killed the ATT/TMobile merger -- thankfully!!!).

As for the others... The FTC repeatedly has it's hands tied at the behest of politicians whose campaign contributions force them to do so. The EPA, likewise, is repeatedly underfunded and circumvented so that they are unable to do their job -- maintain the health and welfare of us, the american people.

These problems simply won't change until we, the nation as a whole, commit completely to campaign financing reform. If politicians don't have to worry about who is going to pay for their next reelection every two-six years, perhaps they'll spend more time trying to do some good.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 2:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today, the vast majority of Government power is held by appointed bureaucrats that the voters can do nothing about.
This sounds like something that someone like Ron Paul would point out. As Americans, we may realize this like you and me, but do we vote for people like him? No, we vote for people who just want to point the finger at the other guys instead, and round and round it goes, which is precisely his point.

quote:
The Supreme Court, another example. Do we hold elections for who becomes judge? Nope.
Yeah I was the one who pointed that out specifically. If you don't like the ones appointing these people then don't vote for them. But no, the Average American will continue to vote for dems and reps regardless of who gets appointed.

The only option I see short of full-on revolution is to vote 3rd party or to push to reshape the 2 parties into something more relevant for today (a la voting in the primaries for people like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson who more accurately reflect the feeling of the nation instead of just the 'best' choice of 2 parties.) Unfortunately people try to play the "who is electable" game based on their impressions of the morons on the street instead of voting along the lines of their own philosophy. And of course the media loves it since it is like a football match instead of a serious political discussion.
quote:
I'm just saying pawning off this mess on them exclusively is a bit silly.
Again, if this is silly then maybe we as voters should change the Constitution to read, "We the Gov't..." instead of "We the People..." so as not to incriminate ourselves.


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2011 2:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh you guys and your Ron Paul. The guy has some good ideas, but he's a LOONEY TOON lol. If elected he wouldn't have the political power to change a light bulb, let alone eliminate the treasury and go back to the "gold standard" or whatever other crazy ideas he has.

Third Party is not some magical solution, sorry. You actually believe once they got to Washington they would carry through with their agenda even if they wanted to? That's hilarious. It's taken about 7 decades to get where we are now, so....

quote:
The only option I see short of full-on revolution


That would be faster and actually work, yes.

The problem is people vote for parties over ideology. Just because someone is a Republican doesn't mean he's Conservative. And just because a Democrat pretends to be a "moderate" doesn't mean he isn't a wacko Liberal.

American's DO stand up and make their vote count. Last year in the November primaries we absolutely saw a mass repudiation by the voters against the Liberal agenda of Obama and his cronies, leading to an absolute landslide victory for Conservatism and smaller government.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 10/3/2011 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ugh you guys and your Ron Paul. The guy has some good ideas, but he's a LOONEY TOON lol.
Kettle, meet pot ;-)

But seriously I'd rather have a fruit loop with some good ideas in the Whitehouse than some guy with a snazzy haircut and no good ideas, consistency or underlying philosophy. On the other hand do you not think that Obama or Bush are looney toons? Those two (and many others) are what the 2 party system have gotten us. So I say screw it. I still can't see why you are so attached.
quote:
You actually believe once they got to Washington they would carry through with their agenda even if they wanted to?
No, actually I don't. But I would sleep better knowing that neither the reps nor the dems would make any progress toward their alleged goals either (or at least they would run into a bit of trouble at the Whitehouse). I mean basically I am hoping that our next president isn't one who sees the need to convince us into a war (a la Bush, Obama, et al) and on the contrary we would need to talk him into one (if we see fit). That is one certainty with Paul or other libertarian-minded candidates be they republican of otherwise. You won't have to worry about us entering another G-D war.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
A third party isn't quite the perfect answer.. Instead, it'd be most advantageous to split the current 2 parties into many fractional parties, who would be forced to maintain like-minded coalitions to achieve anything. But unfortunately, the course is already set..


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 10/1/2011 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's already happening. The Republican party is pretty much splitting into two factions. The traditional Conservative Reagan Republicans (Tea Party), and the mainstream Republicans who want to keep the status quo and who become more and more moderate as time goes on.

Democrats? Well I don't see that happening. They are a very unified party. Obama has caused some backlash within the ranks, but there's no clear split as is the case with Repub's.


RE: Of course
By The Raven on 10/3/2011 2:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A third party isn't quite the perfect answer.
I didn't say that it was the perfect answer. I'm guessing that it would be a lot better than 2 choices though, which we most of us in the US have talked ourselves into believing that we are limited to.


RE: Of course
By woody1 on 9/29/2011 5:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the US is going through a period where a lot of people (maybe a majority) question the "intellectual elite". You can see this in the anti-science movements that challenge climate change, vaccinations, etc.

You can also see this trend in low intellectual quality of candidates that are being proposed by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.

Right now, there is a deep philosophical divide about how the US government should be structured. Progressives believe in a large, multi-functional Federal government and conservatives want to shrink the functions of the Federal government to a tiny basic core. It's pretty hard to find any way forward with this kind of split.


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2011 8:06:09 PM , Rating: 1
It really offends me when people call us Conservatives "anti-intellectual". We're not against science! We're against using pseudo-science to push a political agenda. And if you don't think that's what "climate change" is all about, you didn't do your homework.

quote:
You can also see this trend in low intellectual quality of candidates that are being proposed by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.


I don't think intelligence should be based on what part of the country you're from, how you talk, what you wear, or what kind of beverage you like. Unless you have IQ test results, you are ironically ignorantly portraying a cruel stereotype typically used by the Left against Conservatives.

Saying all Conservatives are low intellectual is no more fair or accurate than saying all Liberals are Communists.


RE: Of course
By Targon on 9/30/2011 2:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the so-called Conservatives that keep talking don't have a CLUE, and are themselves anti-intellectual in their attitudes. There is nothing wrong with not wanting the government to waste money on stupid crap, but the problem is that not a single politician who calls him/herself a conservative has pointed a finger at how the government pays more for the same labor and services than the private sector.

I'd rather see OVERPAID government workers get a pay cut than see a loss of jobs, and that is something that should be a huge focus by any politician. Oh, a clerk in some government office gets paid $85k/year plus a pension? Drop the pension, or drop the pay to $65k/year, money is saved and no job lost. Where is the call in Washington DC for THAT?!?


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 3:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather see OVERPAID government workers get a pay cut than see a loss of jobs, and that is something that should be a huge focus by any politician. Oh, a clerk in some government office gets paid $85k/year plus a pension? Drop the pension, or drop the pay to $65k/year, money is saved and no job lost. Where is the call in Washington DC for THAT?!?

Are you at all serious..? Having worked for the government in several instances (state and local, though bit of fed under contract), I can say that in 99% of cases this is an outright fabrication.. The government is incredibly cheap -- bottom level employees make wages nowhere close to their private sector counterparts. Likewise, most pension plans are at best matched, though usually are entirely funded out of the employees paycheck into a state managed pension fund. And worst of all -- your bosses are politicians, who have no idea what it's like to work for a living and truly believe a living wage is less than $10 an hour. On top of that, you have to worry about losing your job every time some ***hole politician gets elected on the promise of 'trimming the fat'.

There simply aren't any cooshy government jobs as you describe, outside of mid-management positions reserved for failed/ousted politicians.


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2011 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There simply aren't any cooshy government jobs as you describe


You're either a really good liar, or just spewing BS. I choose BS lol. Really man, get real.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 2:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Show me a conservative candidate that has the balls to say they don't believe in creationism.. let alone say they aren't of Christian faith.

So to me.. they are either intellectually stunted, or just hope that you are so they can intentionally mislead you into their favor..

And if you yourself believe in creationism... I'm so very, very sorry... The American education system, has left you behind..


RE: Of course
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2011 2:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a conservative candidate that has the balls to say they don't believe in creationism.. let alone say they aren't of Christian faith.


LOL that's just pandering to their base. SO what? Show me a Liberal candidate that doesn't play the same old class warfare blame-the-rich (even though they themselves are rich) crap?

quote:
And if you yourself believe in creationism... I'm so very, very sorry... The American education system, has left you behind..


Clearly because ALL Conservatives must be creationists...

/sarcasm


RE: Of course
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Show me ANY politician who proclaims he is an atheist.


RE: Of course
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
Of course... it would be political suicide.

Though you forget Bernie Franks, Al Franken, etc..

Not to mention given the writings of many of our founding fathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, I would surmise that they were certainly atheist.


RE: Of course
By Raiders12 on 9/29/2011 3:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
As an engineer and someone who believes in science, this is truly disheartening that they cant find $100 mil for science out of the monstrous $3.4 TRILLION.


RE: Of course
By MrBlastman on 9/29/2011 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
They can't find it because Fermilab can't pay their senators and congressmen kickbacks. They also are short on lobbyists and perks. This is truly another sad day for American science.

Maybe they should rename the accelerator the "penetrator" for one day and hold a shindig full of playboy mansion girls and other crap with politicians invited to change their minds. I think it'd work, at least, that is how our stupid, broken political system seems to work for now.


RE: Of course
By kangur on 9/29/2011 4:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is a sad day for science everywhere. My condolences to the United States people and to all the citizens of the World, because we all lose. Something is not right with your decision makers when they consider not worthy such basic and fundamental science. When they stopped the SSC as well as when they stop the Tevatron.
I hope this will change someday.


RE: Of course
By gorehound on 9/29/2011 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 1
That is how Washington works until we tear it down in the 2ND American Revolution.The system is completely broken.
Hey Drug Czar:
I would like to ram my broom where the sun does not shine on you................you piece of fucking shit.
LEGALIZE MARIJUANA YOU ASSHOLES !!!

This is a very sad day for science.Once again science gets the shaft while Washington goes on with their bullshit.Everyone should stop voting for any Democrats and Republicans.The only weay we will see any change at all is to either storm the Capital and have a revolutiuon which could kill innocent folks or we have to work together to vote all these schmucks out of office and put in new parties who will not do the things Reps and Dems are doing to us.
THE TWO PARTIES ARE KILLING OUR COUNTRY !!!


sigh
By AssBall on 9/29/2011 2:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
If we stopped paying out to welfare, Israel, Iraq, etc, we could afford to restart the Superconducting Linear Accelerator project that got canned in Texas in the (90s?) in like 1 year. Pretty pathetic.




RE: sigh
By FITCamaro on 9/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: sigh
By Iaiken on 9/29/2011 4:33:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And as I've said before, the entire military budget is only about 14% of the entire budget now.


And as you've been categorically wrong every time here are the actual statistics:

DOD spending alone in 2010 was 19% of the US budgetary expenditures. NOT including non-DOD defence expenditures. NOT including classified defence/intelligence spending. NOT including interest on past defence-related debt.

With those factored in, the 2010 defence spending totalled out to approximately 38% of all federal outlays. This is a far cry from the 28% that was budgeted for that specific year.

Actual defence spending has risen ~9% year over year since 2000. That's a doubling time of only 8 years and sure enough it's grown by 150% since then and continues to grow.

If your priorities dictate that 38% of your total federal spending should go to defence, fine, but don't try to blow smoke by falsifying the numbers.


RE: sigh
By Iaiken on 9/29/2011 4:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Social Security


I love how you try to include this in the budget, but you don't actually understand that it is funded directly by a separate trust fund.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/fact...

Here's a good read on exactly how it works and why it is impossible for social security to contribute to the national debt.


RE: sigh
By Solandri on 9/29/2011 6:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Social security went cashflow negative last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy...

Having a trust fund just means you keep a buffer between money coming in and money going out. Like keeping more money in your bank account than you'd need for a month's expenses. It in no way means it's impossible for Social Security to contribute to the national debt. By normal accounting standards (i.e. how you'd analyze a pension), Social Security is far, far in the red, since its promised future payouts far exceeds the amount in the trust fund.

The only way for Social Security not to contribute to the national debt is if it stops paying out when the trust fund is depleted. If you're unwilling to do that, then it absolutely must be included as part of the budget.


RE: sigh
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 7:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
Except there is no money in the trust. Congress has borrowed all the money away and left it full of nothing but IOUs in the form of treasury bonds.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/so...

Social security relies solely on the taxes received to pay the benefits. Once its not collecting enough to pay the benefits, as is already happening, it IS contributing to the debt because the government has to borrow more money to pay back the bonds that were issued to the SSA so it can pay its benefits.


RE: sigh
By Iaiken on 9/30/2011 10:25:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except there is no money in the trust.


Which is a nice little scare tactic to use... That's the exact same as saying that there is no money in my investment account. IF you really believe that then you better start stuffing all your mattresses with cash because there is no actual money in your bank account, the bank borrowed it and invested it for their benefit almost as soon as you made the deposit.

quote:
Congress has borrowed all the money away and left it full of nothing but IOUs in the form of treasury bonds.


A more correct statement would be "Congress has borrowed the social security surpluses and left it full of special interest bearing treasury bonds. This allowed them to mask the size of past deficits.

quote:
Once its not collecting enough to pay the benefits, as is already happening, it IS contributing to the debt because the government has to borrow more money to pay back the bonds that were issued to the SSA so it can pay its benefits.


This only happened in 2010 and the system functioned as it should. The government was forced by law to buy back those treasury bonds at interest before all other obligations.

Without social security, your taxes wouldn't change, the money that you claim was raided from social security would simply go straight from taxes to outlay in the same amounts they already do and you would be absent the social benefits of stability for the elderly and the disabled.

Now this sudden turn from 100 billion dollar surplus to deficit was caused by the sudden downturn in tax revenues and an up turn in social security payouts as elderly workers were forced into retirement.

Now what the average 401k is down an average 23% (or around 900 billion dollars) of where it was in 2007. Over the same period, Social security is actually still up 177 billion dollars. What's more, if that 2.5 trillion dollars from the social security money had been in the 401k market, the investment losses from 2008-2011 would have totalled out to a staggering $1.475 trillion and the average american would have had to work to the age of 75 to be able to retire.

Once you factor all this in, social security starts looking like a pretty damned good program. The fact that the money that was borrowed from it at interest was spent irresponsibly is beside the point and a wholly separate problem in need of a solution.


RE: sigh
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the surplus was turned to the general fund, to be assigned to other initiatives..

And everyone laughed at Gore when he brought up his infamous 'lock-box'..

I'm deathly afraid of the current initiatives to allow citizens to divert their SS spendings into private stock portfolios.. It's merely another method to pass on garbage stocks to the ignorant, taking a bit of the weight off of many larger funds.


RE: sigh
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 12:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize.. I took a quick glance, and misinterpreted your points.

I still maintain that the private investment of SS funds would end in sheer disaster.. Quite simply, anyone with less than $50k to toss around that bothers investing in a portfolio is an absolute fool, and will only be swept under the rug. Admittedly, though... I made a mint off of $5k of Google stock..


RE: sigh
By AssBall on 9/29/2011 9:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
You can pay for Israel all you want, I'd rather not.

Focused tax money would be a neat idea wouldn't it?


RE: sigh
By derricker on 9/30/2011 3:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To have an ally in the Middle East worth a damn its a bargain.


That sounds awfully similar to paying for sex or worst, love, but hey, isn't that what US does all across the globe?? pay to be loved, and threaten, to get respect?

Do you know why USofA needs to pay to have an ally worth a damn, anywhere in the world?? No one relates to crooks and backstabbers for free.


RE: sigh
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why does our "ally" spy on us? and attack and kill our servicemen? Remember the U.S.S Liberty? With an ally like this who needs enemies?


RE: sigh
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 1:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... you are all over the place with these crackpot theories...

Dare I ask, what do you think about 9/11..?

xD


RE: sigh
By Skywalker123 on 10/1/2011 7:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
You really need an education, you never heard of Jonathan Pollard? You know nothing of the attack on the U.S.S Liberty by the Israeli's?
9/11? of course the Israeli's did it to provoke an attack on the Arab world! (joking) Actually, I believe that there is a lot we haven't been told about 9/11, exactly what that is, we don't know yet.
I bet you believe every word the U.S. government tells you.


RE: sigh
By Iaiken on 10/2/2011 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet you believe every word the U.S. government tells you.


And from the looks of it, you don't believe a single word the U.S. Government tells you.

Unfortunately, the truth likely lays closer to the governments story than to yours as you can only stray so far before it just ceases to be believable.


Idiocracy
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2011 3:29:17 PM , Rating: 1
One step closer.

The difference between liberal budget "cuts" and conservative budget cuts? Liberals replace every dollar they cut with some new "feel good" program. Conservatives just want to cut.

There is no amount of money on Earth to satiate a liberal's desire to spend it on those who don't earn it.




RE: Idiocracy
By Raiders12 on 9/29/2011 4:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
The movie totally called it.
Our public education sector is already severely lacking in math and science, yet they do NOTHING to improve the situation. Further the military industrial complex with F22s, F35s, Gerald Ford class Carriers, and more handouts for service based economic sectors.

We need science and research!!!


RE: Idiocracy
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2011 6:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because no research of ANY value to the general public has ever come out of military research!

/sarcasm


RE: Idiocracy
By Solandri on 9/29/2011 6:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The movie totally called it.
Our public education sector is already severely lacking in math and science, yet they do NOTHING to improve the situation.

US spending per student on public education is already among the highest in the world (PPP and nominal). By developed nation standards, we're already spending more than enough money on education. The problems with our education system lie elsewhere, not lack of money.
http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-stud...

quote:
We need science and research!!!

And guess who raised it the most in the last 35 years? Hint: His initials were GWB.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2012/12pch02.pd...
(And before you make the wisecrack about it being mostly military R&D, read a few more pages in the PDF. The vast majority of his science R&D funding went to the NIH, DoD R&D was almost unchanged.)


RE: Idiocracy
By The Raven on 9/29/2011 6:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conservatives just want to cut.
Assuming you mean republican conservatives...Umm...Yeah... I'm not seeing that. It was republicans who came up with the DHS, TSA, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan among other things. Show me where Bush cut spending and I will apologize. But I'm not seeing it.

If I am mistaken and you mean general fiscal conservatives...favoring the traditional view of the free market in America...then yes, they just want to cut. They are people who believe in the free market like tea partiers, Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, etc.


RE: Idiocracy
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2011 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me where Bush cut spending and I will apologize. But I'm not seeing it.


Did you just call freaking Bush a Conservative? He was many things, but a Conservative was not one of them. Also your list of things have stuff that the majority of Democrats voted for, but you're blaming on Conservatives.


RE: Idiocracy
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 12:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. Bush was not a conservative and Democrats decry what they themselves voted for. And now Bush is completely out of the picture but the results of things that were passed after he left office are still his fault.


RE: Idiocracy
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assuming you mean republican conservatives.

Sorry, maybe I should have said...
quote:
Assuming you mean the republican party since they are generally regarded as conservatives.
And if you want to go further back, let's talk Reagan. Do you think he was a conservative president? He certainly didn't "just cut." (BTW Big fan of many of Reagan's thoughts/speeches, but not really a fan of his actions while in office.) And let's go further back than that if you want. If you are talking about the reps, show me where what you say is true? Any such instance has been rare since before either of us were born.

But in case I assumed incorrectly I said:
quote:
If I am mistaken and you mean general fiscal conservatives...favoring the traditional view of the free market in America...then yes, they just want to cut.

These are the kind of conservatives that I do NOT blame, as I subscribe to this as well. I blame reps like Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower as much as I do dems like Clinton, Obama, FDR, Kennedy.


RE: Idiocracy
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 3:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Since when is the term 'welfare' such a dirty word..? By definition, it's.. kind of good.. ya know..

While we should all be angry at those that game a system to their advantage, that's just the nature of any system. The amount of abuse is incredibly negligible once you count the good that our welfare system does indeed accrue.

If you do indeed know personally of anyone that has gamed our welfare system to any extent, please relay so -- but don't assume. While I have know several addicts that would qualify to those terms, them receiving such payments was only in order to attempt to make sure that they could at least provide for their children. Meanwhile, I know far many more that suffer, and receive no assistance -- not for lack of trying.

One in seven children in America suffers from starvation.. Now, where do you see abuse..? America the great.. *sigh*


RE: Idiocracy
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 7:39:23 AM , Rating: 1
Helping out those who CANNOT work is fine. Allowing people to suck off the government for generations is not. I was talking to a coworker who's wife was a teacher. He told me his wife got yelled at by black parents for trying to help their kids get jobs. "I AIN'T NEVER HAD NO JOB AND THEY AIN'T NEVER GONNA HAVE NO JOB!" is the gist of what they said.

And do you really think they use the money they're given to take care of their kids? No. What should happen is that if they can't take care of their kids, their kids should be taken away from them. People shouldn't be rewarded for having kids by giving them government money.


RE: Idiocracy
By The Raven on 9/30/2011 3:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming that you think that there is only one way to skin a cat, then yes, it is better to have the system the way it is instead of nothing at all.

But I have news for you... and it has something to do with skinning a cat.


RE: Idiocracy
By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen many instances of welfare fraud, my son is a manager at Walgreen's he says he constantly sees people coming in and buying all kinds of junk food with their food stamps. While this isn't fraud, its clearly a huge waste of federal money. One in seven children are NOT starving, thats ridiculous.


RE: Idiocracy
By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 1:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Idiocracy
By Farfignewton on 10/2/2011 5:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Did you post the wrong link? There are statistics about school lunches,food aid programs and hunger, but nothing about starving.


RE: Idiocracy
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
Remember when food stamp recipients crashed Wall Street in 2008?


By BZDTemp on 9/29/2011 4:30:40 PM , Rating: 1
It's clear that the Tea Party only believes in science when it supports the Bible. Not only will they like cut even more science funding they will also do their best to change education so that less real science is feed to the kids eg. the scientists of tomorrow or rather the would have been scientists of tomorrow.

It's time to start thinking about stopping the Tea Party from having all that influence.




By Jaybus on 9/29/2011 5:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's reactionary. The only reason there is a Tea Party is because people realize they are being fleeced and are looking for an alternative. Similar to the rise of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany, where vast numbers of unemployed viewed the Social Democratic and Communist parties in power at the time as completely ineffective. Their modern counterparts in the US today view the Republican and Democratic parties as completely ineffective and see the Tea Party as the only likely alternative. It's starting to become frightening.


By The Raven on 9/29/2011 6:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
I like how you compare the rise of the tea party movement to Nazism instead of the American revolution. <clap, clap>

Thogh I completely agree with this...
quote:
It can get even worse if the Republicans get more power

I completely disagree with the rest of what he OP is saying.

The only way it would be a good thing if a Republican got elected is if that republican was actually a libertarian like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. So please vote in the republican primaries if you can and help change America for the better by helping us out of this blasted 2 party mindset that everyone has.

Less money for war means more money for science if you vote libertarian.


By BZDTemp on 9/30/2011 3:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I completely disagree with the rest of what he OP is saying.


Why?

I am certainly not saying it would be a good thing if a Republican gets elected and surely you can seriously be thinking the Tea Party is pro-science?


By The Raven on 9/30/2011 10:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Which tea party are you referring to?

The tea party movement as it stands has nothing to do with science. It is not necessarily for or against more science expenditures. But they do (as a consensus) want to make sure that we can afford science expenditures should the populace deem them worthy endeavors. If you don't think "the tea party" is pro-science then who do you think is? These people in congress right now? The vast majority of them are NOT "tea partiers". And the reason that we can't afford such programs is because we spent it all on wars and social programs. And you want to blame tea partiers for that?


By BZDTemp on 9/30/2011 11:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, let's try this. You consider what the Tea Party people say about Global warming, the evolution of the species, what should be in school books... and then come back.

I am not hearing say we can't afford this science thing or that science thing what they say is they don't believe. Most of the world and this includes most of the worlds scientists agree man kind plays a role in global warming, but the Tea Party are like full speed ahead and f*** the ice bergs. It's like instead of taking science serious they are making it something where you can cherry pick and dismiss anything you don't like because you believe something else.


By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 3:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you very much for this apt analogy.. never hear it quite enough.

The closest thing the tea party can be compared to is indeed the rise of the Nazi party. Even more so once you figure in the violence, rioting, racial hate, and prejudice that the Tea Party has been outright advocating. We're headed down a treacherous path indeed if we let these nutjobs gain too much of a foothold..


By Skywalker123 on 9/30/2011 11:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
Links to where the tea party advocates racial hate or violence or rioted? You're the nutjob.


By nocturne_81 on 10/1/2011 1:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
I can only claim knowledge of private conversations held with local candidates seeking state/federal office..

But there's plenty enough evidence out there:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tea+pa...

Not to mention:
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/7742-mass-m...

These guys are nuts... just compare their vernacular to that of other domestic terrorists, such as Timothy McVeigh.


By Skywalker123 on 10/1/2011 8:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
so you only have anecdotal evidence and links to liberal rags and biased cherry picked interviews with some idiots that claim to be tea party members. I could do the same with liberals.


By Iaiken on 10/2/2011 12:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
Really, let's try some of the things that Santorum said about blacks:

quote:
Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males. [6/2/2009]


Or how about what he said about Islam:

quote:
The creeping Sharia throughout Europe and here in this country and in Canada. The Islamization of Europe that is already on the way and will visit these shores not too soon is a concern for us and something that we need to identify and we need to talk about and we need to fight with every ounce of our being. [2/28/2009]


Or this Bachman gem about culture:

quote:
Not all cultures are equal.


Or how about her attempts to create fear about homosexuality?

quote:
The immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.


I wouldn't say that all tea party members are racist, but when their leaders are spewing these sort of prejudicial statements, it attracts prejudicial people to the party.


By Skywalker123 on 10/5/2011 3:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
He didn't say anything that wasn't true.


Blame conservatives
By cactusdog on 9/29/2011 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I blame the right-wing anti-government mentality of the US political scene for outcomes like this.

They want to destroy all the good government programs and weaken the government whenever they can, so as to boost the relevance of conservative Christian ideology and the church itself. Science was always a threat to the Christians because it exposes the myths in the bible about the origins of earth and people etc.

Its wierd how conservative christians are so vocal against government social welfare programs, when the Christian message and mission is all about helping the poor and feeding the poor. Its fine to "use other peoples money" when the church is collecting it but if the government is involved its "anti-freedom" LOL




RE: Blame conservatives
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2011 6:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Before I say this I'm going to come out and say it... I'm an agnostic ex-Christian.

quote:
Its wierd how conservative christians are so vocal against government social welfare programs, when the Christian message and mission is all about helping the poor and feeding the poor.


Conservatives don't mind a church giving their tithe money away because they voluntarily give it to the church. There is a HUGE difference between a church/food bank/charity doing something with money freely given to it by people that believe in the cause of said organization and a government confiscating wealth by the threat of jail time and wage garnishments [taxes] and using it to do something that its people may not necessarily believe in.

Also, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'"

This sums up the core philosophy of many conservative Christians and libertarians ( like myself ). I don't mind helping people that CAN'T work, but for those that WON'T work... you can be hungry and cold. Any candid look at the current state of many western nations only confirms that Big Government Welfare States + Human Nature = Lots of Lazy Uneducated People.

quote:
Its fine to "use other peoples money" when the church is collecting it but if the government is involved its "anti-freedom" LOL


What's funny is that you can't make the connection between disposable income and freedom. If I have more money because I pay less taxes to support social welfare programs I am more free. I suppose if you are relatively helpless and know nothing of fending for yourself knowing that you will have adequate food and shelter guaranteed by the government may be what you would consider "freedom" however there are many of us that would like to aim a bit higher than Mom's couch and government food stamp funded ramen noodles.


RE: Blame conservatives
By cactusdog on 9/30/2011 6:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Typical response. The conservative right like to accuse people who receive any kind of government assistance as "spending other people's money" In a well run society workers pay into the government programs all their lives so its not "other people's money" Its their own money.

These same conservatives are happy to take government money for investment in their businesses in the way of grants, take subsidees and tax breaks and even bail-out or government rescue/compensation when their business goes wrong.

Its a massive fraud. The right wing are ripping off and using and abusing the government then they point the finger at the poor and the government.

Most of the big western powers have a complete social welfare program and strong regulatory government yet the US situtaion is much worse economically. The US has the worst unemployment figures and confidence than other countries like Germany, France, Uk etc.

So all your low-tax,weak government, screw the poor, help the rich policies in the US have amounted to a failure.



RE: Blame conservatives
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 7:56:14 AM , Rating: 1
No a real conservative wants a small federal government with no or very few tax breaks, governments subsidies, etc. One that taxes only what is needed to run legitimate government functions. Now state governments should tax more and be the ones to inspire business growth. State governments actually have the authority to and are far more responsive to the wishes of citizens.

And people who get government money a lot typically do not contribute nearly what they receive. So it is other people's money.

And our economy is weak right now because we allowed too many liberal politicians to spend us to the brink and require banks to give out loans to people who can't afford them in the name of "fairness" which resulted in a real estate collapse. Banks had no problem doing this because it wasn't their money they were lending out really since they just sold the loans to fannie and freddie after a year or so.


RE: Blame conservatives
By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2011 12:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Typical response. The conservative right like to accuse people who receive any kind of government assistance as "spending other people's money"


No, I accuse leftist politicians of "spending other peoples money" the people that collect on social welfare programs are merely taking advantage of a system that is all too easy to abuse. I have seen people buy cases of bottled water with EBT cards and dump it out in the parking lot of a store so they could get the deposit back on the bottles and use the money for something else (cigarettes or beer?).

People like getting things for nothing (its naive to not factor in human nature with these things) and if you can be comfortable in your poverty then a large number of people are going to be content to sit there in their poverty and collect government money. I would prefer that people who are in poverty be uncomfortable because that discomfort will motivate them to do something with themselves.

quote:
In a well run society workers pay into the government programs all their lives so its not "other people's money" Its their own money.


No, its not "their own money" because people that qualify for social welfare programs as a general rule do not pay taxes... oh sure they get a federal deduction out of their pay check like everyone else however come tax time they will get the majority of that back in the form of a tax return, so their net tax burden is next to nothing... factor in the food stamps and government subsidized housing and their net tax burden is far into the negative range. Do the math the poor as a general rule collect far more than they pay out.


RE: Blame conservatives
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Do you remember when the EBT card carrying poor crashed Wall Street in 2008, and destroyed the mortgage industry by securitizing loans?
Also do you remember when welfare queen single mothers asked for a 1.5 trillion dollar bailout when their investments in junk financials and derivateives went sour?


RE: Blame conservatives
By HueyD on 9/30/2011 12:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
"In a well run society workers pay into the government programs all their lives so its not "other people's money" Its their own money"

"In a well run society..." That's the problem with government today, they are trying to "run" society.


RE: Blame conservatives
By Solandri on 9/29/2011 6:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I blame the right-wing anti-government mentality of the US political scene for outcomes like this.

1. Come up with a theory.
2. Verify the theory with data.
3. Arrive at a conclusion.

You skipped step 2. If you'd done step 2, you would've found that the biggest increase in science R&D spending in the last 35 years happened under the most recent "anti-government right-wing" administration.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2012/12pch02.pd...


RE: Blame conservatives
By The Raven on 9/29/2011 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I blame the right-wing anti-government mentality of the US political scene for outcomes like this.

Wait so you blame the new guys on the block instead of the ones who have had control all along and spent us to this point?

And don't confuse anti-gov't/anarchist with people who want smaller/minimal gov't. Each of these types of people are different. And many of them are not 'right-wing'. They may also be socially liberal like me.

I mean gay marraige, for example, has nothing to do with particle accelerators, right? So why do you align yourself with a group that (one way or the other) thinks that they do.


RE: Blame conservatives
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 7:39:56 AM , Rating: 1
Your post is full of nothing but bullshit.


Project X
By cjohnson2136 on 9/29/2011 2:59:26 PM , Rating: 1
Are they trying to make Wolverine? lol




RE: Project X
By dgingerich on 9/29/2011 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
They're making the government equivalent: a program budget that can be cut, but instantly heals and start spending more than it did before.


RE: Project X
By tigz1218 on 9/29/2011 4:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Project X, in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, was a project of the State Science Institute, completed in the last year of the strike of the men of the mind called by John Galt. It was, quite simply, a weapon of mass destruction and was intended as an instrument of totalitarian control. Instead it became the trigger for the final collapse of the socialistic society that the United States of America had then become.

Project X also was a type of the perversion of science by unscrupulous and power-hungry government authorities, and was also a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the use of taxpayer's money to fund scientific research."


RE: Project X
By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 3:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Ayn Rand... that crazy **** is hardly worth any quote..


RE: Project X
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 12:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just because she is crazy in certain aspects doesn't disprove every logical thought she had.


RE: Project X
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ayn Rand's only contribution to society was that she created what I called "enlightened selfishness".

The kind of behavior only attributed to children, escalated into the adult world, where the only concern is what is in it for ME.


As much as people here are anti China
By 325hhee on 9/29/2011 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
At least China isn't doing crap like this, they're building a space program albeit it's in its infancy, at least they're looking ahead. US is shutting this down, and China is trying to excel in the sciences. What the hell is the US trying to do, become a third world nation?

There's way too many cuts in the science and especially the defense programs in the US and where is all that money going to, failbama care?




By nocturne_81 on 9/30/2011 3:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
Cuts in defense spending... what koolaid are you drinking..?


By derricker on 9/30/2011 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the hell is the US trying to do, become a third world nation?


trying?? that train's already left...


By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
China has massive problems, from overpopulation to pollution to low pay for migrant workers to bad infrastructure.

Its space program is more of a propaganda exercise than anything useful to them.

Health care is very important in a society, at least Obama is trying to address that issue before it becomes an outright crisis, though some would say it already is.


Maybe they should change their name.....
By HueyD on 9/30/2011 12:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should change their name and add "Solar" or "Green", then they could get millions of dollars.




By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
No, just add the word "Nuclear" to it, the republicans will fund it without even looking at the proposal.


Aperture science
By Chaosforce on 9/29/2011 4:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
God damnit we need a man like cave Johnson!




The US is still doing science
By Megatomic on 9/30/2011 9:07:58 AM , Rating: 3
My colleagues at TJNAF are still doing science. It's not the biggest accelerator out there, but the mission is relevant and the technology is amazing.

http://www.cebaf.gov




America is done
By Mithan on 9/30/2011 11:12:46 AM , Rating: 1
America will not be around in its current state in 25-30 years. It is doomed.

Sorry guys.




RE: America is done
By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 11:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
It will still be around, but it will look more like 1830's America, back when we didn't have a military, and everybody else just took us for granted and moved on.


Odd one
By Gondor on 9/29/2011 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Fermilab's Director Pier Oddone " ... *chuckle* :) I couldn't make up better surname to go with somebody that works in particle physics even if I tried.




Money
By adiposity on 9/29/2011 7:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
$100 million here, $100 million there...pretty soon you're talking about real money!




Who needs science?
By CList on 9/30/2011 7:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
Who needs science when you've got Jesus? Science has always just gotten in the way of this country's journey to becoming the One True Christian theocracy.

</sarcasm>




The Super Wealthy
By JonnyDough on 9/30/2011 8:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
The super wealthy have long used politics to muscle their way into greater wealth. Clinton signed a trade deal with the Chinese, perpetuating his relationship with the Walton's and making their close-knit group even more wealthy (The Walton's are also from Arkansas, and the Clinton's are well acquainted with them - The Walton's of course, being the children of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-mart).

Bush owns and invests in companies doing work in Iraq and Afghanistan, post war. War zones are restricted, guess who has control of the access to them?

America was sold out by our own politicians looking to get rich years ago. This is just a continuation. They don't care about our well-being, they just want to retain control. There is no conspiracy theory here, it's all too obvious if you take the time to really look at it. There are private organizations that seek to control things on a massive scale, and they use people, they threaten and bribe them, and it's no different than us believing in the righteousness of a pope or a royal family. We're had.




It's all Bush's fault
By wgbutler on 9/30/2011 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
After all, if the rich would just pay their fair share the federal government would be able to fund Solyndra, pay for abortions, food stamps, EBT cards, Cash for Clunkers, AND fund the particle accelerator too!




OK, so do something about it
By iceonfire1 on 9/30/2011 10:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like we agree, losing science=bad thing. Anyone else concerned enough to try to stop/slow down this process?

For those people:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml




Another comparison...
By Masospaghetti on 10/4/2011 10:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
The Tevitron requires $100M to run for 3 years.

The Federal government spent $3B on "Cash for clunkers" - paying consumers to destroy good working capital and buy the worst investment conceivable, a new car.

They could have run the Tevitron for 90 years instead of this.




By johnsmith9875 on 10/5/2011 10:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
$100M to the military is about 12 hours of Afghan occupation, coffee and donuts for a major contractor, or bribes for pentagon officials.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki