PDA

View Full Version : War on Science Continues



ripmeister
03-16-2017, 02:52 PM
The war on science and rationality continues with Trump but hey we're going to have this really, really cool big wall.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/16/14947734/trump-2018-budget-cuts-science-chart

NapRover
03-16-2017, 03:13 PM
From my side, it is rational to cut spending radically on wasteful programs. He's doing a great job. Just heard Herman Cain, a great businessman, agree.

resister
03-16-2017, 03:20 PM
Good, massive budgets need reducing across the board. This is why the country is in such dire financial straights ( one good reason)

PS, cutting budgets only equals a "war on science" in the mind of a dishonest hack.

A better and far more truthful title would be "a war on massive budgets, crippling the gov. )

stjames1_53
03-16-2017, 03:32 PM
The war on science and rationality continues with Trump but hey we're going to have this really, really cool big wall.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/16/14947734/trump-2018-budget-cuts-science-chart

I don't see the problem. The money for all that free healthcare has to come from someplace.................

Chris
03-16-2017, 03:53 PM
No Trump fan here, but cutting the government is good, let private entities pick up the slack.

nic34
03-16-2017, 04:09 PM
No Trump fan here, but cutting the government is good, let private entities pick up the slack.

And they'll do so out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts.....

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/1a/ff/6a1aff6b51236aac6aaa06f3439e5b5c.jpg

stjames1_53
03-16-2017, 04:17 PM
And they'll do so out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts.....

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/1a/ff/6a1aff6b51236aac6aaa06f3439e5b5c.jpg

Emotionalist? Shame on you for playing the emotion card

Mister D
03-16-2017, 04:21 PM
War on science...:rollseyes:

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 07:56 PM
From my side, it is rational to cut spending radically on wasteful programs. He's doing a great job. Just heard Herman Cain, a great businessman, agree.
Do you consider the NIH and biomedical research to be a wasteful program?

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:00 PM
Good, massive budgets need reducing across the board. This is why the country is in such dire financial straights ( one good reason)

PS, cutting budgets only equals a "war on science" in the mind of a dishonest hack.

A better and far more truthful title would be "a war on massive budgets, crippling the gov. )

Are you calling me a dishonest hack? The budgets in question are peanuts compared to military spending and the proposed wall. Do you see no value in the funding of the NIH?

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:01 PM
I don't see the problem. The money for all that free healthcare has to come from someplace.................
How about defense spending and corporate welfare?

Subdermal
03-16-2017, 08:08 PM
The war on science and rationality continues with Trump but hey we're going to have this really, really cool big wall.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/16/14947734/trump-2018-budget-cuts-science-chart

War on Science?

:biglaugh:

I agree that you're waging a War on Rationality through your silly claim that there is a war on science. That's just stupid leftist bleating.

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:09 PM
No Trump fan here, but cutting the government is good, let private entities pick up the slack.
i hear that argument quite often when it comes to biomedical research. One problem with that is the foci tend to be on large problems at the expense of so called "orphan" diseases. When it's you or a member of your family is affected thought the tune usually changes. Wait for the next Ebola outbreak or some new infectious disease and tell me about wasteful programs.

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:10 PM
War on science...:rollseyes:
Uh yea.

Mister D
03-16-2017, 08:12 PM
Uh yea.
Uh huh.

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:13 PM
War on Science?

:biglaugh:

I agree that you're waging a War on Rationality through your silly claim that there is a war on science. That's just stupid leftist bleating.
How's that?

resister
03-16-2017, 08:15 PM
Uh huh.
Evidently cutting wasteful spending now equals a " war on science" This has to be one of the most melodramatic and idiotic trump hysteria claims I have heard....all day :rollseyes:

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:20 PM
Uh huh.
Glad you agree��

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:22 PM
Evidently cutting wasteful spending now equals a " war on science" This has to be one of the most melodramatic and idiotic trump hysteria claims I have heard....all day :rollseyes:
You consider it wasteful, I don't. Do you think there is any wasteful defense spending?

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 08:41 PM
To all of you naysayers. Do you think the Federal government should fund basic research? Do you think past funding of basic research by the Federal government has paid dividends?

Don
03-16-2017, 08:51 PM
The war on science was waged by the last admin who politicized it and had the audacity to say "the science is settled" where it concerned AGW. Some of the agencies listed in the OP link have nothing to do with science anyway. And then there is the other deception, that there are actually cuts in any of those agencies. Show what their budgets were before the Obama admin and how much is actually "cut" by the Trump admin. If one president grows an agency by 50% and the next president cuts it by 25% its not cut at all. Part of the same scam played on us by the establishment for decades. Cuts in the rate of government growth does not equal cutting the size of the government. All the "slashing" promised by the republican arm of the establishment and blamed on them by the democrat arm of the establishment would make you think government has actually gotten smaller over the decades when in fact it has grown by 100's of percent.

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 09:10 PM
The war on science was waged by the last admin who politicized it and had the audacity to say "the science is settled" where it concerned AGW. Some of the agencies listed in the OP link have nothing to do with science anyway. And then there is the other deception, that there are actually cuts in any of those agencies. Show what their budgets were before the Obama admin and how much is actually "cut" by the Trump admin. If one president grows an agency by 50% and the next president cuts it by 25% its not cut at all. Part of the same scam played on us by the establishment for decades. Cuts in the rate of government growth does not equal cutting the size of the government. All the "slashing" promised by the republican arm of the establishment and blamed on them by the democrat arm of the establishment would make you think government has actually gotten smaller over the decades when in fact it has grown by 100's of percent.
You make some good points but according to what I've read the proposal is for an 18% cut to the NIH budget for example. Your point regarding what happens from administration to administration cuts both ways.

I'm curious. What agencies in the link have nothing to do with science.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2017, 09:33 PM
Do you consider the NIH and biomedical research to be a wasteful program?
Wasteful? No. A federal government responsibility? Absolutely not (with a small exception for defense).

decedent
03-16-2017, 09:39 PM
From my side, it is rational to cut spending radically on wasteful programs. He's doing a great job. Just heard Herman Cain, a great businessman, agree.


What does a businessman know about science? Or politics, for that matter.


The belief that businessmen can solve problems simply because they're businessmen is how Trump got elected. Look at the results.

resister
03-16-2017, 09:42 PM
What does a businessman know about science? Or politics, for that matter.


The belief that businessmen can solve problems simply because they're businessmen is how Trump got elected. Look at the results.
Since his election, shrinks have been busy :laugh:

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 09:46 PM
Since his election, shrinks have been busy :laugh:

There certainly is a general level of heightened anxiety.

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 09:51 PM
Wasteful? No. A federal government responsibility? Absolutely not (with a small exception for defense).

Do you believe there is a need for basic research, that is research for the sake of knowledge and not necessarily a profit motive?

Do you think there are examples of research that were publicly funded that have benefitted society that probably would have not or could have not been funded by private entities, NASA for example?

HoneyBadger
03-16-2017, 09:54 PM
So, are are you opposed to cuts in funding for junk science?

ripmeister
03-16-2017, 10:02 PM
So, are are you opposed to cuts in funding for junk science?

Sure, but the scientific community takes care of that with a competitive funding process. It shouldn't be done with an across the board cut of this magnitude that while,it may cut some fat also indiscriminately cuts some lean.

Captain Obvious
03-16-2017, 11:06 PM
I mentioned this earlier, Trump is going to pander to the hard right anti-environmentalists.

Which is a shame. It really is backwards thinking.

stjames1_53
03-17-2017, 03:25 AM
Are you calling me a dishonest hack? The budgets in question are peanuts compared to military spending and the proposed wall. Do you see no value in the funding of the NIH?

I see keeping the homeless, homeless, a real crime. I see keeping our citizens starving a real crime. You don't?
If you socialists are going to demand we pay for your medical insurance boondoggle and keep it afloat, that money needs to come from someplace.....

patrickt
03-17-2017, 07:56 AM
The war on science and rationality continues with Trump but hey we're going to have this really, really cool big wall.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/16/14947734/trump-2018-budget-cuts-science-chart
Ah, yes, the war on science. Would that be the "science" that says a person with a penis and testicles is a woman and a person with a vagina and ovaries is a man? Would that be the "science" that says two men or two women can be the birth parents on a child's birth certificate? Would that be the "science" that says we are entering a new Ice Age or New York will be under water by ten years ago? How about the "science" that said the world's oil reserves would be depleted by the year 2,000?

Sorry, but the liberals killed science quite some time ago.

Common Sense
03-17-2017, 07:58 AM
Lulz...

MisterVeritis
03-17-2017, 08:00 AM
Do you believe there is a need for basic research, that is research for the sake of knowledge and not necessarily a profit motive?

Do you think there are examples of research that were publicly funded that have benefitted society that probably would have not or could have not been funded by private entities, NASA for example?
Yes. However funding basic research is not a Constitutional obligation. End it unless one can tie it to national defense.

ripmeister
03-17-2017, 12:38 PM
Ah, yes, the war on science. Would that be the "science" that says a person with a penis and testicles is a woman and a person with a vagina and ovaries is a man? Would that be the "science" that says two men or two women can be the birth parents on a child's birth certificate? Would that be the "science" that says we are entering a new Ice Age or New York will be under water by ten years ago? How about the "science" that said the world's oil reserves would be depleted by the year 2,000?

Sorry, but the liberals killed science quite some time ago.
Oh boy!

ripmeister
03-17-2017, 12:41 PM
Yes. However funding basic research is not a Constitutional obligation. End it unless one can tie it to national defense.
very little is a constitutional obligation. Some things can only be accomplished by the size of the state and the immensity of the project.

Tahuyaman
03-17-2017, 12:57 PM
Liberals always look at disagreement as a violent act.

MisterVeritis
03-17-2017, 01:03 PM
What does a businessman know about science? Or politics, for that matter.
The belief that businessmen can solve problems simply because they're businessmen is how Trump got elected. Look at the results.
Yes. The results are positive. Thanks!

MisterVeritis
03-17-2017, 01:04 PM
very little is a constitutional obligation. Some things can only be accomplished by the size of the state and the immensity of the project.
If it is not positively demanded by the Constitution or inferred (defense is the basis for an air force and a cyber force) it should not be done.

NapRover
03-17-2017, 02:47 PM
Where does science say that climate change will end when we empty out our wallets to the socialists all over the world?

ripmeister
03-17-2017, 05:11 PM
Where does science say that climate change will end when we empty out our wallets to the socialists all over the world?

Not sure what you mean here Nap.

Peter1469
03-17-2017, 05:22 PM
Not sure what you mean here Nap.


It means the climate change issue is manipulated for political purposes.

ripmeister
03-17-2017, 09:44 PM
It means the climate change issue is manipulated for political purposes.

I hadn't noticed. You do mean by the non scientists, right? :wink:

texan
03-17-2017, 11:49 PM
The war on science and rationality continues with Trump but hey we're going to have this really, really cool big wall.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/16/14947734/trump-2018-budget-cuts-science-chart

Since when do democrats care about science? I mean I know they say it but they don't accept it on all issues. It's cherry picked for what they want.

stjames1_53
03-18-2017, 05:49 AM
I hadn't noticed. You do mean by the non scientists, right? :wink:
you don't need to be a scientist to understand the earth has been changing since its creation. Fossil records and geological studies show us that fact. None of these changes have been man-powered. You want to make a marked difference, start by protecting what's left of the tropical rain forests
Question: What happened to the Sahara rain forests?

Peter1469
03-18-2017, 07:13 AM
I hadn't noticed. You do mean by the non scientists, right? :wink:

No.

And you know exactly what I mean.

stjames1_53
03-18-2017, 07:15 AM
No.

And you know exactly what I mean.

pssssssssst, he's not that bright

DGUtley
03-18-2017, 07:22 AM
Not sure what you mean here Nap.

It also means that it won't be solved by redistributing wealth from the US all over the world. I don't see how charging the US companies and then giving money to African countries is going to solve global warming.

Peter1469
03-18-2017, 07:22 AM
It also means that it won't be solved by redistributing wealth from the US all over the world. I don't see how charging the US companies and then giving money to African countries is going to solve global warming.

It makes African despots rich.

DGUtley
03-18-2017, 07:27 AM
It makes African despots rich.

That's what convinced me that cap and trade was entirely political and social engineering.

texan
03-18-2017, 04:49 PM
Let me propose a science question to democrats.

If if you have a penis are you a male or a female per science?

ripmeister
03-19-2017, 02:47 PM
Since when do democrats care about science? I mean I know they say it but they don't accept it on all issues. It's cherry picked for what they want.
Examples?

ripmeister
03-19-2017, 02:48 PM
you don't need to be a scientist to understand the earth has been changing since its creation. Fossil records and geological studies show us that fact. None of these changes have been man-powered. You want to make a marked difference, start by protecting what's left of the tropical rain forests
Question: What happened to the Sahara rain forests?

I'll agree with this. It's multi factorial.

ripmeister
03-19-2017, 02:52 PM
It also means that it won't be solved by redistributing wealth from the US all over the world. I don't see how charging the US companies and then giving money to African countries is going to solve global warming.

Sure. I'd actually agree with the redistribution part. I may not agree with some of the proposed solutions but that doesn't mean I reject the fundamental science. Sticking your head in the sand does not help to solve the problem.

ripmeister
03-19-2017, 02:54 PM
No.

And you know exactly what I mean.

I do know what you mean. Many reject the idea fo anthropogenic climate change for political purposes.