30 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarIt can be checked, for instance the 11th Amendment was implemented as a direct response to a SCOTUS ruling, overruling it. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of and/or interest in the US Constitution would know this. The US Congress could, for example, implement a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, which would overrule Roe v. Wade.
Yah, got it. Blah, blah blah.
Now explain this:
How can there be a check and balance when the Supreme Court decision can't be checked?
The Supreme Court is the highest power in the land and the people in the court were not elected. Nice democracy we have. Total joke.
30 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarWe're not meant to have an unchecked democracy. The Supreme Court's power is quite limited as pointed out by KN, but any limitation in the Constitution would be utterly meaningless if the legislature, executive or states were sole judges of their own power.
Yah, got it. Blah, blah blah.
Now explain this:
How can there be a check and balance when the Supreme Court decision can't be checked?
The Supreme Court is the highest power in the land and the people in the court were not elected. Nice democracy we have. Total joke.
The response of "blah, blah, blah" to the intent of the Framers by a right winger is very illuminating.
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarAn interesting point...but a minor one. Why don't you tell us about the billions of tax dollars given to wealthy oil companies each year in the form of subsidies, who could run their business's without them.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spending-880000-study-benefits-snail-sex
Looks like the government has more money than it knows what to do.
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by bill718Oh, you mean the same guys who had the courts packed and fund the elections of both Democrats and Republicans? You mean those guys?
An interesting point...but a minor one. Why don't you tell us about the billions of tax dollars given to wealthy oil companies each year in the form of subsidies, who could run their business's without them.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot all science has had public funding. Franklin and Edison had none, and neither did many other pioneers of science. The main thing they had was curiosity. Science for money is somewhat compromised, as you reach the conclusions the money man desires or the funds dry up.
Are you going to keep opening threads like this every week?
I work in science. Most science is, frankly, useless. Some of it will lead to amazing applications and insights. When Einstein was developing relativity theory, he wasn't thinking that his theory would be useful for your car navigation, yet it would not work without understanding relativity. ...[text shortened]... rehand if some research is going to lead somewhere - that's why science needs public funding.
Somewhat the point made in a conversation in Ghostbusters between Bill Murray and Egon. "The private sector is hard. They expect results."
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by PhrannyActually the government in Somalia is very similar, in that it is armed bandits that take money or whatever else you have at the point of a gun. Here they only send the guys with the guns if you fail to pay enough.
You need to move to Somalia. VERY little government and no government spending. Also no infrastructure like roads, shools, hospitals, universities, etc. But you will have your money. I'n sure you will be very happy there.
03 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignI can only speak from how it works in physics, but the funding in most physics research certainly does not work in the way you are suggesting. It is true that the people providing funding want something in return, but the "something" is usually some important research/publication, not something with a predetermined conclusion.
Not all science has had public funding. Franklin and Edison had none, and neither did many other pioneers of science. The main thing they had was curiosity. Science for money is somewhat compromised, as you reach the conclusions the money man desires or the funds dry up.
Somewhat the point made in a conversation in Ghostbusters between Bill Murray and Egon. "The private sector is hard. They expect results."
03 Apr 13
1 edit
I don't know if its relevant, but giant african land snails, you can get them as pets... If you leave them alone for a few years with no mate, they can have sex with themselves and produce young. funny creatures 🙂
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3366/3409935543_ec9d28253d_z.jpg
03 Apr 13
Originally posted by e4chrisNot to unlike humans, except we can solely produce offspring.
I don't know if its relevant, but giant african land snails, you can get them as pets... If you leave them alone for a few years with no mate, they can have sex with themselves and produce young. funny creatures 🙂
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3366/3409935543_ec9d28253d_z.jpg
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't wish to pick on any particular branch of science, but when government or industry are providing the dollars, there is incentive to reach the conclusions they seek.
I can only speak from how it works in physics, but the funding in most physics research certainly does not work in the way you are suggesting. It is true that the people providing funding want something in return, but the "something" is usually some important research/publication, not something with a predetermined conclusion.
I've seen the accusations that some scientists are "bought and paid for" by corporate interests, and others that scientists are politically correct creatures of "government". The emails intercepted from E. Anglia U regarding global warming, exposed the nature of so called objective scientists. I don't believe scientists are any more devilish or angelic than any other group.
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignI think another question is if the government is simply subsidizing Research and Development for private industry. Why spend coporate treasure when you can use public moneys? Just another example of using the money of the common man to help line the pockets of the rich.
I don't wish to pick on any particular branch of science, but when government or industry are providing the dollars, there is incentive to reach the conclusions they seek.
I've seen the accusations that some scientists are "bought and paid for" by corporate interests, and others that scientists are politically correct creatures of "government". The em ...[text shortened]... tists. I don't believe scientists are any more devilish or angelic than any other group.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignOf course it depends. When say Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation is funding the research, you can be pretty sure the conclusions aren't going to be particularly reliable. But most government funding goes through funding agencies that don't have any incentives to reach predetermined conclusions.
I don't wish to pick on any particular branch of science, but when government or industry are providing the dollars, there is incentive to reach the conclusions they seek.
I've seen the accusations that some scientists are "bought and paid for" by corporate interests, and others that scientists are politically correct creatures of "government". The em ...[text shortened]... tists. I don't believe scientists are any more devilish or angelic than any other group.