{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/11/2013 11:44:27 PM
16
Republicans fund more science programs than Democrats.
I posted this earlier in a thread where people didn't read up on their sources or information, but I thought this was worthy of it's own thread.
The claim that Republicans are anti science is a claim born of ignorance. I hope you enjoy the video, and comment.
English
#Offtopic
-
lol OP doesn't understand squat or he's trolling in that case shit/10
-
Edited by dazarobbo: 2/12/2013 6:46:35 AM
Started a new topic: Democrats actually fund more science programs (pointless politicking)(4 Replies))
-
4 Replies[quote]The claim that Republicans are anti science is a claim born of ignorance.[/quote]K
-
If I was rich, I'd support science in more parts that I agree with and less or none that my political party doesn't support, too.
-
RAWR MY SIDE IS AWESOME NO YOUR SIDE SUCKS NO YOUR A POOP FACE NO YOUR PEE FACE KDFUY VG DVIDFHVUIDHFU7DUHVDUVDVDFVG
-
If you post any pro-republican thing on the internet, you will be flamed and if you use the same arguments against democrat threads you will be shot down. Liberals on the internet suck. Normal liberals are ok, except for the hippy ass liberals on the internet
-
6 RepliesActually if you paid attention to the video at all you'd realize the point NDT was trying to make was that neither parties are pro-science. But hey, if you'd rather have a republican circle-jerk than an actual discussion, don't let me stop you.
-
9 RepliesStraw man. The claim isn't that Republicans are anti-science because they want to cut funding to scientific agencies (although the post-Tea Party Republicans are much different than the Bush year Republicans), but that they reject ideas backed by science. There are many who still harp on ID or global warming as a conspiracy. And those people are not ostracized like they should be. They make up a sizable portion of Republicans' base.
-
3 RepliesWhat I learned from that video is that Republicans generally support scientific organizations and programs because science makes people richer, and Republicans love money. Seems like a rather hollow existence, but I suppose you're not wrong.
-
4 RepliesThe National Science Foundation's budget has gone up ([url=http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/]by 800 million dollars[/url]) under Obama, so that point is out. The National Institute of Health's budget has gone up (from [url=http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2008directorsbudgetrequest.htm]28.9 billion[/url] to [url=http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY13/FY2013_Overview.pdf]30.9 billion[/url]) under Obama, so that point's out. Republicans are always the ones who suggest Intelligent Design being taught in schools, never Democrats. So that's an awful mark against Republicans. The NASA budget is a problem, I'll give him that, but it went down from the beginning of Bush's first term to the end of his last; I'm not talking money, I'm talking % of the Federal Budget. [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA]Source[/url]]
-
Edited by Hoggs Bison: 2/12/2013 12:11:48 AMBest I could get are these [url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/04/science/dotearth.spending1.jpg]two[/url] [url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/04/science/dotearth.spending2.jpg]charts.[/url] Funding is at a pretty steady pace under Eisenhower, then skyrockets and drops a little under Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon and Ford hold it pretty steady. It ticks up under Carter and drops steeply under Reagan. It then starts a steady climb under Bush Sr. and Clinton. Bush Jr. picks up the pace. The overall trend is upwards. In total, from 1953 - 2009, Republicans held the White house for 36 years, while Democrats held it for 20-- a difference of roughly 30%. But here's the real question: does it even matter? What about outside events? We had the Space Race in the 60's, for example. We were at war (in a cold way) with the Soviet Union, and the only way to win was to out-science them. How about the health of the economy? The first couple years of the 80's saw a severe recession. We recently experienced the worst crisis since the Great Depression. And while the president must sign the budget into law, it's Congress that even appropriates funding in the first place.
-
3 RepliesCouldn't you have actually provided evidence rather than Neil talking about science and politics which doesn't really prove your point?
-
2 RepliesEdited by Mega Blaziken: 2/11/2013 11:57:02 PMWell, it seems to me that the OP is wrong because republicans make up 6% of the scientific scene, and mutes everyone he disagrees with... from this I can deduce that the OP is indeed a douchenozzle.
-
3 RepliesAlso, this video is from February 2009. Literally only a handful of days after Obama took office. Do we have any numbers from his first term that would align with your claim?
-
To be fair, it might be better to look at who was in Congress at what time and factor in the majority and who voted for what. Not that I disagree with what he said, but there's more to it than who was simply president and when.
-
Only 6 percent of scientists are republican. /thread
