By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Meet the new US Budget Director

Netyaroze said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Anti science, just means he disagrees with liberal science.

Nothing wrong with that.

Hard Science does not have any political affiliations. Its just a bunch of facts. 

What is liberal science ?

 

Liberal science is paid research where the money comes from politically affiliated groups that are only paying for the research to push their agenda. They will only publish research that benefits their agenda. Liberal institutions will gladly skew results to keep the money coming in for research.

Hence one of the main reasons those in the fields of academia love democrats and aren't very politically switched on and their thinking exhibits a glass ceiling effect. These people due to being linguistically able are quite convincing to those of lower IQ.

Conservative private companies take part in similar activities but since they are NGOs this is not a concern.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Anti science, just means he disagrees with liberal science.

Nothing wrong with that.

What is conservative science?  The earth is 5000 years old?

Conservative sciene? That's just called "science".



Is the US putting together some sort of suicide squad to rule the country or something.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

UnderstatedCornHole said:
Netyaroze said:

Hard Science does not have any political affiliations. Its just a bunch of facts. 

What is liberal science ?

 

Liberal science is paid research where the money comes from politically affiliated groups that are only paying for the research to push their agenda. They will only publish research that benefits their agenda. Liberal institutions will gladly skew results to keep the money coming in for research.

Hence one of the main reasons those in the fields of academia love democrats and aren't very politically switched on and their thinking exhibits a glass ceiling effect. These people due to being linguistically able are quite convincing to those of lower IQ.

Conservative private companies take part in similar activities but since they are NGOs this is not a concern.

Table 1. Federal R&D Budget Obligations Allocated by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009
 Percent of Spending Applied to 
Department or AgencyBasic
Research
(%)
Applied
Research
(%)
Devel-
opment
(%)
Total
($ mil)
Defense 3 7 90 68,113
Health and Human Services 53 47 < 1 35,584
Energy 41 32 27 9,890
National Science Foundation 92 8 0 6,095
NASA 17 12 71 5,937
Agriculture 41 51 8 2,270
Commerce 12 72 16 1,147
Transportation 0 71 29 826
Interior 7 83 10 732
Homeland Security 15 37 48 673
EPA 15 70 15 553
Veterans Affairs 40 54 6 510
Education 1 62 37 322
Smithsonian Institution 100 0 0 152
All other agencies 2 90 8 544
All Agencies 25 23 52 133,349
Sources: NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009–11, tables 98, 104, 106, and 108.
So since I'm curious now, which of these agencies are the ones that are producing liberal science?  Is it all of them so basically all basic research is "liberal science"?


...

Torillian said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Liberal science is paid research where the money comes from politically affiliated groups that are only paying for the research to push their agenda. They will only publish research that benefits their agenda. Liberal institutions will gladly skew results to keep the money coming in for research.

Hence one of the main reasons those in the fields of academia love democrats and aren't very politically switched on and their thinking exhibits a glass ceiling effect. These people due to being linguistically able are quite convincing to those of lower IQ.

Conservative private companies take part in similar activities but since they are NGOs this is not a concern.

Table 1. Federal R&D Budget Obligations Allocated by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009
 Percent of Spending Applied to 
Department or AgencyBasic
Research
(%)
Applied
Research
(%)
Devel-
opment
(%)
Total
($ mil)
Defense 3 7 90 68,113
Health and Human Services 53 47 < 1 35,584
Energy 41 32 27 9,890
National Science Foundation 92 8 0 6,095
NASA 17 12 71 5,937
Agriculture 41 51 8 2,270
Commerce 12 72 16 1,147
Transportation 0 71 29 826
Interior 7 83 10 732
Homeland Security 15 37 48 673
EPA 15 70 15 553
Veterans Affairs 40 54 6 510
Education 1 62 37 322
Smithsonian Institution 100 0 0 152
All other agencies 2 90 8 544
All Agencies 25 23 52 133,349
Sources: NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009–11, tables 98, 104, 106, and 108.
So since I'm curious now, which of these agencies are the ones that are producing liberal science?  Is it all of them so basically all basic research is "liberal science"?

Yes.

I'm sure there will be some original good faith research knocking around but finding it is difficult as the field covered is always very narrow regardless of it being public or privately funded. It's always super focused and contexts are never included.

For me to believe any public funded research I need it to be collaberated with competeing research fields.

Never happens. It's a cherry pickers heaven and it's getting worse, across the board.



Around the Network
mah575992 said:

Good. I work for the US Government and these fuckers need a kick in the ass. I'm sick of the corruption I see Every. Damn. Day.

 

$4 billion for Airforce One. For that money, we could literally replace 700 miles of interstates. Shit, after 6 of those planes, we could've afforded the damn US-Mexico wall.

It's $3.2 billion and that's for both planes and most of that is R&D because...you know, it's Air Force One and not a commercial aircraft.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

UnderstatedCornHole said:
sethnintendo said:

What is conservative science?  The earth is 5000 years old?

Conservative sciene? That's just called "science".

I would advise anyone taking part in this discussion to stop after this post. There is literally nothing to be gained. This isn't a disagreement about ideologies, it's a disagreement with someone living in an entirely different reality.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

UnderstatedCornHole said:
Torillian said:
Table 1. Federal R&D Budget Obligations Allocated by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009
 Percent of Spending Applied to 
Department or AgencyBasic
Research
(%)
Applied
Research
(%)
Devel-
opment
(%)
Total
($ mil)
Defense 3 7 90 68,113
Health and Human Services 53 47 < 1 35,584
Energy 41 32 27 9,890
National Science Foundation 92 8 0 6,095
NASA 17 12 71 5,937
Agriculture 41 51 8 2,270
Commerce 12 72 16 1,147
Transportation 0 71 29 826
Interior 7 83 10 732
Homeland Security 15 37 48 673
EPA 15 70 15 553
Veterans Affairs 40 54 6 510
Education 1 62 37 322
Smithsonian Institution 100 0 0 152
All other agencies 2 90 8 544
All Agencies 25 23 52 133,349
Sources: NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009–11, tables 98, 104, 106, and 108.
So since I'm curious now, which of these agencies are the ones that are producing liberal science?  Is it all of them so basically all basic research is "liberal science"?

Yes.

I'm sure there will be some original good faith research knocking around but finding it is difficult as the field covered is always very narrow regardless of it being public or privately funded. It's always super focused and contexts are never included.

For me to believe any public funded research I need it to be collaberated with competeing research fields.

Never happens. It's a cherry pickers heaven and it's getting worse, across the board.

So as someone that works in that filthy liberal hellhole and knows hundreds of people doing basic research, I'd like to know what is the liberal slant on what I do.  Trying to perfect a cupredoxin model within a three helical bundle de novo protein.  Or hell, the work I did in Milwaukee to better understand nitric oxide's reaction with oxygen bound heme within myoglobin or trHbN.  

What I'm trying to get across, is that as someone who works in that field and knows so many what work on interesting basic research you sound like a crackpot conservative conspiracy theorist when you right off all basic research without giving specific examples because I can give all kinds of examples from my own field which have nothing to do with a liberal slant because it's just good scientists doing interesting research because it moves the field forward.  If you have specific examples I'd love to hear it, but this idea that all publically funded research is by necessity tainted is just insane.  Basic research is so important to moving society forward, and government funding is basically the only way that it's going to happen.  It saddens me to see someone so against it as a concept.  



...

I live on Social Security and Medicare. I glanced through the articles but what will he do to Medicare/SS?



Torillian said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

Yes.

I'm sure there will be some original good faith research knocking around but finding it is difficult as the field covered is always very narrow regardless of it being public or privately funded. It's always super focused and contexts are never included.

For me to believe any public funded research I need it to be collaberated with competeing research fields.

Never happens. It's a cherry pickers heaven and it's getting worse, across the board.

So as someone that works in that filthy liberal hellhole and knows hundreds of people doing basic research, I'd like to know what is the liberal slant on what I do.  Trying to perfect a cupredoxin model within a three helical bundle de novo protein.  Or hell, the work I did in Milwaukee to better understand nitric oxide's reaction with oxygen bound heme within myoglobin or trHbN.  

What I'm trying to get across, is that as someone who works in that field and knows so many what work on interesting basic research you sound like a crackpot conservative conspiracy theorist when you right off all basic research without giving specific examples because I can give all kinds of examples from my own field which have nothing to do with a liberal slant because it's just good scientists doing interesting research because it moves the field forward.  If you have specific examples I'd love to hear it, but this idea that all publically funded research is by necessity tainted is just insane.  Basic research is so important to moving society forward, and government funding is basically the only way that it's going to happen.  It saddens me to see someone so against it as a concept.  

Research which is honest work that is turned into dishonest conclusions.

This is why "scientists" even in their social capacity outside of any work related field always follow the establishment line on science, foreign policy, well politics in general when it comes up in conversation. My brother as a prime example is an intelligent individual, attended a cambridge university and works in bio chemistry on researching hydrocarbons and developing new products based on that. He's only involved in a very specific aspect of that as is the norm for research work.

The problem is, he thinks that makes him knowledgeable on all areas of science research output. He does not distinguish between agenda based public research and capitalist driven private research.

The company he works for receives various state benefits because they are an investor in people and forwarding research in general and so although the benefits are small and not specifically public research he is in the echo chamber of the academic.

Notice how no academic/science person anywhere deviates from the establishment line on absolutely anything? They watch BBC News, read the guardian and so forth.

I'm no republican and no socialist either but am conservative with a small c which has developed from classic liberalism of old which unfortunately has been replaced almost entirely by neo-liberal mind frying garbage, identity politics, ideoligy, sexism, fake science.

There's very few intelligent people left with linguistic ability to call out this crap for what it is and the few that are, get crucified as being racists, climate change deniers and all the rest of it.

The cool-aid is good but I'm not drinking it.