jfuh

True, yet that establishes absolutely nothing. Federal funding is awarded based on the scientific value of the research by scientists, not politicians.

Name another way in which the research into the genome of the fruit fly would otherwise be established? Name another way in which string theory which seems to have 0 applicability in the real world would be funded by any profit based organization.
Name another way in which funding for breeding habits of endangered species would ever be established by any profit based organization.

Which is why I limited the scope to "this pack of republicans".
No scientist would ever support an anti-scientific camp of politicians such as Bush/Cheney, or McCain/Palin.

No, favorment of such policies does not equate to being a marxist. WE have the federal reserve which no matter how you cut it is in everyway socialist/marxist - yet such is the very foundation of our capitalist economy.
The recent bailouts are also socialist by nature, but would you label the repulican administration thus socialist? Mind you Mccain also voted for this very same measure.
It doesn't matter what form of policy it is or what ideology it is derived from, as long as it's a good policy that works, that's all that matters.

Some members of the McCain campaign were affiliated directly with Saddam hussein, should I now think that McCain is in favor of genocidal dictatorship? Seriously

Untrue, he has denounced Wright multiple times as well as to national audience on TV during his debates with Sen. Clinton.

GUilt by association again? You must have missed the debate last night when Obama spoke specifically about the non-existent make believe relationship between him and Ayers.

Actually it is your claim, the burdon of proof rests on your shoulders. You've not established any connection or proof that Obama is any of the above you claimed other than hyper partisan hyperbole.
The scientists endorsing Obama is to be expected because of the two, Obama is far more the rational logic led than the Republican ticket which rejects evolution and rejects AGW. Typical social conservative rhetorical points that all scientists reject.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Pilots For 911 Truth

Do you have any idea how much industry & technology and thus job creation and expanding economies of scale have come directly out of Federal Funded research?

In the world of science, the concept of 'pure research' is becoming extinct. Have you ever tried to get funding for 'pure research' before, LOL!

Let me give you just a little taste of what this looks like:

For the past five (5) years (among other things) I've been working with several aerospace science and aeronautical engineers, on a concept that I developed for a new type of high-performance twin-turbine jet aircraft for the GA market and for very specific HDI missions (Homeland Defense). The concept itself is sound, but the problem is that funding for the pure R&D necessary to provide the propulsion system that I’m most interested in, is basically non-existent. We talked to Pratt & Whitney – not interested. We talked to Rolls Royce – not interested. We talked to Turbo Mecca (of all companies) – and again – not interested. We talked to every single reputable and capable turbine engine manufacturing company on the North American continent – not interested.

Do you want to know why?

Not because the concept was not sound, they LOVED the concept! But, because they could not justify the R&D cost as it relates to the pure research necessary to produce such a new propulsion system. THEY THEMSELVES want to produce such “systems”, but simply cannot make the economic justification fit any rational scenario for the level of spending that would be involved. Most of the spending, ironically, has everything to do with FAR 23 Regulations, but that’s another story that I won’t get into here. The point, is that I cannot fly my project without the right propulsion system.

Venture capital can’t justify the cost. Angle Funding can justify the cost. The only source in the world that could fund something like this, is the government. But, NOT just the U.S. government, I’ve got other governments that are interested in funding the project! But, that would require turning far too much control of the concept and the ultimate technology, over to a foreign government and I’m not willing to do that.

So, that leaves our government, does it not?

By my calculations, we will need approximately $500 million to just to bring the first prototype through FAR 23 Certification. That is NOT including full-run production costs. This project could create American jobs, paying good salaries to American Employees and help to grow the American Economy.

Now, you tell me why government should not be in the “business” of funding new, viable and innovative R&D projects that have real/good promise for our nations economy?

That’s just one example that fits my life to a T. But, I can give many other examples of where science and governmental funding are making (and/or will make) a meaningful difference in the kind/type/nature of jobs that will ultimate get created as a direct result.

I hope to be able to fund my project within the next 2-3 years, without the government’s involvement. I’ve decided that since I will be able to fund the project myself, there is no need to go into debt to the tune of ½ a billion.

Government funding of solid R&D is not only desirable – but necessary just to keep us competitive in certain industries! If done correctly, it can also be very profitable for the government and thus the tax payer. If done wrong, you end up with things like Star Wars and the Osprey V-22 and we don’t want nor can we afford to go down those types of costly roads.

P.S.

There is far more proof the Universe was Created by an intelligence well beyond our capacity to understand fully, than there is for the Universe self-organizing out of random chaos. Even the Law of Entropy tells us that much.

To accept spontaneous universal self-organization, you would have to mathematically reconcile a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard in New Orleans from the South and exiting that same junkyard at the North, leaving a fully engineered and wholly constructed Boeing 747-500 in its wake. The mathematical probability for our universe leaping into existence from a point of infinite density is far, far, far greater - to an order of probabilistic magnitude larger than the 11th power (exponentially).

Narrative has its place, just not in science, nor in attempting to understand even the smallest unit of our universe.

And, if you like, I can use some very simple mathematics to prove that the Universe was indeed created, not randomly self-organized. I would do that by starting with a Philosophical question first, and then applying the math.

Let me know if you want to discuss it.

__________________
Max Range: 2,500 nm (normal)
Max Speed: Mach .83 (486 kts)
Max Ceiling: 49,000 ft (certified)

Pilots For 911 Truth

P.P.S.

Paul,

I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat. Just FYI.

__________________
Max Range: 2,500 nm (normal)
Max Speed: Mach .83 (486 kts)
Max Ceiling: 49,000 ft (certified)

rebelbuc

I'm ready any time you are for the true debate. I'm fairly new to this site, but lead on... I'm ready.

__________________
"The Earth has a fever!"... I guess it does - political correctness and socialism are making the planet sick!

pauleon1

This is an incredibly naive position. I don't think it even warrants refutation.

I already conceded that many aspects of scientific research are lacking in profit motive, and that government funding of such endeavors would be prudent. My argument was that they are exceptions to the rule, and not the normative. That being said, there are a great number of individuals who enjoy studying science. It is logically possible that any of the researches you mentioned could be picked up by an individual with time and money on his hands. There are enough wealthy people in the world to make this probability higher, and the internet makes it even more likely that the research will be dispersed. I also pointed out that there are structures in place by which private individuals fund and reward research into areas that might not be thought of as profitable. Do you not think that Greenpeace (a private organization) would fund research into endangered species? Are there no private physics societies that value research for its own sake? Are there not genetics societies that wish to have as many genomes mapped as possible? The answer is yes! They are ubiquitous!

I did (though I remain highly critical of many of Bush's choices/policies). I think my mentor (a PhD. Biologist in good standing with current research and multiple published, peer reviewed works) did, and so did a number of others at my university. I'm not generalizing to the entire community of scientists, but you did, so if I can point out that there is just one scientist who did support Bush/Cheney, then this point flows to my side of the debate.

That being said, I don't think they voted for Bush because of his denial of evolution, which to be fair, he never did. he merely insisted (irrationally) that intelligent design be considered by science educators to be scientific in nature. I remain highly critical of him for that, as do many of the scientists I know who voted for him. As for AGW, many people have problems with the proponents' "Solution" to AGW, and not with AGW itself. Their "Solutions" sound too much like socialism--an abhorrent ideology to some of us.

It's frustrating to have to repeat myself. Please read my original reply. In no way did I say I was attempting to prove that Obama is a Marxist. My original statement, for the third time, was "[Don't be] smug that scientists support Obama. it does not mean that they [the scientists] share your Marxist...views." Secondly, I said in my reply that it would be impossible to prove something about someone's private thoughts. As such, all we have to go on with regard to people's thoughts are their public statements and their associations. I'm uncertain as to how the federal reserve is a socialist entity, unless you mean that it is a government entity that manages funds. Could you be clearer about this? Also, I remain critical of the bailouts, and I never said that I was excluding McCain from criticism. I even said in my reply to you "We are talking about Obama here." And to answer your question, YES I would call many Republicans socialists, even Marxist if and when they present a government solution to a problem that would be solved by the private sector.

.

This is a red herring. I mentioned Obama's association with people who are Marxists, and anti-American. I pointed out that his policy ideals fly in the face of the individual liberty and constitutionality of our nation. This does not prove anything about the man personally. I merely said that if I were NOT anti-American, or Marxist, I would probably explain very clearly why I was taking advice, money, and support from so many of them if I were a political candidate.

As Obama has pointed out, merely being affiliated with someone is not the same thing as agreeing with him, nor is it in any way a statement of one's beliefs.


Read my entire statement. He did not denounce him until it became clear that folks were considering voting for Hillary instead of him as a result of his association with Wright. At first, he attempted to support Wright as a pastor. Public opinion caused him to change. I can't say if he actually changed his mind, but then, neither can you.


Non existent? Make Believe? Those weren't Obama's words. Obama has said (and Again, I'm repeating myself. Jesus, why do I bother?) that his relationship with Ayers developed long after Ayers' crimes were committed. That being said, if Obama wanted people to know that he was not anti-American, he should have said, "Not only did we become colleagues long after those crimes, but I have said to him on numerous occasions that I disagree with his ideology, and his choice to use violence to get his point across." Once again, I Never stated that Obama is anti-American or Marxist. YOU demanded that I prove it. I told you that it would be impossible to do so, and that the only evidence about a person's private thoughts that we have is their public statements and their choices of association. So, since I was attempting to suggest evidenciary items that hinted at Obama's personal thoughts (BUT DO NOT PROVE THEM BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO!), it is prudent to include his associations.


Once again, and I don't know how to say this more clearly, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE SOMEONE'S PERSONAL VIEWS. THE ONLY HINT AT A PERSON'S PRIVATE THOUGHTS IS HIS PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND HIS ASSOCIATIONS AND SUPPORTERS.

Not only is it impossible, I admitted that fact to you in my reply. Still, you demanded proof. You can't win an argument by demanding that your opponent do the impossible. Your demand was irrational. The only time we will have more clear evidence that Obama is a Marxist anti-American is if he stands publicly and says "I am a Marxist, and I hate America." Even then, we will not have PROVED his personal thoughts, because he could be lying. Do you understand that? Please stop asking me to prove a negative! Please read my original post, which does not even hint that Obama is a Marxist. It is a declarative statement that many of his followers are self-avowed Marxists, but I can't even prove to you THEIR personal thoughts!

MDM

How many Nobel laureates endorse McCain?

Does anyone know how many Nobel-winning scientists do not openly support Obama?

jfuh

Great meet me here to confirm receipt of.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057772127-post1.html

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Ethereal

Just because they are experts in science does not mean they know anything about politics.

jfuh

Actually it completely throws off your argument that research is based on politics when it isn't.

The answer is no, they can not. Pvt organizations like Greenpeace are political, not scientific. You can not equate such organizations to the likes of the NIH, NSF or NAS which are politically neutral.
Scientific studies require political neutrality. It's like asking oil industry to fund climate research, what do you think will be the result of such funding? Only the conclusion in which those organizations wish to progress will get the funding.
So no, your concept will unfortunately not, nor will it ever, work.

That I will conceded as an over-reaching generalization per issue, the drive home emphasis was on the anti-scientific set.
To even place ID on an equal platform of evolution is itself disregard of scientific principles.

There are various issues of society that are simply too big and to large to deal with via private institutions. The invisible hand often on pushes in a route that while favorable for a short time is highly unfavorable in the long term. It is precisely what happened in the 1920's and repeated after 2001. Thus the establishment of governmental oversight and regulation via the federal reserve while socialistic in nature does not equate to a proponent of marxism in anyway or that my views equate to marxist.
A simple shared view does is not an equation to marxism which has various other aspects that are not shared by a singular commonality.
Hence, my problem with your mentioning of marxism. Hope that clarifies.

Again, same as above, sound bite catch phrases like anti-american, marxism, those are themselves red herrings - a blow up and exaggeration to insinuate that somehow Obama and his policies equate to being anti-american or marxist. Use of such catch phrases only serve to demerit your argument.

This is utterly rediculous and come on you know this is unless you are insinuating that Obama is himself a racist.
He was well ahead of Hillary all the way and Hillary was trying to stick it onto him which is why he had absolutely no problem whatsoever in using the word denounce. He had continually rejected and condemned Wright's words, sentiment and actions and wright even called Obama pandering to both sides because of it.

There was no relationship and there you go again with the "anti-american" rocus. They never were colleagues nor ever did they share any form of relationship other than the joint venture on the issue of education. The very aspect of "relationship" other than what is facutal is a highly dishonest attempt to label Obama with sentiment and ideology which he does not support nor had he ever had.
So let me say it again, he (Obama) did not nor does he associate with Aeyers - and unless you are insinuating so I don't understand why it is you continually bring up this red herring of "a relationship with ayers".

And there is no association whatsoever. If you are going to insist on there being a relationship then please supply the basis of your claim.

It's a red-herring that is to suggest that by association he is also guilty of the same sentiments.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

Well, and seriously, how difficult are politics? I mean seriously, here we are a couple of greenhorns and we debate politics.
I would expect that nobel laureates would be any less knowledgeable through simple googling and study to arrive at principles similarly to what you and I have on politics.
But I agree, it's of little merit outside of the fact that they are well respected researchers who are of high intellect.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me