Home | Community | Message Board


Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect?
    #3817051 - 02/22/05 03:43 PM (12 years, 6 days ago)

President Bush Stifles Science, Researchers Say
By Paul Recer
Associated Press
posted: 21 February 2005
08:05 am ET



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions.

The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists.

And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed,'' she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice.''

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years are now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

One result of such actions, said Neal Lane of Rice University, a former director of the National Science Foundation, is that "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem.''

Among scientists, said Lane, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that'' through the burning of fossil fuels.

And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before.''

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed.''

Kurt Gottfried of Cornell University and the Union of Concerned Scientists said a survey of scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that about 42 percent said they felt pressured to not report publicly any findings that do not agree with Bush policies on endangered species. He said almost a third of the Fish and Wildlife researchers said they were even pressured not to express within the agency any views in conflict with the Bush policies.

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information,'' said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science.

He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues.

Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff'' of the agency through the hiring process.

Federal spending for research and development is significantly reduced under the proposed 2005 Bush budget, the speakers said.

"Overall the R&D budget is bad news,'' said Bierbaum.

She said the National Science Foundation funds for graduate students and for kindergarten through high school education has been slashed.

NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to the space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the Moon and Mars. What is suffering is the space agency's scientific research efforts, she said.

"Moon and Mars is basically going to eat everybody's lunch,'' she said.

Lane said Bush's moon and Mars exploration effort has not excited the public and has no clear goals or plans.

He said Bush's Moon-Mars initiative "was poorly carried out and the budget is not there to do the job so science (at NASA) will really get hurt.''


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3817070 - 02/22/05 03:49 PM (12 years, 6 days ago)

Tis easier and much cheaper to stiffle the scientists than to encourage (bribe, intimidate) them into altering the findings of their studies. People are inclined to believe what politicians and pundits say more than scientists, as long as it fits in with their comfortable world view. But who cares about science education? It doesn't matter if the next generation turns out to be a crowd of idiots as long as our defense spending keeps them safe from the terrorist boogy men.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3817214 - 02/22/05 04:24 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

so questioning bad science is "stifling" it?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3817815 - 02/22/05 06:33 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Interesting, my research group just recieved an 8 million dollar shared grant from NIH.

Of course, this article just goes back to the global warming issue that I have said before is a total grant money scam. If they are reducing spending on global warming to spend on more important, current issues then I am all for it.

edit: People in my group are currently also recieving a sizable grant from NASA to develop corrosion resistant coatings. Perhaps the people complaining about lack of funding are just not proposing any interesting research. They can't just throw money at anyone who says they are a scientist.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3820251 - 02/23/05 01:14 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Acidic vitis vinifera berries?


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3820297 - 02/23/05 01:23 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

This is sad. Sad but expected.

Going to the moon and Mars is great...
But on a list of important scientific study that could advance the human race, I'd put those missions towards the bottom.

Catalysis, please fill me in on this global warming money scam. I'm surrounded by federally funded people working with research congruent with global warming. Not exactly a rich group of folks...


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Gijith]
    #3820931 - 02/23/05 05:19 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

the overwheling majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, whether or not our greenhouse gasses are speeding it along, or more precisely how much it is speeding it up is the question. Now you are the minority because most scientists DO think that greenhouse gas produced by us WILL cause a signifigent rise in temps. Just because its not your opinion does not make it wrong, or of any less importance. Because even if you believe that our greenhouse gas means little there is always the chance you can be wrong, and if you are wrong adn we follow your advice then well the planets fucked. Of course if you err on teh side of caution the worst thing that can happen is that we spend some more money. Which seems view seems more logical now? Peace

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3821034 - 02/23/05 07:41 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

blaze2 said:
the overwheling majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, whether or not our greenhouse gasses are speeding it along, or more precisely how much it is speeding it up is the question. Now you are the minority because most scientists DO think that greenhouse gas produced by us WILL cause a signifigent rise in temps. Just because its not your opinion does not make it wrong, or of any less importance. Because even if you believe that our greenhouse gas means little there is always the chance you can be wrong, and if you are wrong adn we follow your advice then well the planets fucked. Of course if you err on teh side of caution the worst thing that can happen is that we spend some more money. Which seems view seems more logical now? Peace

blaze2




Do you have a source that indicates that MOST scientists believe greenhouse gasses will produce a significant rise in temperature?


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 2 months, 11 days
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3821874 - 02/23/05 01:19 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinethe universe
Harbinger ofEldritch Despair
Male

Registered: 03/11/99
Posts: 1,456
Loc: Under your bed
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #3822134 - 02/23/05 02:25 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

State of Fear is an excellent book by Micheal Chrichton. I too believed all that global warming crap as indisputable fact just 2 months ago. Now I'm educated with actual sources, and I think that global warming is just another "fear for money" scam.


--------------------
"If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn't rub out even half the 'Fuck you' signs in the world."- J. D. Salinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: the universe]
    #3822987 - 02/23/05 05:33 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

I just started reading State of Fear today.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Gijith]
    #3823821 - 02/23/05 08:19 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
This is sad. Sad but expected.

Going to the moon and Mars is great...
But on a list of important scientific study that could advance the human race, I'd put those missions towards the bottom.

Catalysis, please fill me in on this global warming money scam. I'm surrounded by federally funded people working with research congruent with global warming. Not exactly a rich group of folks...




In science, to continue receiving money you need to show progress.  There simply is no progress in global warming research.  We all know the possibilities and we have all seen the data but you can only pour over past meteorological data so much (which doesn't cost anything by the way) to try to find some evidence of it.  There is not really much that scientists can study in the current atmosphere to really derive any significant information other than continuing to track weather patterns (which also doesn't cost anything because it is a commercial enterprise).

Global warming "research" is almost a joke now because its only purpose is to convince people that it exists or it doesn't exist and these research groups almost always have political ties.  I can imagine them trying to get a grant..."We have shown that global warming exists and we need more money to..um..show that it exists again."  Do you see my point?

Unfortunately, when scientists fail to contribute anything meaningful, they need to be cut off and they will fight and do shady things to continue receiving funding.  Ive seen it first hand.  It really has nothing to do with getting rich per se.  This is just how the industry works, but global warming is special because it is a hot-button topic and these researchers can get away with far more than most scientists.

I think that this money should be put towards pollution research and developing new, functional ways to deal with pollution in our environment.  It won't do much good to prevent global warming in 1000 years if I can't even drink tap water 50 years from now (actually my tap water is undrinkable right now due to radon contamination).

..and don't be sad. I can tell you that some absolutely amazing science is being plentifully funded by the government right now and I guarantee that you will see some astounding advances in science within the next 5-10 years.  Its not all doom and gloom.  :grin:


Edited by Catalysis (02/23/05 08:32 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3824456 - 02/23/05 10:38 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

You really couldn't be more wrong, man. Really.

First and foremost, the majority of research that is used to support or debunk the theory of global warming is not done for the sole purpose of studying global warming. I personally work on research that could easily be used in relation to global warming. But it will more likely be used to estimate glacial patterns during the Illinoian retreat. Or maybe it'll just be filed away and never really used. And it's the same way for thousands of researchers. There really aren't that many people who specifically study global warming. I applaud the ones that do. I've only met a handful of them. Either at talks or conferences (I'm finally getting to attend my first national geology conference next month in Dallas). All, with the exception of one, we're very modest, honest scientific people. Only one was a cliche global warming extremist. You just tend to hear more about the extremists because they are the ones that want to release provocative papers and be on the news and pretend to be politicians. That's really how it breaks down. Most of the scientists are very reasonable people who just want to study a very important topic and make a decent living. Trust me, if these people were only motivated by money, they could be making TONS of it in other fields, oil being the main one.

Second, if studying global climate was as simple and cheap as looking over meteorologic data, we'd gladly do that. Studying global climate is the most complex area of science outside of psychiatric study. It ties into nearly a dozen fields of study and requires information from all of them in order to attempt to reach any sort of conclusion.

Please please please, get informed about what your talking about. Really, just go to the library and grab some text books. And not ones on meteorology, because that's really one of the areas of lower importance.

And yes, I agree with you that some other environmental issues should take priority. As I've said before, I think there are areas of study that our more urgent than global warming (overuse of commercial fertilizer and deforestation are a few issues that I would put higher on the list). But there are a some things that make global warming consistently stand out as a very important issue to study. The first and most obvious being it's complexity. Because it's so damn difficult to piece together, it will require prolonged and consistent research in order to form better models. The second is its behavior. As I'm fond of saying, global climate works on tipping points. Meaning that under the right circumstances, small events (a subglacial lake suddenly breaking down and burrowing into the Northern Atlantic for example), can cause very large scale chain reactions to start (severe alterations to global ocean currents and/or weather patterns), which would then eventually lead to changes in climate (increased heating or cooling). Because it works on tipping points, once these things are set in motion, they might be difficult to stop (this has some relation to what I'm assisting in studying). Now, I personally think the chances of something this drastic happening in the near future are pretty damn slim. But it eventually will. There's absolute consensus on that. And that kinda brings me to my third point, which is the scale of global climate changes. Shitty drinking water sucks for various areas. A pronounced climate change would effect every corner and every economy in the world. And as I've said before, at that time, our understanding of the mechanism behind the climate change will greatly determine how well we are able to handle it. That, at least in my mind, is why it's important to study.

I understand why people get fed up with hearing about it. Or why they think it's so fanatical. But really, just try to have an open mind. The vast vast vast majority of the people involved with the research aren't trying to 'scare' or 'scam' anybody.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Gijith]
    #3824730 - 02/23/05 11:21 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

Well thats good but I still don't understand exactly what tangable effect global warming research contributes. Im sure glacial patterns of the illinoian retreat are interesting and worthwhile to study but does that mean it deserves more funding? I could come up with a million things that I think would be cool to study but should we divert more money to study it all? What will be the outcome and how will we directly benefit from it? Why does it deserve more money that could be spent on curing diseases, developing innovative materials, or dealing with pollution? These are questions that need to be answered when considering scientific funding.

I understand what you are saying but you have to look at this through a common person's eyes. They want to know what their tax dollars are buying. Is a problem being solved? is something being innovated? Will you be able to tell me when the next "tipping point" is? How much money will that cost?

People can only talk about these tipping points and our impending doom so much until it just becomes more of a public debate topic than an actual evolving science. Im not fed up and I don't think its fanatical, the global warming craze is just inevitably ending and geologists can expect to eventually return to their pre-global warming levels of funding. Thats all im sayin

edit: My overall point is that geology is definatly a credible science but when this global warming thing started rolling, you can bet that there were/are scientists jumping all over it for a chance at a research contract or a moment in the scientific limelight.

Scientists live for 2 things..to be funded and to be published.


Edited by Catalysis (02/23/05 11:31 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3824903 - 02/23/05 11:54 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

Science isnt about what the "common people". Most are ignorant and wouldnt understand 90% of the science carried out with their tax dollars anyways. Should all that be shut down then? Because stupid people cant see the results?


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 16 days
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3826870 - 02/24/05 12:25 PM (12 years, 4 days ago)

From your signature:
Quote:

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson



Do the nature of this post and the signature quote seem mutually exclusive to anyone else?

Someone find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to fund scientific research with my tax dollars.

Hint: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is no good. Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3828289 - 02/24/05 05:44 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

Someone find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to fund scientific research with my tax dollars.




oh puh-leeze :rolleyes:

anyone who uses this argument:

"find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to ______________" (fill in the blank)

hasn't been paying attention to 229 years of american history.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: blaze2]
    #3828322 - 02/24/05 05:53 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

blaze2 said:
Science isnt about what the "common people".  Most are ignorant and wouldnt understand 90% of the science carried out with their tax dollars anyways.  Should all that be shut down then?  Because stupid people cant see the results?




the problem is that we have ignorant people who would rather get "educated" by the likes of Michael Crichton (read about his lies herehereherehere and here :grin:) instead of actually taking the time to research and study up on the issue. its just laziness on their part I guess.

its also a sad commentary on the state of science education in this country

btw, Crichton's book portrays evironmentalists as a bunch of eco-terrorists who are the real threat. he's basically preying on peoples fear of terrorism to sell books and enrich himself. whose running a "fear for money" scam here?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3828660 - 02/24/05 07:24 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
anyone who uses this argument:

"find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to ______________" (fill in the blank)

hasn't been paying attention to 229 years of american history.



oh puh-leeze :rolleyes:

This may come as a surprise to you, but the constitution is the charter of the federal government.  It is a compact between the states establishing the Federal government as an agent of the states to perform certain functions as outlined in the document.  The first ten amendments (aka: 'The Bill of Rights') further establish the limits of federal power.  That the federal government has broken the terms of it's contract numerous times throughout history is no argument that what it does is within it's duly authorized powers or that it is right.

The same logic that you use would not suffice in a court of law for individuals or businesses breaking contracts or committing crimes.  Do you think that if you falsified tax returns and got away with it for twenty years, that such a defense would work when the feds finally called you on it?

This is a sad commentary on the state of education about U.S. history and government in this country


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Bush stifles science, gee what did you expect? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3828719 - 02/24/05 07:35 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
Quote:

Someone find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to fund scientific research with my tax dollars.




oh puh-leeze :rolleyes:

anyone who uses this argument:

"find me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to ______________" (fill in the blank)

hasn't been paying attention to 229 years of american history.



What exactly haven't I been paying attention to that allows the federal government to violate its charter? Is there an amendment I missed somewhere?


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse, Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush calls for halt to swift boat vet ads
( 1 2 all )
Worf 1,378 22 08/24/04 01:46 PM
by retread
* Kerry is going to destroy Bush in the debates.
( 1 2 all )
Signo 1,845 29 08/22/04 01:42 PM
by Annapurna1
* Question for Bush Voters??
( 1 2 all )
KingOftheThing 1,352 31 07/29/04 01:23 AM
by AhronZombi
* Is George W. Bush insane? ekomstop 1,010 12 09/24/04 12:17 PM
by Learyfan
* George W Bush , how does his first term add up?
( 1 2 all )
fft2 2,486 32 07/20/04 05:47 PM
by Anonymous
* Bush Vow on Iraq Force Divides Congress-ABCNEWS Jammer 543 4 01/30/03 01:38 AM
by Swami
* Swift Vets Mailing in PA retread 1,207 17 10/20/04 12:00 AM
by Swami
* Bush ratings tumble as Iraq civil war beckons Alex213 870 12 08/29/05 06:14 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,620 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.153 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.