Moderator: Community Team
patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?
(Quotes added so dipshits don't misunderstand any more than they do naturally.)
Just as a a note, some self pro-claimed conservatives don't speak for all conservatives.
patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.
But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.
1) What does the Committee do?
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development (R&D). Federal agencies that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction (either completely or partially) include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey.
patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.
But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.
patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
Lootifer wrote:That christian scientist shit is well weird.
AndyDufresne wrote:Lootifer wrote:That christian scientist shit is well weird.
They have a church near where I live. I like their bells that ring throughout the day. But that is as close as I have ventured.
--Andy
patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.
But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.
I'm unhappy with almost anything that is going on in DC, or even my state gov't now days, and frankly "the chairman of the committee on science, space, & technology" is so far down there that I wouldn't really care who they appointed. It's all irrelevant if we don't stop overspending on social programs, policing the world, leaving our oil in the ground while buying it from people who hate us, etc, etc. I'm personally about as concerned with the chairman for SST as I am the dog catcher of my local precinct.1) What does the Committee do?
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development (R&D). Federal agencies that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction (either completely or partially) include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey.
I think 3-4 of the above agencies could easily be cut or consolidated together. If the chairman is willing to suggest that, he's got my support all day long. In the very likely event that he doesn't, then it's a moot point and I simply do not care either way.
Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
No, I don't think it is. A President shouldn't be expected to have already been President in order to hold the position. An Energy Minister really should be expected to have spent some time doing SOMETHING involving the energy industry in order to hold the position.
Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.
But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.
I'm unhappy with almost anything that is going on in DC, or even my state gov't now days, and frankly "the chairman of the committee on science, space, & technology" is so far down there that I wouldn't really care who they appointed. It's all irrelevant if we don't stop overspending on social programs, policing the world, leaving our oil in the ground while buying it from people who hate us, etc, etc. I'm personally about as concerned with the chairman for SST as I am the dog catcher of my local precinct.1) What does the Committee do?
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development (R&D). Federal agencies that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction (either completely or partially) include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey.
I think 3-4 of the above agencies could easily be cut or consolidated together. If the chairman is willing to suggest that, he's got my support all day long. In the very likely event that he doesn't, then it's a moot point and I simply do not care either way.
Honestly, I find your statements there appalling. That being said, you probably really would like Lamar Smith then.
Lootifer wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
Thats apples and oranges.
One is a specialist decision making role where experience within the industry will assist in your uptake of information as it comes in.
The other is a figurehead leadership role. In which most countries is simply no more than a popularity contest.
Woodruff wrote:So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?
Well, for me, it's one of those "scratch your head in wonder" moments. While I am generally amused, I'm not aware of any specific hatred towards the scientific method.
patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
No, I don't think it is. A President shouldn't be expected to have already been President in order to hold the position. An Energy Minister really should be expected to have spent some time doing SOMETHING involving the energy industry in order to hold the position.
Oh, I thought executive leadership could come from running a company, a state, a city or even a township. What was I thinking, apparently only presidency can give executive leadership.... Come on woody, you are better than that.
patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.
Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.
But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.
I'm unhappy with almost anything that is going on in DC, or even my state gov't now days, and frankly "the chairman of the committee on science, space, & technology" is so far down there that I wouldn't really care who they appointed. It's all irrelevant if we don't stop overspending on social programs, policing the world, leaving our oil in the ground while buying it from people who hate us, etc, etc. I'm personally about as concerned with the chairman for SST as I am the dog catcher of my local precinct.1) What does the Committee do?
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development (R&D). Federal agencies that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction (either completely or partially) include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey.
I think 3-4 of the above agencies could easily be cut or consolidated together. If the chairman is willing to suggest that, he's got my support all day long. In the very likely event that he doesn't, then it's a moot point and I simply do not care either way.
Honestly, I find your statements there appalling. That being said, you probably really would like Lamar Smith then.
Out of all the back door deals, politics, shady deals, down right corruption in Washington, you are that worried about the chairman of a committee that overseas a few important agencies and a bunch more that could be cut or consolidated.
The country is going to be broke in no time and we are becoming an ever increasing police state but you can't criticize that stuff too much because it is brought to you by the party you are closer aligned with.
Do you find those statements appalling as well?
Woodruff wrote:You mean other than being specifically against the scientific method? Because that is essentially a tenet of the philosophy.
Woodruff wrote:I do not at all agree that the Democratic Party "has brought to us" an ever increasing police state.
Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Lootifer wrote:I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.
I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.
That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.
No, I don't think it is. A President shouldn't be expected to have already been President in order to hold the position. An Energy Minister really should be expected to have spent some time doing SOMETHING involving the energy industry in order to hold the position.
Oh, I thought executive leadership could come from running a company, a state, a city or even a township. What was I thinking, apparently only presidency can give executive leadership.... Come on woody, you are better than that.
Ok, you're right on that...I wasn't thinking creatively enough. But I'll grant that you're absolutely right. My only dissuation from that would be that being a member of Congress (because of the knowledge of running the government in that aspect) would also be sufficient.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:You mean other than being specifically against the scientific method? Because that is essentially a tenet of the philosophy.
Can you give me a link that might suggest that? Because other than facts about how totally weird they are, I can't see anything specifically opposing the scientific method. Not using it isn't the same as being against it.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:I do not at all agree that the Democratic Party "has brought to us" an ever increasing police state.
You would have to really define "police" exceptionally generically in order to suggest that. The Democratic Party does bring us more and more regulations. They in turn keep adding more and more people to "enforce" those regulations. Normally, we don't consider the enforcers of EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc. "police" because these people just sue in civil court. But the cumulative effect of massive regulations can approach a "police state" when strictly but selectively enforced.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users