Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All those billions of dollars over all these decades funding science and research and not one rabid rightwinger has been able to stop it because of it's unconstitutionality? Even though it's explicitly prohibited?I'm sure English is your second language so I've been nice to this point. But since you insist on being an ignorant little fuck I'm going to say in one more time. If our Constitution doesn't explicitly permit something it is explicitly prohibited, if you doubt that see the 10th Amendment. Now go crawl back in your hole. BTW I hope you neg me, so I can return the favor.
Bush signs off on billions for science, tech | News Blogs - CNET News
President Bush on Thursday signed into law the America Competes Act, which authorizes $33.6 billion from federal coffers for government-sponsored research, education and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years.
nsf.gov - NCSES Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006?08 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
So much for explicitly prohibited.
Guess you missed the discussion, it was about what the Constitution says, not what the feds are actually doing.
All those billions of dollars over all these decades funding science and research and not one rabid rightwinger has been able to stop it because of it's unconstitutionality? Even though it's explicitly prohibited?
Guess you're unclear on the definition of explicit.
Inspecting meat for one.
No one inspected meat before the government got involved?
That would be correct
No one inspected meat before the government got involved?
Common sense would dictate that every person who ate meat probably inspected it prior to cooking it. I don't believe you need the Government to tell you that your steak is spoiled.
People used to do a lot of things in the old days that they can't get away with today. Sometimes bridges collapse if they're not built correctly. People can get salmonella and die. I don't want the guy that built the bridge to do a self inspection, the electrician that wired the house to do the inspection, or the packing plant to certify that the beef is safe. This is where the government and the power of the law does things best. Some of you people are obviously wishing for a time when life wasn't so complicated but sorry, it really is.
All those billions of dollars over all these decades funding science and research and not one rabid rightwinger has been able to stop it because of it's unconstitutionality? Even though it's explicitly prohibited?Bush signs off on billions for science, tech | News Blogs - CNET News
President Bush on Thursday signed into law the America Competes Act, which authorizes $33.6 billion from federal coffers for government-sponsored research, education and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years.
nsf.gov - NCSES Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006?08 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
So much for explicitly prohibited.
Guess you missed the discussion, it was about what the Constitution says, not what the feds are actually doing.
Guess you're unclear on the definition of explicit.
Often times government must lead the way.
It's why we elect "leaders".
Often times government must lead the way.
Can you provide some real world examples?
Well, who just discovered the "god particle"?
I'll give you a clue - it was not the US.
No one inspected meat before the government got involved?
That would be correct
That would be incorrect. The politics behind the policy of government meat inspection is really interesting, you should look into it sometime. Chicago became the home of larger, more efficient, meat packers were displacing local slaughterhouses all across the country. The smaller, local, businesses tried to frighten people away from the larger chains with lower prices by claiming they used diseased cattle, even though there was no evidence that this was occurring. These spurious charges threatened to destroy the market, both domestically and the burgeoning export market.
Then we have the cattleman who were overproducing, and driving down prices as a result. They, being the type where everything was someone else's fault, blamed the meatpacking industry in Chicago, and saw meat inspection as a way to increase demand, so they threw their weight behind meat inspection. In fact, the Sherman Act came out of the same political climate, even though no monopoly has ever existed unless it was backed by force of government.
In other words, this whole thing was nothing more than a bunch of non innovators objecting to market forces beyond their control, and demanding that the government step in to save them from progress.
All those billions of dollars over all these decades funding science and research and not one rabid rightwinger has been able to stop it because of it's unconstitutionality? Even though it's explicitly prohibited?Bush signs off on billions for science, tech | News Blogs - CNET News
President Bush on Thursday signed into law the America Competes Act, which authorizes $33.6 billion from federal coffers for government-sponsored research, education and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years.
nsf.gov - NCSES Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006?08 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
So much for explicitly prohibited.
Guess you missed the discussion, it was about what the Constitution says, not what the feds are actually doing.
Guess you're unclear on the definition of explicit.
That would be correct
That would be incorrect. The politics behind the policy of government meat inspection is really interesting, you should look into it sometime. Chicago became the home of larger, more efficient, meat packers were displacing local slaughterhouses all across the country. The smaller, local, businesses tried to frighten people away from the larger chains with lower prices by claiming they used diseased cattle, even though there was no evidence that this was occurring. These spurious charges threatened to destroy the market, both domestically and the burgeoning export market.
Then we have the cattleman who were overproducing, and driving down prices as a result. They, being the type where everything was someone else's fault, blamed the meatpacking industry in Chicago, and saw meat inspection as a way to increase demand, so they threw their weight behind meat inspection. In fact, the Sherman Act came out of the same political climate, even though no monopoly has ever existed unless it was backed by force of government.
In other words, this whole thing was nothing more than a bunch of non innovators objecting to market forces beyond their control, and demanding that the government step in to save them from progress.
If I recall correctly, controlling disease was one of the state interests asserted by Louisiana in the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Getting off of oil would strengthen
1) the economy big time
2) strengthen our stance as we wouldnt be dependent upon oil
Those are indisputable. However, we arent there yet so we are addicted to oil. Do we get taken to the cleaners by big oil? No doubt about it. But we're still beholden to the black liquid.
Often times government must lead the way.
"A team of Virginia Tech researchers has discovered a way to extract large quantities of hydrogen from any plant, a breakthrough that has the potential to bring a low-cost, environmentally friendly fuel source to the world.
"Our new process could help end our dependence on fossil fuels," said Y.H. Percival Zhang, an associate professor of biological systems engineering in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering. "Hydrogen is one of the most important biofuels of the future."
Zhang and his team have succeeded in using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar, to produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory. Zhang's method can be performed using any source of biomass.
The discovery is a featured editor's choice in an online version of the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, International Edition.
This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no zero greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals. Previous methods to produce hydrogen are expensive and create greenhouse gases.
The U.S. Department of Energy says that hydrogen fuel has the potential to dramatically reduce reliance of fossil fuels and automobile manufactures are aggressively trying to develop vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike gas-powered engines that spew out pollutants, the only byproduct of hydrogen fuel is water. Zhang's discovery opens the door to an inexpensive, renewable source of hydrogen."
Support for the current research comes from the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. Additional resources were contributed by the Shell GameChanger Program, the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences' Biodesign and Bioprocessing Research Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy BioEnergy Science Center, along with the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the Department of Energy. The lead author of the article, Julia S. Martin Del Campo, who works in Zhang's lab, received her Ph.D. grant from the Mexican Council of Science and Technology."
Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil
NEDRA PICKLER and MATTHEW DALY | March 15, 2013 06:03 PM EST | Associated Press
Compare other versions »
Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil
I'm for research and development...Let the private sector apply it if this is successful without government.LEMONT, Ill. Envisioning cars that can go "coast to coast without using a drop of oil," President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to authorize spending $2 billion over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline.
Obama, expanding on an initiative he addressed in his State of the Union speech last month, said the United States must shift its cars and trucks entirely off oil to avoid perpetual fluctuations in gas prices. Citing policies that already require automakers to increase gas mileage, he said he expects that by the middle of the next decade, Americans will only have to fill up their cars half as often.
"We've set some achievable but ambitious goals," Obama said, speaking at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago
"The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil," the president said.
Friday's speech, with its focus on energy, was designed to draw attention to what the White House says is one of Obama's top agenda items for his second term. That focus, however, has been overshadowed as the administration and Congress work on an immigration overhaul, gun legislation and deficit-reduction measures.
Obama cast his proposal as not only a clean energy plan, but as one meant to create opportunities for economic growth.
Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil
NEDRA PICKLER and MATTHEW DALY | March 15, 2013 06:03 PM EST | Associated Press
Compare other versions »
Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil
I'm for research and development...Let the private sector apply it if this is successful without government.LEMONT, Ill. — Envisioning cars that can go "coast to coast without using a drop of oil," President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to authorize spending $2 billion over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline.
Obama, expanding on an initiative he addressed in his State of the Union speech last month, said the United States must shift its cars and trucks entirely off oil to avoid perpetual fluctuations in gas prices. Citing policies that already require automakers to increase gas mileage, he said he expects that by the middle of the next decade, Americans will only have to fill up their cars half as often.
"We've set some achievable but ambitious goals," Obama said, speaking at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago
"The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices – the only way to break that cycle for good – is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil," the president said.
Friday's speech, with its focus on energy, was designed to draw attention to what the White House says is one of Obama's top agenda items for his second term. That focus, however, has been overshadowed as the administration and Congress work on an immigration overhaul, gun legislation and deficit-reduction measures.
Obama cast his proposal as not only a clean energy plan, but as one meant to create opportunities for economic growth.
The impetus to convert our method of transportation mode from gasoline-based internal combustion engines to something else more sustainable which would not keep us dependent on the whims of other nations should have been glaringly obvious in 1973 during the first Arab oil embargo. It's a no brainer now.
Considering that private companies didn't even build the Interstate transportation system without taxpayer dollars, it would be illogical to place the burden on private companies alone to make the necessary investments in order to convert our transportation system to something more modern.
Hydrogen is an energy sink. Making it useful as a fuel requires more energy than the hydrogen contains.
