4 ms·

But I was told by my TV and friends on facebook that Trump is an evil racist with no other intent in life than to eat the souls of poor mexican anchor children

by EJTH 10y ago

But I was told by my TV and friends on facebook that Trump is an evil racist with no other intent in life than to eat the souls of poor mexican anchor children while he destroys every scientific achievement ever created by the western world as the god fearing republican he is!

hga 10y ago
Many people don't like to hear this, but since at least Carter->Reagan Republicans have been a lot better in supporting things like science and space exploration. Probably because no part of our collation considers them intrinsically wrong or evil. ADDED: LBJ->Nixon cannot be used to judge this due the the was in Vietnam (and to a lesser extent that might hold true for W after 9/11, and he showed his usual "genius" in picking NASA leadership), Nixon/Ford->Carter, though, would bear investigation. And Carter was absolute, total death to anything nuclear, it's just like him to take a small minded view of his experiences in cleaning up this mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#1952_NRX-incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#1952_... And, hmmm, this official NASA history says "Jimmy Carter was perhaps the least supportive of U.S. human space efforts of any president in the last half-century...." http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html Obama might be an exception, though, and I'm pretty sure that's true for space. He's not from the same generation as the bulk of those cultural anti-science Baby Boomer, about my age, in fact, was I'd guess wowed by the Apollo program like I was. Would have to check for his support of science research, though. I witnessed this first hand when Clinton NASA cutbacks killed the space technologies etc. company I started working at in late 1993, (ADDED:) and they're mentioned in the above NASA history link in the added paragraph above. And of course the cancellation of the already being built Superconducting Supercollider had much more than direct effects, which included a line running outside the MIT EECS Undergraduate Office of students transferring into the department.
- joezydeco 10y ago
  Probably because no part of our collation considers them intrinsically wrong or evil. Which party would be more interested in keeping defense contractors in business?
  - hga 10y ago
    That goes a zillions times more for defense contractors, in not considering them evil, especially including keeping them in business. Hard to win, impossible nowadays against a serious opponent, if you've let them go out of business. And many many of our troops needlessly died in WWII due to our playing catch up because we'd neglected these "merchants of death". Also goes for defense related research, etc.; our response to that is not 1 ton ANFO IEDs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing). The Romans had it right, "si vis pacem, para bellum" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum).

by EJTH 10y ago

hga 10y ago

Many people don't like to hear this, but since at least Carter->Reagan Republicans have been a lot better in supporting things like science and space exploration. Probably because no part of our collation considers them intrinsically wrong or evil. ADDED: LBJ->Nixon cannot be used to judge this due the the was in Vietnam (and to a lesser extent that might hold true for W after 9/11, and he showed his usual "genius" in picking NASA leadership), Nixon/Ford->Carter, though, would bear investigation. And Carter was absolute, total death to anything nuclear, it's just like him to take a small minded view of his experiences in cleaning up this mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#1952_NRX-incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#1952_... And, hmmm, this official NASA history says "Jimmy Carter was perhaps the least supportive of U.S. human space efforts of any president in the last half-century...." http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html Obama might be an exception, though, and I'm pretty sure that's true for space. He's not from the same generation as the bulk of those cultural anti-science Baby Boomer, about my age, in fact, was I'd guess wowed by the Apollo program like I was. Would have to check for his support of science research, though. I witnessed this first hand when Clinton NASA cutbacks killed the space technologies etc. company I started working at in late 1993, (ADDED:) and they're mentioned in the above NASA history link in the added paragraph above. And of course the cancellation of the already being built Superconducting Supercollider had much more than direct effects, which included a line running outside the MIT EECS Undergraduate Office of students transferring into the department.

joezydeco 10y ago
Probably because no part of our collation considers them intrinsically wrong or evil. Which party would be more interested in keeping defense contractors in business?
- hga 10y ago
  That goes a zillions times more for defense contractors, in not considering them evil, especially including keeping them in business. Hard to win, impossible nowadays against a serious opponent, if you've let them go out of business. And many many of our troops needlessly died in WWII due to our playing catch up because we'd neglected these "merchants of death". Also goes for defense related research, etc.; our response to that is not 1 ton ANFO IEDs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing). The Romans had it right, "si vis pacem, para bellum" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum).