Conservatives Donate More Than Liberals:

[guest]

www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=2

Even when you take out of the accounting Church donations, Conservatives still donate more than Liberals.

Liberals are cheap skates like paris who want to steal my money to help themselves.

[switch]

Paris is not a liberal

[par73]

Hmm i wonder how much more money conservatives have than liberals, lets think here cu


if i had enough money to donate i probably wouldn't bitch about reform

[waywardone]

It's easy to give away what you never earned in the first place.

[par73]

Rightly so wwo,

[guest]

Indeed WWO, business owners didn't build their businesses, as your Messiah pointed out government gave it to them. Don't hate on business owners because they are smarter and braver than you, WWO. Also, conservatives give more as a percentage of income. Just face it Paris, the rich are more generous.

[sasper]

guest is right. conservatives are generally better than liberals. liberals are usually talentless pussy hippy douches.
i'm 27 and make 130k by working hard and being smarter than liberals. i don't donate any of my income because i am already way too highly taxed.

[trololo]

Jul 26, 2012 17:17:24 GMT 2 sasper said:

guest is right. conservatives are generally better than liberals. liberals are usually talentless pussy hippy douches.
i'm 27 and make 130k by working hard and being smarter than liberals. i don't donate any of my income because i am already way too highly taxed.

Australian trash money doesn't count, dicksucker.

[sasper]

LOL

[pogue]

Jul 26, 2012 17:17:24 GMT 2 sasper said:

i'm 27 and make 130k .

Bonky told me he has over 1 million in the bank. You fail.

[sasper]

Jul 26, 2012 19:00:08 GMT 2 pogue said:

You fail.

aren't you a 50 year old self proclaimed alcoholic? not in much of a position to tell anyone they fail...

[switch]

The US political system is a prop for scientism. At first this may seem counter-intuitive considering the importance of political religion for the American electorate, but this would be to forget that political religion is merely wool covering the eyes of the people. Religion and science have more in common than is generally understood, as any quick glance at Reddit will demonstrate. Science and religion are both powerful myths used to control populations and coerce popular contributions to projects that are not useful or beneficial to the human condition; but that in fact contribute to the ideological vision of a tiny elite.

What is really going on in the American system is the entrenchment of scientific and technological control over nature



This "movement" which has a near total consensus amongst the population of the United States and the other countries of the Anglo-American establishment is itself based on a fundamental theocratic notion that humans are not really animals and therefore have a metaphysical divine right to control and shape nature.

Proponents of this doctrine, which includes the entire American congress with a few partial detractors (occasionally libertarians), will employ a few arguments to support their agenda:

1) America is "falling behind" other countries technologically.

This argument has been bread and butter of the American military-industrial complex since the end of the Second World War. It's objective is to make funding for applied and theoretical science (mainly with military applications) as uncontroversial as possible, while simultaneously shrinking funding to non-science fields. When combined with Whig history, this is a powerful argument because critiquing, or opposing it, generally labels the critic or opponent as a luddite.

2) Space is the future of the American frontier.

This is a neo-turner argument. You can see its progressive entrenchment in the American culture everywhere.

For example:

Project Longshot

DARPA 100 year spaceship.

3) Technological integration with humans is desirable and inevitable.

Trans-humanism and post-humanism are progressing apace and have already completely subsumed humanism. Proponents will argue in favour of moving towards technocracy despite the obvious truth that America is already a technocracy. The fact that we are all here playing this game across the internet and that we do not think for a second about the significance of this is case in point.

[guest]

And switch is a nutter... CONFIRMED!

If space is the next frontier it stands to reason the government would have kept up 1960s levels of funding for it. They have not and instead have discontinued the shuttle program in favor of an ill-defined replacement program in the future.

[switch]

To each of your points:

1) Switch is a nutter.
2) The US government would have maintained 1960s levels of funding for space if space were the long term objective
3) The shuttle program would not have been discontinued if space were the long term objective.


1) No argument here. I would much rather be classified as insane than whatever "normal" stands for in your imagination.

2) This notion is based, like the third argument, on ignorance of what the program was meant to achieve. The Apollo program, contrary to the imperial narrative, was actually a distraction in the history of the American space program. The Kennedy administration launched the moon-shot program in a bid to placate anti-communist critics of the administration. The objective of the Apollo program was never to achieve the long-term vision of space colonization that had been proposed by the scientists transfered to America under operation paperclip. The program was terminated precisely because of a political and ideological struggle between advocates of the "new" and "old" schools of space exploration. The latter proposed the STS and "a space station" (Space Station Freedom) as the next phase for development of eventual moon and mars colonization and the former proposed more robotic missions for other reasons.

3) The shuttle program was a complicated "successful failure": the STS was initially proposed by the "old school" as the first phase of the project to build a space station, which, in that regard, the STS was successful and was retired intelligently after the project was complete. On the other-hand, the "new school" argument concerning the STS (generally made by USAF staff officers) was that the STS would provide economic access to space on an "operational" rather than "experimental" basis and would allow for greater control over space assets such as spy and weaponized satellites. This argument was supported by the Mathematica study in 1972.

The shuttle will be replaced by a number of government and non-governmental systems such as the X-33/37 and the systems proposed by Scaled Composites, Space X, and the like.

There is certainly a complicated policy agenda to consider here, which is by no means mutually compatible. For example, the desire amongst the recent presidential administrations to engage in anti-terrorist and regime change operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and the rest of the middle east has stalled "progress" in the space frontier. Likewise, the policy of appeasement towards the economic elite (banking, finance, and other interests) has caused significant delays, by, for example, nearly crashing the global economy in 2008/9.

[guest]

To point #2 - if space is still as important as a "frontier" as you think it is then funding surely would have remained level from one program to the next.

To point #3 - it was part of point #2, an illustration to show gradual decline in emphasis of space. Nothing you said counteracts this at all. Regardless have checked out NASA's recent budget - 38% cut for planetary exploration. Surely that sounds like the kind of move a society focused on space as a frontier would make.