Eisenhower

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

My wife and I are on a roadtrip out West. Today we visited the boyhood home, Presidential Library, and burial site of Pres. Eisnehower in Abilenr, Kansas. If you are ever close it is well worth your time. I was reminded once again why I liked Ike. He was a great General, President, leader and a man who never forgot his roots. He truly loved and served his country and always put country before politics. It's truly sad how far our country has fallen since his day. Obama couldn't carry his jock strap.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'm not sure any president we've had since could.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Probably the last truly honorable President. Well, hopefully not the last but, it doesn't look good.

[Tigermike 3,427]

Probably the last truly honorable President. Well, hopefully not the last but, it doesn't look good.

There's got to be more or at least I hope and pray there are.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Probably the last truly honorable President. Well, hopefully not the last but, it doesn't look good.

Agreed!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Probably the last truly honorable President. Well, hopefully not the last but, it doesn't look good.

There's got to be more or at least I hope and pray there are.

That's so sad it mad me laugh. I've been telling myself that for over 30 years.

[japantiger 4,077]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

You make most irrational Bush bashers look reasonable by comparison. Get some help.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

Well yea, ever one is honorible if you use Oblamma as a measurin stick. Grate post.

[cptau 169]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

Ike had his many strengths, accomplishments and faults. He put up with MacArthur when he was his aide. He held a military coalition in Western Europe together for 2 1/2 years that included Patton, Montgomery, and De Gaulle. The egos in that set normally could not be held on a single continent. His driver in WWII Europe was also his mistress. He was a poor choice to be the President of Columbia University for 5 years. He was gone much of the time and even was on active duty as the Supreme Commander of NATO for 2 years while president of Columbia. Needless to say the liberal faculty members disliked him, but the trustees refused to accept his registration and only did accepted it upon his election to be US President in 1952. Leading the war against the Nazi's in Europe, not using American and British troops to take Berlin just to give it back to the Russians, setting up the occupation of West Germany, and first NATO commander. As US President, desegregating the military, Interstate highways, NASA, and keeping the Russians contained are all on the plus side.

No one else since has such a solid resume

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has summarized the turnaround in evaluations by historians:

Historians long ago abandoned the view that Eisenhower's was a failed presidency. He did, after all, end the Korean War without getting into any others. He stabilized, and did not escalate, the Soviet-American rivalry. He strengthened European alliances while withdrawing support from European colonialism. He rescued the Republican Party from isolationism and McCarthyism. He maintained prosperity, balanced the budget, promoted technological innovation, facilitated (if reluctantly) the civil rights movement and warned, in the most memorable farewell address since Washington's, of a "military–industrial complex" that could endanger the nation's liberties. Not until Reagan would another president leave office with so strong a sense of having accomplished what he set out to do

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

Ike had his many strengths, accomplishments and faults. He put up with MacArthur when he was his aide. He held a military coalition in Western Europe together for 2 1/2 years that included Patton, Montgomery, and De Gaulle. The egos in that set normally could not be held on a single continent. His driver in WWII Europe was also his mistress. He was a poor choice to be the President of Columbia University for 5 years. He was gone much of the time and even was on active duty as the Supreme Commander of NATO for 2 years while president of Columbia. Needless to say the liberal faculty members disliked him, but the trustees refused to accept his registration and only did accepted it upon his election to be US President in 1952. Leading the war against the Nazi's in Europe, not using American and British troops to take Berlin just to give it back to the Russians, setting up the occupation of West Germany, and first NATO commander. As US President, desegregating the military, Interstate highways, NASA, and keeping the Russians contained are all on the plus side.

No one else since has such a solid resume

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has summarized the turnaround in evaluations by historians:

Historians long ago abandoned the view that Eisenhower's was a failed presidency. He did, after all, end the Korean War without getting into any others. He stabilized, and did not escalate, the Soviet-American rivalry. He strengthened European alliances while withdrawing support from European colonialism. He rescued the Republican Party from isolationism and McCarthyism. He maintained prosperity, balanced the budget, promoted technological innovation, facilitated (if reluctantly) the civil rights movement and warned, in the most memorable farewell address since Washington's, of a "military–industrial complex" that could endanger the nation's liberties. Not until Reagan would another president leave office with so strong a sense of having accomplished what he set out to do

Good post. A lot in there that I had forgotten. However, I don't think Ike, at least in his mind, left office with the same sense of accomplishment that Reagan did. I think Ike was genuinely worried that the population was forgetting what a government with limited powers really looked like. Ike was criticized at times for doing too little and playing too much golf.

Which, leads to why I like Ike. I think Ike had vision (something today's politicians lack because they are too busy worrying about next week's polls or the next election). He could see the future of this country with special interests in bed with the government and, a population that expected the government to solve all problems immediately. Ike fits my idea of what true conservatism is all about. I think he believed many problems would be resolved with a gentle nudge from the federal government rather than force. I believe he subscribed to the idea that the most effective change is accomplished slowly and thoughtfully. He did not subscribe to the idea that the government waves it's mighty magic wand and fixes all problems instantly with no regard to cost, consequence, or the Constitution.

I don't believe Ike was particularly partisan either. I have read, he detested the extreme left. However, I have heard some Republican leaning historians refer to him as the best Democratic President this country has ever had. Ike understood compromise. He could be tough but, above all, he was fair, realistic, and honest. Too bad there won't be anyone like Ike running in 2016.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ike hated war. He had seen the worst of it. One major accomplishment he can claim.......no American in the armed forces died on a field of battle during his presidency. And he had the respect of all the world leaders of his day.

[japantiger 4,077]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

You make most irrational Bush bashers look reasonable by comparison. Get some help.

Happy to address point by point on the merits.

[japantiger 4,077]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

Ike had his many strengths, accomplishments and faults. He put up with MacArthur when he was his aide. He held a military coalition in Western Europe together for 2 1/2 years that included Patton, Montgomery, and De Gaulle. The egos in that set normally could not be held on a single continent. His driver in WWII Europe was also his mistress. He was a poor choice to be the President of Columbia University for 5 years. He was gone much of the time and even was on active duty as the Supreme Commander of NATO for 2 years while president of Columbia. Needless to say the liberal faculty members disliked him, but the trustees refused to accept his registration and only did accepted it upon his election to be US President in 1952. Leading the war against the Nazi's in Europe, not using American and British troops to take Berlin just to give it back to the Russians, setting up the occupation of West Germany, and first NATO commander. As US President, desegregating the military, Interstate highways, NASA, and keeping the Russians contained are all on the plus side.

No one else since has such a solid resume

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has summarized the turnaround in evaluations by historians:

Historians long ago abandoned the view that Eisenhower's was a failed presidency. He did, after all, end the Korean War without getting into any others. He stabilized, and did not escalate, the Soviet-American rivalry. He strengthened European alliances while withdrawing support from European colonialism. He rescued the Republican Party from isolationism and McCarthyism. He maintained prosperity, balanced the budget, promoted technological innovation, facilitated (if reluctantly) the civil rights movement and warned, in the most memorable farewell address since Washington's, of a "military–industrial complex" that could endanger the nation's liberties. Not until Reagan would another president leave office with so strong a sense of having accomplished what he set out to do

Good post. A lot in there that I had forgotten. However, I don't think Ike, at least in his mind, left office with the same sense of accomplishment that Reagan did. I think Ike was genuinely worried that the population was forgetting what a government with limited powers really looked like. Ike was criticized at times for doing too little and playing too much golf.

Which, leads to why I like Ike. I think Ike had vision (something today's politicians lack because they are too busy worrying about next week's polls or the next election). He could see the future of this country with special interests in bed with the government and, a population that expected the government to solve all problems immediately. Ike fits my idea of what true conservatism is all about. I think he believed many problems would be resolved with a gentle nudge from the federal government rather than force. I believe he subscribed to the idea that the most effective change is accomplished slowly and thoughtfully. He did not subscribe to the idea that the government waves it's mighty magic wand and fixes all problems instantly with no regard to cost, consequence, or the Constitution.

I don't believe Ike was particularly partisan either. I have read, he detested the extreme left. However, I have heard some Republican leaning historians refer to him as the best Democratic President this country has ever had. Ike understood compromise. He could be tough but, above all, he was fair, realistic, and honest. Too bad there won't be anyone like Ike running in 2016.

Well said both...

[cooltigger21 0]

I found a lot of fault with Jimmy Carter; but never found him lacking honor. Lacking balls, grit, common sense, judgment,...yes... but I don't think I would characterize him lacking honor. Reagan.. never found him lacking honor. Never found either Bush lacking honor. I never found Clinton lacking honor in his political dealings...you could negotiate with him and believe what he said... until he couldn't keep his drawers up in the oral office cloakroom...oops, typo....oval. All these men had faults, made mistakes...but I can't say as I would impugn their honor. Ike's accomplishments in contrast to most of the others make him a remarkable statesman, soldier, citizen and leader....and yes, I view his honor as unassailable.

Obama; would lie when the truth would suit better. He will not negotiate with anyone in good faith; he won't even negotiate with Harry Reid. He is a pathological liar; sociopath; who doesn't respect the American people or the institutions that made the nation great. His is incompetent in all forms of administration of the government...he doesn't respect the office enough to care about being a competent administrator. I can't believe some of you elected this ass-clown. If he had any balls and ever even imagined serving in the military, I am sure he would be the only person in our history fragged by his recruiter.

Ike had his many strengths, accomplishments and faults. He put up with MacArthur when he was his aide. He held a military coalition in Western Europe together for 2 1/2 years that included Patton, Montgomery, and De Gaulle. The egos in that set normally could not be held on a single continent. His driver in WWII Europe was also his mistress. He was a poor choice to be the President of Columbia University for 5 years. He was gone much of the time and even was on active duty as the Supreme Commander of NATO for 2 years while president of Columbia. Needless to say the liberal faculty members disliked him, but the trustees refused to accept his registration and only did accepted it upon his election to be US President in 1952. Leading the war against the Nazi's in Europe, not using American and British troops to take Berlin just to give it back to the Russians, setting up the occupation of West Germany, and first NATO commander. As US President, desegregating the military, Interstate highways, NASA, and keeping the Russians contained are all on the plus side.

No one else since has such a solid resume

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has summarized the turnaround in evaluations by historians:

Historians long ago abandoned the view that Eisenhower's was a failed presidency. He did, after all, end the Korean War without getting into any others. He stabilized, and did not escalate, the Soviet-American rivalry. He strengthened European alliances while withdrawing support from European colonialism. He rescued the Republican Party from isolationism and McCarthyism. He maintained prosperity, balanced the budget, promoted technological innovation, facilitated (if reluctantly) the civil rights movement and warned, in the most memorable farewell address since Washington's, of a "military–industrial complex" that could endanger the nation's liberties. Not until Reagan would another president leave office with so strong a sense of having accomplished what he set out to do

Good post. A lot in there that I had forgotten. However, I don't think Ike, at least in his mind, left office with the same sense of accomplishment that Reagan did. I think Ike was genuinely worried that the population was forgetting what a government with limited powers really looked like. Ike was criticized at times for doing too little and playing too much golf.

Which, leads to why I like Ike. I think Ike had vision (something today's politicians lack because they are too busy worrying about next week's polls or the next election). He could see the future of this country with special interests in bed with the government and, a population that expected the government to solve all problems immediately. Ike fits my idea of what true conservatism is all about. I think he believed many problems would be resolved with a gentle nudge from the federal government rather than force. I believe he subscribed to the idea that the most effective change is accomplished slowly and thoughtfully. He did not subscribe to the idea that the government waves it's mighty magic wand and fixes all problems instantly with no regard to cost, consequence, or the Constitution.

I don't believe Ike was particularly partisan either. I have read, he detested the extreme left. However, I have heard some Republican leaning historians refer to him as the best Democratic President this country has ever had. Ike understood compromise. He could be tough but, above all, he was fair, realistic, and honest. Too bad there won't be anyone like Ike running in 2016.

Well said both...

The democratic party of his day wasn't even close to resembling what it is now. Back then they had their differences but they all believed in America and it's basic goodness You could work with such people.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Now we have individuals with agendas and two parties with no spine or central agreement...except spending other peoples money to save their cash cow jobs.

Ike would be sick to his stomach at what we have become.

[japantiger 4,077]

Now we have individuals with agendas and two parties with no spine or central agreement...except spending other peoples money to save their cash cow jobs.

Ike would be sick to his stomach at what we have become.

Yep...I think his farewell speech and caution on the "military industrial complex" rates up there with Washington's farewell speech. He was that rare leader that we needed at the time...he was that humble man that was required to rise above the egos and interests around him.

[homersapien 11,812]

The military industrial complex is real, but it would be better stated as the political industrial complex.

"Big business" will always find a way to suck at the public teat for profit, whether it be from capitalizing on paranoia to sell unneeded products to the military or by conducting anti-science campaigns to effect government regulatory policy.

[japantiger 4,077]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

[homersapien 11,812]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

Add every one of those up and it wouldn't amount to a fraction of a single weapon system we don't need.

In fact, how about telling us how much we are talking about here? How about providing a source?

[japantiger 4,077]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

Add every one of those up and it wouldn't amount to a fraction of a single weapon system we don't need.

In fact, how about telling us how much we are talking about here? How about providing a source?

I did provide the source...see the link in the earlier note...from a study called "National Science Foundation, Under the Microsoft" (I only included some of the bigger projects). The report identifies over $3b in wasted funding from projects like this and basic mismanagement, fraud, etc., by people "sucking at the teat of big government". In this case it is jackass scientists and bureaucrats at the National Science Foundation. My real favorite is the "Antarctic Jello-wrestling tournament"...that is real science.

Homey, you guys seem to think that only evil businessmen are pursuing government largesse. Human beings will try to get away with anything they can get away with if big $$ are involved....grow up dude. Do you think Al Gore created "...inconvenient truth" in the name of science and because he cares? He did it for the $100m he made trading carbon credits on the carbon exchange he created by the frenzy "...inconvenient truth" caused. He now fly's around on his gas guzzling, carbon emitting jet while returning to his $9m, 10k square foot carbon guzzling home.

[homersapien 11,812]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

Add every one of those up and it wouldn't amount to a fraction of a single weapon system we don't need.

In fact, how about telling us how much we are talking about here? How about providing a source?

I did provide the source...see the link in the earlier note...from a study called "National Science Foundation, Under the Microsoft" (I only included some of the bigger projects). The report identifies over $3b in wasted funding from projects like this and basic mismanagement, fraud, etc., by people "sucking at the teat of big government". In this case it is jackass scientists and bureaucrats at the National Science Foundation. My real favorite is the "Antarctic Jello-wrestling tournament"...that is real science.

Homey, you guys seem to think that only evil businessmen are pursuing government largesse. Human beings will try to get away with anything they can get away with if big $$ are involved....grow up dude. Do you think Al Gore created "...inconvenient truth" in the name of science and because he cares? He did it for the $100m he made trading carbon credits on the carbon exchange he created by the frenzy "...inconvenient truth" caused. He now fly's around on his gas guzzling, carbon emitting jet while returning to his $9m, 10k square foot carbon guzzling home.

3 billion out of a total budget of 7 billion? That sounds a little fishy. Oh wait, it is:

http://www.livescien...misleading.html

Excerpts:

.....Scientists say Coburn's office fails to put their research into context, often choosing silly-sounding projects to characterize entire research programs.

Alexander's work, for example, is characterized as a $480,000 experiment meant to discover "if boys like trucks and girls like dolls." According to the report, scientists could have saved their time by "talking to any new parent."

In fact, Alexander said, the research project is more complicated.

"The grant supports research asking whether the postnatal surge in testosterone levels in early infancy contributes to the development of human behavior," she said. "This is not a trivial issue." [Read: The Truth About Genderless Babies]

That's because some preliminary evidence suggests that disruptions in hormones like testosterone can alter behavior, Alexander said, potentially contributing to the development of disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism.

Toy choice is a way to measure sex differences in behavior, because babies tend to choose stereotyped boy-girl toys early on, Alexander said. She and her team measure infant hormone levels and look for effects on behavior, activity levels, temperament and verbal development.

Likewise, a much-ballyhooed project that put shrimp on a treadmill was part of research intended to find out how marine animals will cope with increased environmental stress.

Here's another:

Robot laundry?

Coburn focused much of the report on social science research. But the report also questions several robotics projects, including a robot that can fold laundry. The report mocks the research, noting that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel.

In fact, the $1.5 million NSF grant went not to teach robots how to do slow-motion laundry, but to learn how to make robots that can interact with complex objects, said lead researcher Pieter Abbeel of UC Berkeley. The towel-folding, which came six months into a four-year project, was an ideal challenge, Abbeel said, because folding a soft, deformable towel is very different from the pick-up-this-bolt, screw-in-this-screw tasks that current robots can perform.

"Towel-folding is just a first, small step toward a new generation of robotic devices that could, for example, significantly increase the independence of elderly and sick people, protect our soldiers in combat, improve the delivery of government services and a host of other applications that would revolutionize our day-to-day lives," Abbeel wrote in an email to LiveScience....

[japantiger 4,077]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

Add every one of those up and it wouldn't amount to a fraction of a single weapon system we don't need.

In fact, how about telling us how much we are talking about here? How about providing a source?

I did provide the source...see the link in the earlier note...from a study called "National Science Foundation, Under the Microsoft" (I only included some of the bigger projects). The report identifies over $3b in wasted funding from projects like this and basic mismanagement, fraud, etc., by people "sucking at the teat of big government". In this case it is jackass scientists and bureaucrats at the National Science Foundation. My real favorite is the "Antarctic Jello-wrestling tournament"...that is real science.

Homey, you guys seem to think that only evil businessmen are pursuing government largesse. Human beings will try to get away with anything they can get away with if big $$ are involved....grow up dude. Do you think Al Gore created "...inconvenient truth" in the name of science and because he cares? He did it for the $100m he made trading carbon credits on the carbon exchange he created by the frenzy "...inconvenient truth" caused. He now fly's around on his gas guzzling, carbon emitting jet while returning to his $9m, 10k square foot carbon guzzling home.

3 billion out of a total budget of 7 billion? That sounds a little fishy. Oh wait, it is:

http://www.livescien...misleading.html

Excerpts:

.....Scientists say Coburn's office fails to put their research into context, often choosing silly-sounding projects to characterize entire research programs.

Alexander's work, for example, is characterized as a $480,000 experiment meant to discover "if boys like trucks and girls like dolls." According to the report, scientists could have saved their time by "talking to any new parent."

In fact, Alexander said, the research project is more complicated.

"The grant supports research asking whether the postnatal surge in testosterone levels in early infancy contributes to the development of human behavior," she said. "This is not a trivial issue." [Read: The Truth About Genderless Babies]

That's because some preliminary evidence suggests that disruptions in hormones like testosterone can alter behavior, Alexander said, potentially contributing to the development of disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism.

Toy choice is a way to measure sex differences in behavior, because babies tend to choose stereotyped boy-girl toys early on, Alexander said. She and her team measure infant hormone levels and look for effects on behavior, activity levels, temperament and verbal development.

Likewise, a much-ballyhooed project that put shrimp on a treadmill was part of research intended to find out how marine animals will cope with increased environmental stress.

Here's another:

Robot laundry?

Coburn focused much of the report on social science research. But the report also questions several robotics projects, including a robot that can fold laundry. The report mocks the research, noting that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel.

In fact, the $1.5 million NSF grant went not to teach robots how to do slow-motion laundry, but to learn how to make robots that can interact with complex objects, said lead researcher Pieter Abbeel of UC Berkeley. The towel-folding, which came six months into a four-year project, was an ideal challenge, Abbeel said, because folding a soft, deformable towel is very different from the pick-up-this-bolt, screw-in-this-screw tasks that current robots can perform.

"Towel-folding is just a first, small step toward a new generation of robotic devices that could, for example, significantly increase the independence of elderly and sick people, protect our soldiers in combat, improve the delivery of government services and a host of other applications that would revolutionize our day-to-day lives," Abbeel wrote in an email to LiveScience....

Two simple points:

We already know testosterone makes boys the way they are; and estrogen makes women the way they are; Homey, if we give you estrogen you'll grow boobs. I'll only charge $1m for that insight...have NSF call me (or any other thinking human that has raised boys and girls or read anything in the last 50 years) next time they want to understand these things. I don't think we need to spend $500k on the obvious.

We have more private companies doing robot research than the fed can ever pay the libs at Berkely to do. For crying out loud, Obama just got schooled in soccer by one...why are we spending tax dollars on any of this? Maybe they could create a robot that could get Obama to throw out a first pitch like a boy instead of a girl...hey, maybe the guys at Berkeley could prescribe some testosterone for Obama...I guess there is a use for that Berkeley research after all....

[homersapien 11,812]

Well Homey, we actually half agree on something....however, your admonition of those sucking at the teat of government being limited to business is pretty limiting. Any facet of society will suck at the public trough, Yep, that evil big business will certainly look for a profit opportunity....but so will politicians, scientists, anyone...I assume your references to "anti-science" campaigns includes these grants below by the NSF to study these life altering projects...I mean, these noble scientists certainly aren't influenced by government $$ are they:

• If you trust your laundry folding to a robot, how long will you have to wait?
  
• How do you ride a bike
  
• Antarctic Artists and Writers Program
  
• Are Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews polarizing figures?
  
• Does birth order impact willingness to take economic risks?
  
• How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
  
• Can Members of Congress improve their approval ratings through internet town halls?
  
• What is the relationship between online virtual world users and their avatar?
  
• Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?
  
• What exactly does a low-budget robot rodeo and hoedown look like?
  
• Are French Muslims discriminated against in the European job market?
  
• Exactly how much housework does a husband create
  
• Are boys more likely to play with trucks and girls with dolls?
  
• Should you buy sporting tickets in advance or at the last-minute?
  
• Do twitter users “tweet” in regional slang?
  
• Are people more or less racially-focused when seeking love on-line in the Obama era?
  
• Why do the same teams always dominate March Madness?
  
• Do online music videos such as “Money 4 Drugz,” increase our understanding of scientific concepts?
  
• Can traveling the world answer how dogs became man’s best friend? U
  
• How quickly do American parents respond to trendy baby names?
  
• Can you trust other people in virtual worlds?
  
• What’s more photographed…the Fifth Avenue Apple Store or the White House?
  
• What would it have been like to attend the 1960s New York World’s Fair?
  
• Are party leaders in Congress effective at controlling members of their own party?
  
• What are the group dynamics like in the online video game EverQuest 2?
  
• Do genes impact your political party offiliation
  
• Do people lie in text messages
  
• Why did America vote the way it did on election day...there's more http://abcnews.go.co...age?id=13692367
  

Add every one of those up and it wouldn't amount to a fraction of a single weapon system we don't need.

In fact, how about telling us how much we are talking about here? How about providing a source?

I did provide the source...see the link in the earlier note...from a study called "National Science Foundation, Under the Microsoft" (I only included some of the bigger projects). The report identifies over $3b in wasted funding from projects like this and basic mismanagement, fraud, etc., by people "sucking at the teat of big government". In this case it is jackass scientists and bureaucrats at the National Science Foundation. My real favorite is the "Antarctic Jello-wrestling tournament"...that is real science.

Homey, you guys seem to think that only evil businessmen are pursuing government largesse. Human beings will try to get away with anything they can get away with if big $$ are involved....grow up dude. Do you think Al Gore created "...inconvenient truth" in the name of science and because he cares? He did it for the $100m he made trading carbon credits on the carbon exchange he created by the frenzy "...inconvenient truth" caused. He now fly's around on his gas guzzling, carbon emitting jet while returning to his $9m, 10k square foot carbon guzzling home.

3 billion out of a total budget of 7 billion? That sounds a little fishy. Oh wait, it is:

http://www.livescien...misleading.html

Excerpts:

.....Scientists say Coburn's office fails to put their research into context, often choosing silly-sounding projects to characterize entire research programs.

Alexander's work, for example, is characterized as a $480,000 experiment meant to discover "if boys like trucks and girls like dolls." According to the report, scientists could have saved their time by "talking to any new parent."

In fact, Alexander said, the research project is more complicated.

"The grant supports research asking whether the postnatal surge in testosterone levels in early infancy contributes to the development of human behavior," she said. "This is not a trivial issue." [Read: The Truth About Genderless Babies]

That's because some preliminary evidence suggests that disruptions in hormones like testosterone can alter behavior, Alexander said, potentially contributing to the development of disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism.

Toy choice is a way to measure sex differences in behavior, because babies tend to choose stereotyped boy-girl toys early on, Alexander said. She and her team measure infant hormone levels and look for effects on behavior, activity levels, temperament and verbal development.

Likewise, a much-ballyhooed project that put shrimp on a treadmill was part of research intended to find out how marine animals will cope with increased environmental stress.

Here's another:

Robot laundry?

Coburn focused much of the report on social science research. But the report also questions several robotics projects, including a robot that can fold laundry. The report mocks the research, noting that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel.

In fact, the $1.5 million NSF grant went not to teach robots how to do slow-motion laundry, but to learn how to make robots that can interact with complex objects, said lead researcher Pieter Abbeel of UC Berkeley. The towel-folding, which came six months into a four-year project, was an ideal challenge, Abbeel said, because folding a soft, deformable towel is very different from the pick-up-this-bolt, screw-in-this-screw tasks that current robots can perform.

"Towel-folding is just a first, small step toward a new generation of robotic devices that could, for example, significantly increase the independence of elderly and sick people, protect our soldiers in combat, improve the delivery of government services and a host of other applications that would revolutionize our day-to-day lives," Abbeel wrote in an email to LiveScience....

Two simple points:

We already know testosterone makes boys the way they are; and estrogen makes women the way they are; Homey, if we give you estrogen you'll grow boobs. I'll only charge $1m for that insight...have NSF call me (or any other thinking human that has raised boys and girls or read anything in the last 50 years) next time they want to understand these things. I don't think we need to spend $500k on the obvious.

We have more private companies doing robot research than the fed can ever pay the libs at Berkely to do. For crying out loud, Obama just got schooled in soccer by one...why are we spending tax dollars on any of this? Maybe they could create a robot that could get Obama to throw out a first pitch like a boy instead of a girl...hey, maybe the guys at Berkeley could prescribe some testosterone for Obama...I guess there is a use for that Berkeley research after all....

But of course you know more about research than stupid scientists. You figured out the great global warming hoax.