DukeNukeEm

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

That's kind of a retarded thing to say. edit- I probably have to clarify this to avoid being suspended: The problem with political science is the end, not the means. Political Science uses the scientific method, gathers evidence, sometimes even tests a hypothesis and comes up with a result. Unfortunately the result is constantly up for debate and often contradicts other historical trends. The end result of a NASCAR race or season is no different than any other sport, somebody clearly wins. Its that the means of winning require little athletic ability where NASCAR's viability as a sport is hurt.

If a majority is required to bring a bill to the floor, it would make sense if that majority would oppose discussing any other bill. Trying to filibuster would effectively shut down the Senate. Makes the person filibustering look really bad.

Simple majority to bring a bill to the floor. Problem solved.

Yea so do I

Wont really know for sure for another year, if some of these Republicans catering to the Tea Party win elections the base might not be so untouchable.

It's kind of irrelevant though now. The real issue is how something like this can affect elections, judging by the past it really wont.

I'm not so sure about terrorism or war. Sure you have people who are or just were in the military used as experts a lot, but I'm not sure if that's for political or strategic purposes.

That depends a lot. I've only really read Greek philosophy and Marx very seriously, but Aristotelean philosophy is a lot more scientific than Platonism and Thucydides. Philosophy is kind of a mixed bag because its so broad. Err. I thought you meant Philosophy wasn't a science. Nvm.

Often though people will appeal to a different expert geoglist or climatologist who coincides with their opinion. This isn't really an exciting debate to watch or be a part of, but its a fairly effective strategy. Of course the issue of global warming is as much political as it is geologic the way people argue it.

I have a view on this that's pretty unsubstantiated, but its the internet so whatever. Democracies lend everyone an equal say in policy regardless of education, socio-economic class etc. This equal say kind of gives people a sense of ownership of their views on issues. Let's say you were having a discussion on medicine with a group of people and one person was a doctor. The doctor's views naturally hold more water because compared to him everyone else is merely laymen. Even religion appeals to expertise, people listen to and respect a priest's analysis of the bible. Politics operates differently though, people have a stance and they are convinced they are right. If a political scientist walks into a discussion on terrorism and disagrees with somebody they'll be a lot more combative than they would if a doctor disagreed with them regarding medicine. I dont know if this is emotional or what, but politics is one of those fields where people are always agitated when someone contradicts them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...l#ixzz0XLCNdUNn Rudy's looking at 2012.

And I'm pretty sure close to that number of Democrats thought Bush didn't legitimately win in 2000. That didn't stop Bush from winning a 2nd term IIRC.

The science part of Political Science refers to the scientific method we all learned about in like 5th grade. Independent and dependent variables, hypothesis, etc. etc. PolSci uses the same method as other sciences, but instead of running experiments to prove the hypothesis we have to look at historical trends and causality. Science doesn't have to be limited to test-tubes or excavation. The one difference I'm willing to acknowledge is PolSci doesn't have overwhelmingly supported theories like evolution for biology or gravity for physics. Ive heard it put as "there are no laws of political science." Not that I think that forbids PolSci from being counted as a scientific discipline. I guess a good follow-up would be, is Political Science important? That probably was Coburn was getting at with this amendment.

Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to an NSF spending bill that would prohibt the National Science Foundation from giving out grants for studies in Political Science. Paraphrased his argument amounts to "It's not sciency enough." You can see the whole thing here: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...e5-846640c2c880 By far the best quote is the claim that FOX, CNN and MSNBC already doing the job Political Scientists are doing: The amendment didn't make it, you can see the voting here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00336 So, I pose this question to SoxTalk. Is Political Science a science?

#1 overall

I watch FOX for entertainment sometimes, or just to get angry.

I'm worried about a dropoff more than I am hopeful of an improvement.

Err this thing is pretty awful. Not only Getz and Fields are listed as White Sox, which is kind of understandable, but Brandon Allen... really?

I have no idea why Mark Kirk thinks putting a bunch of terrorists in a prison that's guarded by a veritable army will turn northern IL into a hotbed of Al-qaida recruiting. You wont even know the terrorists are there except for all the money the federal government will be pouring into the region.

I are not understand.

I dont think religion is the reason these people engage in terrorism.

its like the lyceum of baseball.

Yea at least CNN's bulls*** news is just harmless bulls*** news. Not like the evil divisive bulls*** news on the other networks.

Maybe FOX and MSNBC have lowered my standards so much for TV news, but CNN isn't all that bad.