It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Exactly Are People Marching for When They March for Science?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: FlukeSkywalker

Fluke,

You probably have not been kidnapped, but the idea that you are a pawn is not to be discounted. In fact, if you have no appreciation for or understanding of the importance and relevance of science, both to your every day existence and to the direction in which the human race will head next, then I am afraid you are CERTAINLY a pawn. After all, you decry science, which is the only effective tool for understanding the wider implications of pretty much every single thing there is in the universe, from the smallest particle to the largest celestial objects.

Since you have no understanding of the big picture, you MUST be a pawn, since there are few definitions of the word pawn in this context, which are nearly as accurate as:

A person who acts without understanding why they act, who they are acting on behalf of, or what the long term effects of their actions are.

But lets not get confused here. You made yourself this way. You CHOOSE ignorance, it is not forced on you, it is not the only way forward, it is not the only option available. It is simply the one you repeatedly select, for reasons that you probably refuse to guess at. Raise your damned game.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




If we gave Americans first dibs on buying any energy product we produce, the US is already energy independent.


Those who are willing to pay for the oil will always get dibs because we are built off capitalism. Private companies are the ones drilling and extracting the oil so we don't get a say in it.

I think the US government should drill for its own oil and have its own refinery. Not to cut into the public sector, but to produce and supply to our military. That would be cost efficient.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes but that increase the size of the government which is an anathema to the right.
It I argued that the private sector is more efficient (i.e. getting the oil at a lower cost). Also do not forget the private sector will claim unfair competition despite holding us to ransom. OPEC may not like it neither.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


What Exactly Are People Marching for When They March for Science?


We live in a culture where believers in faith and science feel compelled to attack... yes, attack those on the opposing concept.
Why? Since the 1970s, I have observed this and I still have no idea. I have had theories but none of them have ever played out.

The simple, single logical exit from this stupidity... is to leave those who disagree, alone.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiger5




Yes but that increase the size of the government which is an anathema to the right.


It can all be handled by the military itself which is one part of government that the right loves to expand. Few more Army corp of engineers and add some MOS for the fields.



It I argued that the private sector is more efficient (i.e. getting the oil at a lower cost). Also do not forget the private sector will claim unfair competition despite holding us to ransom. OPEC may not like it neither.


The US already has oil rich lands we have the army corps of engineers so they could do it cheaper. Private sector would scream bloody murder from their but hurt is true.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


If we gave Americans first dibs on buying any energy product we produce, the US is already energy independent. For as much flack as Obama got for being anti drilling, under his administration we increased oil production significantly. The US produces almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and we actually export more than we import.

Where did you come up with this notion? It's wrong.
Hillary did say this during one of the debates, however that doesn't make it true.
And another thing, it's economically sound practice to import oil, refine it, and export the value added product. The USA is a refining powerhouse on the global market and you twist that into something bad.
Just try to validate your claim with some data and post it here.
edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join