AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.
But on second though, is this going to get in the way of some day visiting the metal men of texas?
14 Apr 2009, 10:08 PM
Joust Williams
lawl
14 Apr 2009, 10:12 PM
Nash
Texas? Is that the big area of land above the northeastern Mexican border? I never really paid attention.
14 Apr 2009, 10:28 PM
Josh
Fuck Texas. Seriously. I won't miss it one bit.
14 Apr 2009, 10:49 PM
Tones
Does this mean I need to have my passport next time I visit relatives there?
14 Apr 2009, 10:58 PM
icarusfall
Texas grows the hottest women.
It's a shame to see them go.
Otherwise fuck the fillings out of Texas' mouth.
14 Apr 2009, 11:12 PM
dog$
I'm intrigued by the timing of this. What's changed this year where a resolution like this wasn't justified earlier?
I guess we can expect to see other states take the same measures to keep things like faggot marriage bans in place.
14 Apr 2009, 11:42 PM
D_N_G
Quote:
What's changed this year where a resolution like this wasn't justified earlier?
bailout money and the stipulations that go along with it.
Feds are controlling where it can be spent, ie. so much allocated for very specific programs that cant be transferred to something else/ programs where the state is already excelling in and require no additional funding.
and the kicker....if the $ is spent, then long term federal control and direction of the programs it was used for.
also more insight from the video, as each state has a different economy and the fed is treating everything with a blanket solution.
this isnt anything new, they are only reiterating the 10th amendment which has been around since 1791
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Did you know Don't Mess With Texas started as an anti-littering campaign slogan.
15 Apr 2009, 12:28 AM
dog$
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_N_G
bailout money and the stipulations that go along with it.
But both Bush and Obama have put out appropriation packages.
Yes the GM/&c. one is pissing them off but regardless, that has happened before this administration.
15 Apr 2009, 12:28 AM
Drewbacca
Arizona did something similar not long ago. This does not mean they are leaving the United States of America.
15 Apr 2009, 12:33 AM
Andrew
As I pointed out in another thread (the Obama thread, I believe), Arizona did the same thing recently. It's just making the news now because, well, Texas is so much bigger. And wealthier. And full of military bases.
Lawmakers in other states, such as Nebraska, have announced plans to introduce similar declarations. It would seem that the issues D_N_G pointed out are something of a tipping point... enough so that conservatives and liberals alike (some of the organizers are actually Democrats, lest one wrongly believe it to be a partisan movement) will be rallying nationwide at the Tea Parties tomorrow. And really, how often does that shit happen?
Personally, I'm stunned, and for two reasons. One, I never thought I would see the states locate their balls and stand up to the feds. And two, I never thought so many people could be motivated enough to pull themselves from "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" and get involved in something that's actually important.
Maybe there is a little bit of hope left for this country.
edit: (And as Drew pointed out in the preceding post...)
15 Apr 2009, 12:38 AM
sleeve
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_N_G
bailout money and the stipulations that go along with it.
Feds are controlling where it can be spent, ie. so much allocated for very specific programs that cant be transferred to something else/ programs where the state is already excelling in and require no additional funding.
This is not a new concept.
For decades, the federal government has used the carrot and stick approach with regards to the disbursement of federal funds. Consider, for example, the conditioning of federal highway fund disbursement on requiring the states to lower the DUI BAC threshold to 0.08 from 0.10 -- and before that, on raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21.
This use of Congress' spending power does not violate the Tenth Amendment because the government is not forcing the states to do anything, nor is it denying them some unenumerated sovereign power. It is merely placing a condition on the receipt and use of federal funds.
15 Apr 2009, 12:38 AM
Drewbacca
And I'm not even a fucking American.
15 Apr 2009, 12:53 AM
Andrew
Also, a 21st Century American Civil War would be a kickass setting for a current-gen video game. Someone needs to get on that shit, pronto.
15 Apr 2009, 12:57 AM
maruchan
fuck these assholes.... viva TEJAS!!!! Putos.....
15 Apr 2009, 12:58 AM
Nirvana
I see Gov. Good Hair is still trying to position himself for media attention and his eventually run for President. God I hope Kay Bailey kicks his ass in the run for the Republican nomination when the governor's race starts.
15 Apr 2009, 01:23 AM
AstroBlue
Recap of speech:
"Dengity den dang dengy deny well you here boil a frawg in a sit dat here frog dat here cooking mashcine and dun that den dere frog be done yall dengy den dang dengy dengity *shoots guns in air".
15 Apr 2009, 04:09 AM
Doc Holliday
Rick Perry fakes his accent. Fuck him for naming Sam Houston. Sam Houston would land a foot in his ass beofore polishing off a fifth of whiskey! I want to see the Teguas declare sovereignty! I want those Injuns to get their casino back dagnabbit!
15 Apr 2009, 10:16 AM
Wildkat
Isn't texas part of Mexico already?
15 Apr 2009, 10:17 AM
Othello Harrington
Oh gee, this is weird, we get a black president and now Texas wants to start another civil war.
15 Apr 2009, 10:27 AM
Thief Silver
This is a publicity stunt, I expect this guy to be running for president next time.
15 Apr 2009, 10:30 AM
Yoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog$
I guess we can expect to see other states take the same measures to keep things like faggot marriage bans in place.
They can't. Texas was the only state that made the deal where they could legally secede from the union when they became a state.
But I could not possibly support states' rights more.
15 Apr 2009, 10:32 AM
Chux
Does this mean Texas could be Super Texas 2000 Redneck Rampage Gold Edition now?
15 Apr 2009, 10:32 AM
Doc Holliday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Texas was the only state that made the deal where they could legally secede from the union when they became a state.
Except we lost it when they decided to keep our slaves.
15 Apr 2009, 10:42 AM
Doc Holliday
After whooping Santa Anna's ass, Sam Houston fought 8 years to make a then poor and debted Texas a part of the United States, just to have a bunch of greedy businessmen throw it all away in the span of 2 months.
Rather than see the state he help build go down with the Confederacy, he resigned from office.
Quote:
Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies ... I refuse to take this oath.
Somebody please send nukes into Texas, there is nothing there worth saving except the women. I figure we could do a couple of grab and go's in Austin and pick up 3/4 of the college aged women there prior to impact.
15 Apr 2009, 10:48 AM
Othello Harrington
Also, Tex-Mex recipes.
15 Apr 2009, 10:53 AM
Doc Holliday
Texas' economy is two times the size of Ohio's, suit.
15 Apr 2009, 10:54 AM
BonusKun
This is fucking silly.
15 Apr 2009, 10:54 AM
Othello Harrington
So the fuck what? You also have 300x the useless hillbillies.
15 Apr 2009, 11:04 AM
K3V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Othello Harrington
Somebody please send nukes in
Biff's answer to every world problem.
15 Apr 2009, 11:04 AM
Thief Silver
... Ohio has it's share of those...
15 Apr 2009, 11:06 AM
Othello Harrington
Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
Biff's answer to every world problem.
IBTN
15 Apr 2009, 11:06 AM
Doc Holliday
Yea? Well auhs redneck got jahbs, aur hillbilly got jahbs, Hell. Even aur Mesicans got jahbs!
As long as your buying gasoline and beef we'll never drown.
15 Apr 2009, 11:13 AM
Othello Harrington
Can't wait for the electric car, your beef can be replaced.
Seriously Doc, move out of there before you become another 35 year old, aged, sunburnt drunk insisting to tell me about your glory years in high school football, not that I think you played, so it would be a 35 year old, aged, sunburnt drunk bragging about how funny he is on a message board.
15 Apr 2009, 11:14 AM
YellerDog
Oh no not Tey-has.
15 Apr 2009, 11:18 AM
Doc Holliday
In the long run, all this shit doesn't really matter. We'll be back in Mexico before the century's up and then Mississippi to Georgia will get a sudden influx of white people. And Sam Houston will be drinking in his rocking chair laughing his ass off at how his life was a waste of fucking time.
15 Apr 2009, 02:20 PM
Error
I don't see what the big deal is, some yahoo in Texas does this every decade or so.
15 Apr 2009, 04:09 PM
Spent
The big deal - whether the man is being a blowhard or not - is to reaffirm the states rights and it's peoples. As we're in a country where that isn't even an option - you should be able to understand the importance. We haven't even had the luxury of taking it for granted.
15 Apr 2009, 08:50 PM
Error
Uh, not really no. I'm in a country where one province is constantly harping about its rights, and another is constantly bitching about wanting sovereignty. You tell me which is Alberta and which is Quebec.
Dude is absolutely being a blow hard. To be adhering to a notion of "states" rights in this day and age is ridiculous. One Nation. It's what America is, it's what has allowed America to have 100 plus years of undisputed primacy in the world. Peoples rights, sure ok I'll accept that as a grounds for demanding sovereignty elsewhere, but not in the United States. If you don't think your rights are being represented in that nation then elect someone else. If that doesn't work sue the government. If that doesn't work then convene a constitutional convention. If that doesn't work then tough shit welcome to democracy, make like the Catholics and outbreed em.
16 Apr 2009, 12:04 AM
Drewbacca
We're on a British parliamentary system, Error. It's not the same as the United States and its republic. That's the fundamental difference here. Our prime minister and the government have to win regionally to keep their seats. In America they have one big vote for a two party system, with whoever gets the most votes (for the party they represent) winning. That's why we don't vote for Stephen Harper. We vote for the liberal/ndp/conservative/green/whatever fucking other party we support in our particular riding. States have more rights in governing the elections and who can vote / how they can vote. In Canada the feds call the shots. There isn't as much oversight federally, either. Which is how the liberals just robbed you out of hundreds of millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal when Paul Martin was in power before Stephen Harper. States have on-hand more rights and avenues to govern themselves than provinces do.
That can also be a bad thing. Getting a loan in Canada is more involved than in the States because when you ask for a line of credit or loan the government of Canada has to be notified the banks are checking certain qualifications to make sure you're a half decent candidate. Tax free savings and RRSP contributions are directly tied to the government, too. A TFSA has to be certified by the government before you get it. It takes a couple of days to do.
Anyway, point being it looks similar from afar, but when you look under the cover it's not. And on top of that shit the queen still nerfs all.
16 Apr 2009, 12:13 AM
Spent
You realize the Queen is what's sovereign in our country right? And that secession is different from sovereignty? You do realize you live in a country which is still under British rule?
The idea of the states rights in this day and age is anything but ridiculous and could be the one thing that can somewhat reverse the explosion of government in the states the past 60+ years.
Quebec uses separation as a strong arm to get what they want but don't kid yourself, they'd never get away with it as the military would be brought in before it got that far.
What's your issue with Alberta demanding that the people of the nation have sovereignty instead of a head of state that doesn't even live in country?
and LOL at saying sovereignty is a good idea just not in the USA. Go read a fucking history book son.
16 Apr 2009, 12:17 AM
Melf
Holy shit, Drew just owned Canada! :p
16 Apr 2009, 12:22 AM
Error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
We're on a British parliamentary system, Error. It's not the same as the United States and its republic. That's the fundamental difference here. Our prime minister and the government have to win regionally to keep their seats. In America they have one big vote for a two party system, with whoever gets the most votes (for the party they represent) winning. That's why we don't vote for Stephen Harper. We vote for the liberal/ndp/conservative/green/whatever fucking other party we support in our particular riding. States have more rights in governing the elections and who can vote / how they can vote. In Canada the feds call the shots. There isn't as much oversight federally, either. Which is how the liberals just robbed you out of hundreds of millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal when Paul Martin was in power before Stephen Harper. States have on-hand more rights and avenues to govern themselves than provinces do.
That can also be a bad thing. Getting a loan in Canada is more involved than in the States because when you ask for a line of credit or loan the government of Canada has to be notified the banks are checking certain qualifications to make sure you're a half decent candidate. Tax free savings and RRSP contributions are directly tied to the government, too. A TFSA has to be certified by the government before you get it. It takes a couple of days to do.
Anyway, point being it looks similar from afar, but when you look under the cover it's not. And on top of that shit the queen still nerfs all.
I know there is a difference. There are also similarities. A party only has to win Ontario and Quebec to win the government here. One third of the US Government can be won in exactly the same way, by winning the states with large electoral college representations.
All I was saying is the notion that individual states must be able to run things in their own way, no matter what the Federal government wants and that a state such as Texas is willing to declare it's own "sovereignty" over it is a notion that is archaic and is stuck in the 1860s. The US fought a civil war to stamp out that bullshit. Apparently they did a half ass job.
And you're wrong. We do vote for the party leader. It may not be "official", but we vote for party leader. Because he's the one who will be exercising the power when they win. Nobody votes for local MPs unless they know the main party is going to lose.
16 Apr 2009, 12:23 AM
bbobb
Why is a thread about Texas turning into a thread about Canada?
Protip: No one cares about Canada.
16 Apr 2009, 12:25 AM
Spent
Well - retards that don't understand the system still vote for the leader I guess. The point of our system is to choose the local MP in your riding who best represents you and your specific needs in that region. Some fools will just vote to see Harper or Ignatief in, but they don't understand what they're doing and are voting just to choose the winner.
16 Apr 2009, 12:31 AM
Drewbacca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
I know there is a difference. There are also similarities.
Yes. But that's beside the point. We're talking, specifically, about provincial independence vs. state independence - this particular difference. Provinces do not have a lot of say in how things are run. The feds figure it out based on investment risk and population.
Quote:
All I was saying is the notion that individual states must be able to run things in their own way, no matter what the Federal government wants and that a state such as Texas is willing to declare it's own "sovereignty" over it is a notion that is archaic and is stuck in the 1860s. The US fought a civil war to stamp out that bullshit. Apparently they did a half ass job.
This is wrong. States being able to run independently from one another is what bonded the strengths and weaknesses of each region and made the United States the powerhouse it is in the world today. It is also what granted and kept the power in the peoples hands. Just because something is good for Californians doesn't mean it's good for New Yorkers, too.
Quote:
And you're wrong. We do vote for the party leader. It may not be "official", but we vote for party leader. Because he's the one who will be exercising the power when they win. Nobody votes for local MPs unless they know the main party is going to lose.
No, I'm right. I mean technically right -- the best kind of right there possibly ever is.
16 Apr 2009, 12:32 AM
Error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spent
You realize the Queen is what's sovereign in our country right? And that secession is different from sovereignty? You do realize you live in a country which is still under British rule?
The idea of the states rights in this day and age is anything but ridiculous and could be the one thing that can somewhat reverse the explosion of government in the states the past 60+ years.
Quebec uses separation as a strong arm to get what they want but don't kid yourself, they'd never get away with it as the military would be brought in before it got that far.
What's your issue with Alberta demanding that the people of the nation have sovereignty instead of a head of state that doesn't even live in country?
and LOL at saying sovereignty is a good idea just not in the USA. Go read a fucking history book son.
We have a British soverign but we are in no way still under British rule. Repatriation of the Constitution put a dagger into that heart in 1982. Perhaps you should read a history book.
The army getting called into a Quebec secession. When the terms for just such a secession have been defined by our federal government. Whose army? The French? The Redcoats? ZEE GERMANS?
The United States has no need of any individual state declaring independence. It's a retarded notion.
And my issue with Alberta has nothing to do with them wanting a Queen or not. I don't give a fuck. I was saying that I hear about them whining and bitching about shit as much as I hear Quebec. They saw that it worked for one province and applied it to their own.
And bbobb if you cared about this thread you would be contributing something other than "huh huh let em try"
16 Apr 2009, 12:33 AM
Drewbacca
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Why is a thread about Texas turning into a thread about Canada?
Protip: No one cares about Canada.
It's still a fundamental discussion about state rights.
Protip: Go fuck yourself.
16 Apr 2009, 12:35 AM
animegirl
I like Texas, don't nuke us! :(
16 Apr 2009, 12:37 AM
Drewbacca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
And my issue with Alberta has nothing to do with them wanting a Queen or not. I don't give a fuck. I was saying that I hear about them whining and bitching about shit as much as I hear Quebec. They saw that it worked for one province and applied it to their own.
Quebec wants more rights because they're french and Alberta wants more rights because they're rolling in dirty oil money (rich). The connection here being that they want more control over the way things are run in their borders of our country.
In America they have those rights. Or at least did. And it's what bound them together. Throwing them by the wayside is a huge fucking mistake and blow to their liberty as a union. As much a mistake as pretending different races didn't exist -- having benefited culturally from every single one of them in some way, big or small. Considering the entire reason for the United States was to have opportunity without government getting in the way or telling people what to do. True freedom for everyone. It really surprises me how little younger people these days cherish what their ancestors fought to give them. A little disgusting, at that.
So tell me, how does a state bowing down to the almighty hand of the government in anyway mean nothing nowadays? It means MORE now than it did back then because of how active and big corporations have become on a world stage. And how much influence you lose as a people, united or not. People can work together without wearing identical or uniform ideals. America isn't McDonald's or Wendy's.
16 Apr 2009, 12:41 AM
Spent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
We have a British soverign
sovereign - The person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; especially, in a monarchy, a king, queen, or emperor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
but we are in no way still under British rule. Repatriation of the Constitution put a dagger into that heart in 1982. Perhaps you should read a history book.
So we need the Governor General to sign all of our federal laws in why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
The army getting called into a Quebec secession. When the terms for just such a secession have been defined by our federal government. Whose army? The French? The Redcoats? ZEE GERMANS?
Maybe the Canadian army to stop Quebec from just TAKING our land?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
The United States has no need of any individual state declaring independence. It's a retarded notion.
What's retarded is you not understanding what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Not to mention the REASON this was declared was the feds stepping all over the states rights. PS - they are NOT declaring independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
And my issue with Alberta has nothing to do with them wanting a Queen or not. I don't give a fuck. I was saying that I hear about them whining and bitching about shit as much as I hear Quebec. They saw that it worked for one province and applied it to their own.
Except they're asking for something that benefits our nation instead of tearing it apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
And bbobb if you cared about this thread you would be contributing something other than "huh huh let em try"
Here's where we agree, go eat a pie 'til we're done fatty.
16 Apr 2009, 12:57 AM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
And bbobb if you cared about this thread you would be contributing something other than "huh huh let em try"
Who said I cared? I just care even less about Canada.
16 Apr 2009, 01:09 AM
PaCrappa
I hope you care that everything you know about Columbine is a lie!
16 Apr 2009, 01:12 AM
bbobb
Let me get back to you on that.
16 Apr 2009, 01:57 AM
icarusfall
I support Texas seceding. It'd make being alive more interesting for me, and I don't really care what happens to Texas.
16 Apr 2009, 02:29 AM
YellerDog
Srsly. Fucking GO for it, Tey-has.
16 Apr 2009, 10:17 AM
Josh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
America isn't McDonald's
Are you sure about that?
16 Apr 2009, 10:30 AM
bbobb
It's McDonalds AND KFC.
At least that's what my kids tell me.
16 Apr 2009, 10:40 AM
Cheebs
We need Texas for football. Don't go pretending we don't. Yeah, Pennsylvania and Nebraska do their part, but I fear for the NFL without Texas exporting what they export best.
Texas can stay.
16 Apr 2009, 12:53 PM
Drewbacca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Are you sure about that?
No. And less sure with every passing year.
16 Apr 2009, 05:30 PM
Josh
I'm lovin' it!™
17 Apr 2009, 11:39 AM
Othello Harrington
Canadians, GTFO of this thread, christ, nobody gives a fuck about Quebec.
Texas can go
17 Apr 2009, 11:41 AM
Doc Holliday
You still haven't changed your name back? Good gravy.
17 Apr 2009, 11:51 AM
Othello Harrington
Nah, kinda liking this one :)
I'll be in Dallas in a couple weeks, do you think I'll need to stack some confederate dollars for the trip?
Carpet bagging FTW!
17 Apr 2009, 11:52 AM
Doc Holliday
Bullshit. If you're in Dallas, you're drinking with me at Adairs.
17 Apr 2009, 11:57 AM
Othello Harrington
Going down to meet with systimax in the telecom corridor. I'll be at that new marriot they built a couple of years ago. One day we're doing a rangers game, another in that fanct brazillian joint (rio de brava I think?) But I should be free at some point.
17 Apr 2009, 12:00 PM
Doc Holliday
Richardson? Hmmm...
That's it, time for another Dallas Get Together. D_N_G? gamevet? I have to see if this asshole's real.
17 Apr 2009, 12:51 PM
Spent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Othello Harrington
Canadians, GTFO of this thread, christ, nobody gives a fuck about Quebec.
Texas can go
LOL - Hey now Biff knows how we all feel in every thread! No one gives a fuck about your fake business trip either.
That's it, time for another Dallas Get Together. D_N_G? gamevet? I have to see if this asshole's real.
I'm up for it. I'll bring the other one along again, too.
21 Apr 2009, 07:19 PM
Doc Holliday
Rick Perry pop's collas.
21 Apr 2009, 08:00 PM
epmode
"SECEDE!"
07 May 2009, 10:38 AM
youandwhosearmy
Seriously I wish they'd just hurry up and secede, as this is just embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Plait
During the Texas State Board of Education hearings on science standards for Texas schoolchildren, BoE member and staunch creationist Barbara Cargill decided that the age of the Universe was up for vote. Oddly enough, I had some issue with that. You may vote on issues all you want, and you can even vote on morality if you’d like, but scientific reality is not a matter of opinion and cares not for the majority vote.
The National Center for Science Education has video of the moment where it becomes clear that Ms. Cargill, not happy enough to destroy biology for students, proposes an amendment to creationize astronomy as well:
Listening to her gives me the heebie-jeebies. About the astronomy standards, she says "…there are different estimates [of the age of the Universe]… they will be taught about 12 - 14 billion years ago, but this leaves it open a little bit to discuss how many billions."
It is absolutely clear from what she is saying that she is deliberately trying to weaken the teaching of the old age of the Universe. Another member queries her specifically, asking if this will open up astronomy to the teaching of literal Biblical creationism. Cargill then completely dodges the question, saying she is simply taking the language of the recommendations. But that language is clearly saying the Universe is old, and there is a small amount of uncertainty (actually, only about 120 million years) in the age estimate of the Universe.
What she did, to put it simply, is a crock. It is perfectly transparent what she wanted: to wedge open the door to allow the teaching of young-Earth creationism in the classroom, using the standard "strengths and weaknesses" creationist propaganda tactic.
Need I say it? Her amendment passed, 11 to 3.
I honestly feel bad for any child entering the Texas public school system over the next ten years, and I sincerely hope that the Legislature of the Lone Star State is able to take away the ridiculous amount of power the BoE has. They are flaunting their violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United State of America (not to mention bending or breaking that pesky "false witness" Commandment), and their influence reaches well beyond their own state borders.
People who seriously question the age of the universe blow my mind. You can accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old and at the same time believe in God. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Seriously...
The video didn't sound all that disturbing. Cargill says that she wishes to leave the door open to discuss "how many billions" of years old the universe is. Given that the mainstream scientific consensus is somewhere around 12-14 billion years (a rather wide window to be sure, and one the ignorant author manages to grossly contradict in the following paragraph), this certainly seems reasonable enough. Again, Cargill was talking about debating "how many billions." She never mentioned the silly 6000-year literal interpretation of the Bible at all. The author is a hysterical mess, looking to stir up a shitstorm where none exists.
As for the question of the universe expanding, well, that's up for debate. Is the universe itself actually expanding, or are the galaxies simply moving further apart within the finite limits of the universe? And either way, what is the universe suspended in? These are questions I would love to see answered (scientifically) in my lifetime.
07 May 2009, 07:25 PM
Frogacuda
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
People who seriously question the age of the universe blow my mind. You can accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old and at the same time believe in God. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Seriously...
You can believe in god and still accept that the bible is full of shit that can't possibly be true, also. In defense of crazies, I admire their consistency. The bible does make it pretty clear how the universe came to be and however interesting that story might be as a literary metaphor, unless the whole thing is bullshit, it doesn't add up.
07 May 2009, 08:33 PM
Drewbacca
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
People who seriously question the age of the universe blow my mind. You can accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old and at the same time believe in God. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Seriously...
No, but they are mutually exclusive if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God transcribed through the ages. Humans can't even play a round of golf without cheating on their scorecards. What makes you think everything in the Bible is accurate to begin with?
Not to mention if God does exist, he certainly doesn't need t his Cargill cunt speaking for him.
Quote:
The video didn't sound all that disturbing. Cargill says that she wishes to leave the door open to discuss "how many billions" of years old the universe is. Given that the mainstream scientific consensus is somewhere around 12-14 billion years (a rather wide window to be sure, and one the ignorant author manages to grossly contradict in the following paragraph), this certainly seems reasonable enough. Again, Cargill was talking about debating "how many billions." She never mentioned the silly 6000-year literal interpretation of the Bible at all. The author is a hysterical mess, looking to stir up a shitstorm where none exists.
The risk her is that she's most likely using foot-in-the-door psychology to push her own agenda. Start small and build up to the creationist astronomy B.S.
07 May 2009, 08:39 PM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
The video didn't sound all that disturbing. Cargill says that she wishes to leave the door open to discuss "how many billions" of years old the universe is. Given that the mainstream scientific consensus is somewhere around 12-14 billion years (a rather wide window to be sure, and one the ignorant author manages to grossly contradict in the following paragraph), this certainly seems reasonable enough. Again, Cargill was talking about debating "how many billions." She never mentioned the silly 6000-year literal interpretation of the Bible at all. The author is a hysterical mess, looking to stir up a shitstorm where none exists.
The how many billions in that 12-14 billion is already up for debate, hence why they say about 12-14 billion. Trying to say we need to discuss "how many billions" is a retarded, lets put our foot in the door to start saying science is wrong and creationism is right argument.
07 May 2009, 08:41 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
No, but they are mutually exclusive if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God transcribed through the ages. Humans can't even play a round of golf without cheating on their scorecards. What makes you think everything in the Bible is accurate to begin with?
Not to mention if God does exist, he certainly doesn't need t his Cargill cunt speaking for him.
I know there are Biblical literalists out there, but to be honest I can count the number that I have personally met on one hand (and still have fingers left over). Rational Christians don't honestly believe that the universe was created in seven Earth days.
As for Cargill, from what I saw in the video she merely advocating a discussion on how many billions of years old the universe is (not thousands... billions). The only way anyone could have taken that video as the ravings of a religious kook would be if said viewer intended to see it that way, and only that way, from the outset.
She might be inarticulate and disorganized, but she's absolutely not a zealot. At least, not from what I saw on that video.
07 May 2009, 08:44 PM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
As for Cargill, from what I saw in the video she merely advocating a discussion on how many billions of years old the universe is (not thousands... billions). The only way anyone could have taken that video as the ravings of a religious kook would be if said viewer intended to see it that way, and only that way, from the outset..
Why the fuck would she be advocating a discussion over something that is ALREADY up for discussion. I don't see what's hard to understand about this.
07 May 2009, 08:44 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
The how many billions in that 12-14 billion is already up for debate, hence why they say about 12-14 billion. Trying to say we need to discuss "how many billions" is a retarded, lets put our foot in the door to start saying science is wrong and creationism is right argument.
It's not some foot-in-the-door effort by Zombie Jesus to take away your science. Discussion and investigation is what leads to answers. You might be satisfied with saying "12-14 billion" and leaving it at that forever, but I'm a fan of progress.
It's funny that our federal government is seizing banks and industries so fast that Lenin would blush, and TNL is worried about a Texas school board decision that has fuck-all to do with creationism. Really?
07 May 2009, 08:49 PM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
It's not some foot-in-the-door effort by Zombie Jesus to take away your science. Discussion and investigation is what leads to answers. You might be satisfied with saying "12-14 billion" and leaving it at that forever, but I'm a fan of progress.
12-14 billion ISN'T the permanent answer. It's ALREADY up for discussion and investigation. Science is continually progressing. This religious nutbag trying to say Science is wrong and their points need to be argued is just doing it to get her foot in the door.
If you don't have a fucking degree in science, you don't have the right to argue with scientists that they're wrong. It's as simple as that. They will continue to investigate and debate it all, the layman needs to stay the fuck out.
07 May 2009, 08:49 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Why the fuck would she be advocating a discussion over something that is ALREADY up for discussion. I don't see what's hard to understand about this.
Because the "12-14 billion" figure is based on current science... and our understanding of science and the laws of the universe is constantly changing. Also, not every scientist is on board with that figure. There are other purely scientific theories on the origin and age of the universe that have nothing to do with religion or creationism. Look up "Big Bang" on Wikipedia, with special attention to the "Timeline of the Big Bang" subsection, for some good introductory reading. Then take it from there as you see fit.
07 May 2009, 08:49 PM
youandwhosearmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
People who seriously question the age of the universe blow my mind. You can accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old and at the same time believe in God. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Seriously...
The video didn't sound all that disturbing. Cargill says that she wishes to leave the door open to discuss "how many billions" of years old the universe is. Given that the mainstream scientific consensus is somewhere around 12-14 billion years (a rather wide window to be sure, and one the ignorant author manages to grossly contradict in the following paragraph), this certainly seems reasonable enough. Again, Cargill was talking about debating "how many billions." She never mentioned the silly 6000-year literal interpretation of the Bible at all. The author is a hysterical mess, looking to stir up a shitstorm where none exists.
As for the question of the universe expanding, well, that's up for debate. Is the universe itself actually expanding, or are the galaxies simply moving further apart within the finite limits of the universe? And either way, what is the universe suspended in? These are questions I would love to see answered (scientifically) in my lifetime.
I appreciate your point Squall, I really do, but I have to say the author I can assure is not trying to stir shit up. Texas being the 2nd state to accept Creationism in their text books is where the focus lies. You see this is part of astronomer Phil Plait's long standing war with the Creationists there, and a slew of articles where he points out where they can get through the next barrier because the legislature does something silly like this.
Drew's assumption is right, it is simply a set up for more debate about things that we are as scientifically sure about as you possibly can be to help a bunch of religiously insecure people feel better about themselves, and it is sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
12-14 billion ISN'T the permanent answer. It's ALREADY up for discussion and investigation. Science is continually progressing. This religious nutbag trying to say Science is wrong and their points need to be argued is just doing it to get her foot in the door.
If you don't have a fucking degree in science, you don't have the right to argue with scientists that they're wrong. It's as simple as that. They will continue to investigate and debate it all, the layman needs to stay the fuck out.
The age of the universe, which is something that comes into clearer focus as we take sharper and sharper images of distant galaxies is only up for legitimate debate within those numbers. Unless there is something fundamentally wrong about how we are measuring the way light travels from those places (and to play devil's advocate to Squall, there absolutely could be, especially as we find out more about dark energy), the difference in understanding the age of the universe has it's limits.
It's pretty much accepted that it can't be much younger than 12 billion years old or much older than 14 billion years old. I believe the best estimate we have is about 13.7 billion years old. What's funny is, that at some point we probably will get a confirmed answer within a few million years of it's assumed age.
And to those not willing to be scientific about it, or assume I'm close minded about it, I'm stating with what we understand about the way light travels "now" which I admit could change from a number of factors.
I still highly doubt it's any less than at least 12 billion years old.
07 May 2009, 08:53 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
This religious nutbag trying to say Science is wrong and their points need to be argued is just doing it to get her foot in the door.
Okay, seriously... Please identify the specific part of her argument identifies her as a "religious nutbag." And please identify the specific moment in which she says that "science is wrong."
You seem to feel very strongly that I'm missing something here, so please, set me straight.
07 May 2009, 08:59 PM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Because the "12-14 billion" figure is based on current science... and our understanding of science and the laws of the universe is constantly changing. Also, not every scientist is on board with that figure. There are other purely scientific theories on the origin and age of the universe that have nothing to do with religion or creationism. Look up "Big Bang" on Wikipedia, with special attention to the "Timeline of the Big Bang" subsection, for some good introductory reading. Then take it from there as you see fit.
EXACTLY. What part about the thing I keep saying that it's ALREADY up for debate are you not getting? There's no need for an ammendment, no need for any of this idiocy.
As for what makes Barbara Cargill a religious nutbag, google her... she's been pushing creationism into schools for quite a while now.
07 May 2009, 09:03 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy
I appreciate your point Squall, I really can, but I have to say the author I can assure is not trying to stir shit up. Texas being the 2nd state to accept Creationism in their text books is where the focus lies. You see this is part of astronomer Phil Plait's long standing war with the Creationists there, and a slew of articles where he points out where they can get through the next barrier because the legislature does something silly like this.
Drew's assumption is right, it is simply a set up for more debate about things that we are as scientifically sure about as you possibly can be to help a bunch of religiously insecure people feel better about themselves, and it is sad.
Well, I can also appreciate where you're coming from on there. Clearly there is some back story on both the author and Cargill that we can't get from a single article, and perhaps those pieces of the puzzle would shed more light on the current situation.
But I'll play along with Drew's stipulation for a moment and assume that she is really just using a "foot in the door" technique to introduce creationism to public school science classes. Even if we assume this to be true, and if she were to be successful, wouldn't the inclusion of creationism in a scientific setting be counterproductive to her efforts? Creationism is a question of faith, and faith is not based on anything provable. There would be nothing to discuss because there is nothing of scientific value. The Big Bang Theory, while not proven, is based on certain scientific observations and hypotheses. There is something to discuss.
In other words, the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design on a science curriculum have no weight, because science answers the "hows" of the universe, while faith and religion answer the "whys." You could put it in the curriculum, but the science teacher would be left without anything of scientific value to discuss.
Much like abortion, it's a non-issue used by the establishment to take our eyes off the raping and pillaging of our once great nation. Don't let it worry you.
07 May 2009, 09:05 PM
youandwhosearmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Okay, seriously... Please identify the specific part of her argument identifies her as a "religious nutbag." And please identify the specific moment in which she says that "science is wrong."
You seem to feel very strongly that I'm missing something here, so please, set me straight.
You are missing the history Texas has with Foot in the door creationism (to quote Drew again) over the last 6 months and the fact that this is the kind of shit they used to get in. It wasn't bombastic, it was subtle. And scientists have a problem with her putting any kind of astronomy and how it's presented up to a legislature vote for a board that is supposed to do things the scientific way.
And Cargill is pretty much a closet Creationist who pushed for the original teach "Evolution has disparities" and sent Texas into a tumbling nightmare of anti-science a few months ago.
EXACTLY. What part about the thing I keep saying that it's ALREADY up for debate are you not getting? There's no need for an ammendment, no need for any of this idiocy.
As for what makes Barbara Cargill a religious nutbag, google her... she's been pushing creationism into schools for quite a while now.
Judging from the video clip presented, she indicated that the curriculum as it stands focuses solely on the "12-14 billion" figure while leaving out other scientific theories and the age and origin of the universe. If this is the case and she wishes to simply expand the discussion, no problem. If she misrepresented herself or what is actually in the curriculum, she should be held to task. Barring some concrete evidence, I see no reason to flog her in the town square.
07 May 2009, 09:10 PM
Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy
You are missing the history Texas has with Foot in the door creationism (to quote Drew again) over the last 6 months and the fact that this is the kind of shit they used to get in. It wasn't bombastic, it was subtle. And scientists have a problem with her putting any kind of astronomy and how it's presented up to a legislature vote for a board that is supposed to do things the scientific way.
And Cargill is pretty much a closet Creationist who pushed for the original teach "Evolution has disparities" and sent Texas into a tumbling nightmare of anti-science a few months ago.
Texas colleges and universities have some of the best science programs in America. Even if she is a "closet creationist," she's not going to undo that. Relax.
As for the 74.2 km/s figure, we get that from the rate that we observe galaxies moving apart. But does that mean that the universe itself is also expanding, or is there some other explanation? We haven't seen, let alone studied, the end of the universe yet (if it even exists), so all we can do is guess. And the "expanding universe" theory certainly makes a lot of sense. But what if it's something else? I want to know.
07 May 2009, 09:12 PM
youandwhosearmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Well, I can also appreciate where you're coming from on there. Clearly there is some back story on both the author and Cargill that we can't get from a single article, and perhaps those pieces of the puzzle would shed more light on the current situation.
But I'll play along with Drew's stipulation for a moment and assume that she is really just using a "foot in the door" technique to introduce creationism to public school science classes. Even if we assume this to be true, and if she were to be successful, wouldn't the inclusion of creationism in a scientific setting be counterproductive to her efforts? Creationism is a question of faith, and faith is not based on anything provable. There would be nothing to discuss because there is nothing of scientific value. The Big Bang Theory, while not proven, is based on certain scientific observations and hypotheses. There is something to discuss.
In other words, the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design on a science curriculum have no weight, because science answers the "hows" of the universe, while faith and religion answer the "whys." You could put it in the curriculum, but the science teacher would be left without anything of scientific value to discuss.
Much like abortion, it's a non-issue used by the establishment to take our eyes off the raping and pillaging of our once great nation. Don't let it worry you.
Well unfortunately I do worry about it, a lot.
You know it has no business in a science classroom and you know that there are people naive enough to believe the overwhelming "Well the texas board says it's science so it has to be!" absolutely retarded way they are able to go about this.
Losing this argument has very far reaching repercussions on the state of how we educate and deal with future generations, but it allows things to become illogical and distorted.
Anyway you are missing this point and I can see why because you believe the creationists want something practical and I assure you they don't. They aren't perusing this in a logical way, such as asking for consideration as a considerably accepted mythology or theology. They want it, and have wanted it for well over 20 years, treated as nothing less than hard science.
They don't care that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny (it hasn't for 20 or so years and that hasn't stopped them yet) as long as Science teachers have to take them seriously, which in Texas now, no matter how much they don't like it, they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Texas colleges and universities have some of the best science programs in America. Even if she is a "closet creationist," she's not going to undo that. Relax.
It's already been undone man. Colleges aren't the issue, it's Public Schools that have been hurt by this.
*I should clarify, this is already history as after more than 20 years of futility, Louisiana (specifically Bobby Jindal I believe) broke a tie and became the first state to accept it as a reason to rewrite their textbooks to show ID as a serious opponent to Evolution, and then Texas followed a few days later, so when I say it's a done deal, it has nothing to do with what Mrs. Cargill has done in my comment posted above (though she had something to do with it when it originally passed), it's because this is now them getting an inch and reaching for a mile, which is something they can do now that the first, hardest to climb barrier is out of the way...
Sorry I wasn't very clear in my original statement.
07 May 2009, 09:12 PM
bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
In other words, the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design on a science curriculum have no weight, because science answers the "hows" of the universe, while faith and religion answer the "whys." You could put it in the curriculum, but the science teacher would be left without anything of scientific value to discuss..
Creationism and intelligent design are not science. It's like saying we should Geometry put into music curriculum. The only reason they are being put in is an attempt to break the first ammendment.
07 May 2009, 10:47 PM
Finch
The fact is, the universe is several grillion years old. Where is this mentioned? Nowhere. This fact alone makes it okay for the US government to Pac-Man every bank inside and outside the United States of America and give mandatory abortions for every man and woman above the age of 3, regardless of pregnancy.
Mobama/Finchiekins 2012. Change or we're going to kill you
