View Single Post
Unread 08-11-2011, 12:28 PM   #10 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork
Emperor Meow
 
THEINCREDIBLEdork's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,316
Internets: 284585
THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute

Send a message via AIM to THEINCREDIBLEdork
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix View Post
ID - Your idea for a 4th branch is fine, but putting government in charge of creating it is suicide to the cause. There would be more corruption involved in that branch than any other because they hold the veto pen to everything. Most "academics" are theorists who couldn't survive in the real world anyway, yet you want them in charge of our veto pen. Would these "scientists" be the same ones who Al Gore cited for his global warming campaign?
I don't believe the legislative branch is to the point of corruption where they couldn't choose valid academic institutions. They wouldn't consider the Church of Scientology as an accredited organisation they would choose places like MIT. Congress wouldn't choose the people who would be representatives in the 4th branch. Only form the initial body of Academic Institutions that determine who are representitives.

#YOLO
THEINCREDIBLEdork is offline   Reply With Quote