Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Raw StoryA full 87 percent of American scientists see their political alignment as Democrat or Independent, according to a new Pew Research poll.
Surprisingly or not, just six percent declared themselves Republican, and only nine percent overall expressed support of conservative ideology.
This is a truism that only prove why republicans/conservatives hate education. Of course, the stuff coming out of the southern states like "The South shall rise again", Southern National Congress, neo-American Patriots all help prove the lack of intelligence being part of the republican/conservative make-up. IMO.
Before you get all smarmy about it, you might consider that most scientists get their funding from the government, and its usually Democratic administrations with their spending agendas that make the biggest increases in the budgets of all government departments (except of course DoD), including the NIH and NSF. They're just looking to where their patrons are. Scientists also tend to be very secular in their personal outlook, as scientific training is dominated by an antipathy to religion. I have a PhD in Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry and I have known scores of them; a good percentage were secular humanists, in practice if not in profession. As I am sure you are aware, the Democrat party seems to be the haven of the secular crowd. Those scientists I have known who do profess a religious belief are also often very private about it. Finally, academic departments of any kind are as rife with personality and politics as any other human organization, as is the society of scientists as a whole. Expressing deeply held religious beliefs openly can damage one's career.
In short, it is a mistake to assume that one poll on the political views of scientists represents any proof of anything concernng the relationship between intellectual rigor and religious belief, which is really your point with the seed right? Democrat=intellectual, Republican=militant, fundamentalist, ignorance?
Republican=militant, fundamentalist, ignorance
You got that right.
I find the poll hard to believe. Yes, I think there is a bias towards liberalism in the sciences but it doesn't seem that skewed to me. Then again, I work with a mixture of engineers and scientists and I have worked on defense-related projects.
Guessing, I would have said Republican scientists were in the 10-20% range, with most being towards the liberal end of Republicanism.
Yes, I think there is a bias towards liberalism in the sciences but it doesn't seem that skewed to me.
Rather than a bias towards liberalism in the sciences, I think there is a bias toward science in liberalism. And a corresponding bias toward religion in conservatism. Conservatives will believe things without evidence (hence the appeal of Rush Limbaugh). Liberals do not take things as a matter of "faith." They need proof.
Doesn't surprise me a bit. The Republicans don't believe in science and the scientists don't believe in Republicanism.
I think there is a bias toward science in liberalism. And a corresponding bias toward religion in conservatism
I guess it depends on what flavor of Conservative and Liberal one happens to be.
Many conservatives (the George Will, William F. Buckley, Rockefeller types) tend to believe in science to the extent of using microeconomic theory to support their ideology and refine their political positions. They arrive at their positions via data, not faith.
Religion, especially much of Christianity, is Liberal. At least when it comes to loving one's neighbor, turning the other cheek, giving to charity, caring for the meek. A good example in the political arena would be Jimmy Carter.
I guess both these examples would be considered "old school" in the current climate.
Anyway, the numbers seem a little off to me. I wonder if they polled a truly representative cross-section of scientists - including those in industry.
Republican=militant, fundamentalist, ignorance
You got that right.
__________________________
I guess this fella here was an ignorant, militant fundamentalist:
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
http://www.nbra.info/
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that @!$%# preacher."
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
Sonny I didn't say it, I just agreed with it.
BTW don't post entire pieces. Link to it.
tangojones
After plodding through the long post as to why Dr. King was a Republican, you ( and the article ) ignore the glaringly obvious: The south had been traditionally Democratic for decades, if not over a hundred years, and racism was an entrenched social fact. To put forth the idea that Martin Luther King would somehow, abide with what the Republican party of today ( we ARE discussing today's reality I assume ) practices, is another in an all too long list of half truths and outright lies put out on a regular basis by conservative extremists.
What's next......J.F.K. wasn't really a WWII hero??
The only evidence to the is in the minds of the nuthatch bunch like the swift boaters.
you ( and the article ) ignore the glaringly obvious
It would only be glaringly obvious to people like yourself, who childishly distort the tenets of conservatism, which have remained largely unchanged to this day. I hardly think MLK would be a proponent of mass abortions of babies or unfettered illegal immigration. I'm sure he would've marched against many of today's liberal socialist policies that have had such a damaging effect on American society, and in particular, blacks.
BTW don't post entire pieces. Link to it.
Fair enough, thanks.
It makes sense. Scientists are underpaid.
Very few scientists are billionaires. Only billionaires usually benefit under Republican policies, so why would anyone with any level of intellect be a Republican?
A majority of scientists are dependent on the federal urinary gooberinmint for their subsistence; the same as welfare recipients. I would be curious how engineers would poll. Many of us carry advanced degrees and work in the private (real world) sector.
theman
I would be curious how engineers would poll. Many of us carry advanced degrees and work in the private (real world) sector.
all you have to do is read the poll. (for any true scientist the answer was easy to find) Only 10% of scientists in the private sector identified themselves as republican, 37% indep. and 47% was democratic.
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
I work with both engineers and scientists, most with advanced degrees.
Based on the relatively large group that I interact with, the engineers do tend to be more conservative than the scientists. It is the subject of a lot of good-natured joking between the two populations.
The differences between the two populations go deeper than that. The engineers are always complaining that scientists are a little too prone to running off and looking for new solutions to solved problems. We scientists tend to accuse the engineers of stodgy adherence to the "book" without sufficient thought to how to make the solution better.
For us all it creates a healthy tension between innovation and reliable known solutions. Our products are better for the creative tension.
I didn't scroll down.
At least that helps explain my perception difference with the poll. I've spent most of my time with scientists in the two areas that have the most Republicans. That, combined with a healthy mix of engineers probably means that my co-workers are 10-20% Republican.
I'm an engineer now in Silicon Valley, but have been in departments through out America.
I am confident this poll is very close or dead on for scientists.
I also agree private sector engineers have slightly more Republicans, but are still overwhelmingly democrat as a whole. I would wager 20% or less Republican and the rest indep or dem.
I was watching a program yesterday on one of the history channels and one of the speakers intimated about something very similar,the point was that if you have a population that is intelligent,healthy andthe most important NOT fearful of the government, you find it extremely difficult to control that population and bend them to a certain groups ideology, like one that seeks control by means of myth building and myth believing. The Republicans as a whole seek to destroy intelligence in the population,except those who are close to the center politically and those who seriously uphold the separation of church and state because they know that it is most important to the prosperity and good welfare of all Americans. Last week the Gov. of Texas appointed a woman by the name of Dunbar who is a rabid frothing mouth anti-science,anti-fact and claims that the education system in Texas and the US is un-Constitutional.Perry appointed her to head of all things...the state board of education!!Tell me you people on the right! is this logical? Why in the sam-hell would you put some one in charge of a system that is so important to the mental welfare of millions of Texas schol children?..Why?...to brainwash these children and to keep them stupid and totally ignorant of the REAL world around them! I think that if she gets the position that the good people who work in these state offices should walk out in protest of the imminent destruction of GOOD education in the Proud state of Texas. Here in Ohio we have the common sense to keep these people who think like her out of such positions, sometimes the do infiltrate the system but they are always hoist by their own petards of false morals,ignorance and hatred of the factual world and are eventually thrown out of office or prosecuted out.
I left out an"o" in school! even I get vaporlocked sometimes...
tangojones - There is a huge difference you seem to have overlooked between people like Senator Byrd and the others you mentioned (Lott, Thurmond). The difference is in learning that you were wrong, admitting it and changing your ways. Very big deal. How could you leave that out or overlook it? Selective memory?
I wonder what a similar poll would reveal about scientists who are christians? It brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain, "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and turned out for what he knows."
It is obvious to me that the GOP has no interest in new technology unless it can be used to kill lots of people, make gi-normous personal fortunes, send people to jail for sinning (as opposed to actual violent, abusive or fraudulent acts), protect corporations which destroy people and lay waste to our ecosystem, etc.
It is my sincere hope that the GOP Party is over!
MatB #1.10, & 1.12
Maybe you should have debated the story of J.F.K. with the men who served on the P.T. boat with Kennedy. All involved substantiated the facts as reported. Two ( at least ) road in J.F.K.'s innaugural parade in a model of P.T.109
Nice try in rewriting well known and documented history.
What's next.......R.F.K. was really a mob boss??
tangojones #1.13
Well, there you go again...... ( toddles head with a rosy cheeked grin )
I never ever tried to make the case that Dr. King was a liberal Democrat.
When you put forth the idea that Dr. King was a Republican conservative, you should have had at least one fact to base your claim on.
Keep dreamin'.
This is to the post far above about why MLK was republican. This used data as far back as mid 1800s. You should know that Lincoln's Rep party was more an ancestor of the modern Dem party than the Modern GOP. There have been numerous name changes on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and neither have anything to do with current parties. MLK was most decidedly not at all Republican by modern terms. You just read a bad article!
Here in Ohio we have the common sense to keep these people who think like her out of such positions, sometimes the do infiltrate the system but they are always hoist by their own petards of false morals,ignorance and hatred of the factual world and are eventually thrown out of office or prosecuted out.
Exactly! thats why we rank higher in our HS graduation rate than texas.
JFK was a good swimmer. like a fish, just not a good PT boat skipper. Ted Kennedy drank like a fish, but couldn't swim enough to save his date, but was a good accident scene skipper.
Let's deal in fact, shall we? I suggest reading the book "P.T. 109" By Robert ballard. A well researched and acclaimed body of work that details the accounts regarding Captain Kennedy and crew's experiences during the time in question.
Ballard devotes enough of the book to address the less than honorable attacks on J.F.K's reputation to dismiss them as the gutter trash they are.
I'm sure Captain Kennedy "let" his cruiser get rammed to make himself a hero.
To quote an old colleague of J.F.K.'s: I knew Jack Kennedy.....I worked with Jack Kennedy.....Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.
MatB......You're no Jack Kennedy.
Mat we've all seen how you don't really know much. That you like to make crass remarks to prove it. Now might be a good time for you to find another place to show them your wares.
Thanks, bye and have fun.
Denying he deserved any medal is typical of a hero, isn't it. The accounts of the men who WERE THERE all say the same thing: Captain Jack Kennedy was the man who saved their lives. If you were to read the book, you would know how the P.T. boats and crews operated then, but it's apparent you don't know.
I think you just can't stand the idea that J.F.K. was a true American hero. Funny, he never used the P.T.109 incident in his campaigns for public office. I guess they just don't make em' like that anymore.
You know we can debate semantics but with the wealth and power of the Kennedy family had even back then he could have easily gotten out of serving, or he could have gotten an easy office position, or he could have served the reserve state side (ala Bush Jr). However he served this country as combat solder.
That says something about the man right there.
Unfortunately, this is a chicken or egg questions...
Republicans will claim that "liberalism" in science is why our society has a "bias" toward belief in evolution and global warming.
Democrats will claim that this is evidence that "liberals" are more open-minded and less bound to dogma, and are therefore free to find objective "truth".
Of course there is no absolute answer. It's a matter of whether you believe in Fundamentalism or science.
I believe in God, but I don’t believe that religion needs to exclude the principles of science. Science and religion can coexist. It all depends on how absolute and literal you are in your beliefs.
Of those polled I would like to know how many were government or academic -vs- private sector scientist. Without the benefit of a poll I would guess the numbers would show 6% work in the private sector. Think about it!
MatB
You mean to say he wasn't as heroic as YOU see him. You're not speaking for everyone else. I mean, that would be stupid.
DWF
OK. I've thought about it.
Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.
Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.
Do you base this on anything other than a childish seethe. Your double digits are showing!
In my experience, engineers are much closer to 50-50, if not more conservative than liberal. Many of these people would not say that they are Republican, but would say they identify with conservative. This applies to not only people I knew in college, but also those I work with. So it is closer to being equal numbers of people who are quite intelligent and educated, who are liberal or conservative.
Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.
Because scientists are the only intelligent ones in the world? People with engineering degrees, or MBAs, or Economics degrees, or etc... obviously do not count as intelligent, because those groups surely have more than 9% identifying as conservative.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. If you could clear up what you are saying that would be fantastic.
I was merely trying to point out how the seeder and the majority of posters seem to think this study shows that only 9% of all of the intelligent people in this country hold conservative view points, and that this is an incredible exaggeration.
That's 'cause Republicans don't need books and learnin' and stuff 'cause they already know what they believe, and its ain't science.
Wow. It's nice to know that the top 6% of scientists are Republicans. I never knew that.
To be fair the they do need some scientists who's opinion can be bought, What would Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Coal, and the ID people do if they could not...
I mean they would have to live in a world were decisions are made with impartial data ::Shudder::
Abacass, Yes, as Colbert said a few years ago at the White House Correspondents Dinner: "Reality has a known liberal bias."
What does the information tell us?
It says what we have all known for a long time: Democrats are just more intelligent.
Science is not the only field of human knowledge and creativity. There are plenty of bright people with advanced degrees who reject the tenets of "progressive," liberal, secular, humanism. And there are plenty of militantly ignorant people who assume that that same ideology is somehow beyond reproach in its purity and authenticity in describing reality.
Human "rationality" is never NOT tainted by prejudice, emotion, and outright self interest, not even in "progressive" liberals. Just because you believe in it and it sounds reasonable to you does not make it true. Don't wear your mantles of "rationality" "intelligence" and superiority with such smug self confidence. And don't presume to know too much about the nature of the scientific life and work unless you've lived it and tried to defend your ideas to a room full of people whose job is to find the weaknesses in your ideas, some of whom are your competitors. Science is nothing like the pure, untainted exercise in cold rationality that many of you seem to think that it is. Its filled to the gills with politics, emotion, and ego. Just because you read it in Scientific American, don't make it a fact. Real scientists don't accept even what they read in peer-reviewed journals with 100% credulity.
Really intelligent people freely admit to the limits of their knowledge and exhibit more humility about what they don't know than brash self-satisfaction about what they do know. They certainly are aware of their own biases and make cogent arguments when defending their beliefs. I see nothing here but a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who think they know more than the referee.
Science is not the only field of human knowledge and creativity. There are plenty of bright people with advanced degrees who reject the tenets of "progressive," liberal, secular, humanism.
Actually, given the current anti-intellectual trends in the right wing nuthatch I sincerely doubt that nonsense is true. I would LOVE to see a poll.
Well, since polls are simply statistics, and statistics are subject to all kinds of interpretations, I thought I'd just give you a few examples. Of course I know that 1) this list is not especially long and 2) that anyone not a liberal Democrat automatically counts as an idiot or a lunatic in some people's eyes. None-the-less, this shows that there are in fact conservative intellectuals in the world and is the best I could do on short notice.
Nice resort to name-calling Iceman!
http://moveonup.ning.com/profile/EricMWallace
http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/has-the-end-of-earth-life (A scientist!)
http://www.harveykushner.com/biography/bio.html (Political Science)
Science is not the only field of human knowledge and creativity. There are plenty of bright people with advanced degrees who reject the tenets of "progressive," liberal, secular, humanism.
Mike, much of what you say is true, but what you state here (cited above) strains credulity. Part of it is because you score against your own team by using three different concepts to define an ideology: Liberal, secular, humanist.
There are lots of Christians, who are liberal. Since they are theist they may not qualify as secular, but their outlook and daily lives are still secular, and so is yours. Unless you are a criminal. Because the laws are secular, and if you replace those laws with Biblically inspired laws - taking scripture as more than symbolic guidance - you are bound to violate some laws. So, even your understanding of the Bible is secular - formed throughout centuries of progressively developing interpretations. Humanist? Well, ask instead how many believe the UN Declaration of Human Right is written by the devil and designed to overthrow God in Heaven - in that case you may find out most people are humanist, after all.
Mike - Be careful that you too don't get too "smarmy" with your thoughts and beliefs about Democrats and scientists. Back when major corporations in the US still made things and still had big R&D departments I worked with a lot of scientists who were conservative and some of my Democratic friends even went to church, which I know is something that is hard to believe for the far right crowd. I now coach and teach at a small Christian university (my third career, in part because of the demise of US manufacturing. It's my lowest paid career but far more satisfying than the other two.) I digress, sorry. Our university has some pretty good science departments and our undergraduates are often recognized nationally for their research. I would dare say that we have a pretty good mix between Democrats and Republicans on our campus. I believe that for the right wing to think that all Christians are going to be Republican is just another sign of their ignorance. Believe it or not, we 'evil' Democrats may just show up in a pew next to you. Actually, I think it's kind of funny when "the Christians" stare at me when they see my Obama bumper sticker on my car in the church parking lot. . .Â
Mike the only problem you have with your comments is the lack of any sort of proof. If you actually have some, like not from WND,etc, then display it. Then a real discourse can take place. As it is your comment is just a rant.
Mike
After reading your #2.6 comment It was apparent that your unhappiness with a very simple statement far outpaced any rational response.
For instance, you write over 200 words of empty rebuttal with an air of arrogance that assumes that of the hundreds ( or thousands ) in the NEWSVINE community, only you are aware of what true scientific research means.
To top it off, you close by saying " I see nothing here but a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who think they know more than the referee."
All that in response to a simple 8 word one sentence statement of fact.
As jaywow said: A rant.
...tango..he didn't mean top six BEST! just top six...theres a difference you see to be one of the top six Republican means how much MONEY was generated by their discoveries and how many people they can control or kill with it....
Science is not the only field of human knowledge and creativity. There are plenty of bright people with advanced degrees who reject the tenets of "progressive," liberal, secular, humanism.
Mike, this is a false dichotomy. I will agree that the arts and technology (which is more than tangentially related to science) among other things are indeed other fields of "human knowledge and creativity" Nonetheless science is science and the scientific method is what it is. And it is such that it does not allow one to make one's ideology trump experimental, and experiential reality. Facts are facts, and scientific theories (which I believe you know) are as close as we can get to physical facts. As always, however, our knowledge and interpretation of these facts are open-ended. It's not unlike what Paul said when he suggested that "we see through a glass darkly" in 1 Cor. 13. All knowledge in this world is transitory and impermanent at best.
I share your beliefs about eternity in general (though not specific) outline, so I will say that "we'll know better by and by." In the meantime, just as the Bible is our guide for individual and communal spiritual growth, so science is our only material guide through the universe.
Rainmaker, we might add that, all of the early Protestant Reformers either were themselves or were influenced by the teaching and learning of the Humanists of sixteenth century Europe. Luther never would have done his German Bible without the work of Erasmus. Calvin was trained as a humanist at the University of Paris. Melancthon, Luther's heir and the right-hand man of his latter days, was a university trained humanist. Zwingli, though, like Luther a priest, had some humanist learning under his alb, as did Martin Bucer. John Knox was a humanist, as were the earliest synthesists of the English Reformation.
Later on, during the Enlightenment, John Wesley was enamored of and well read in the writings of scientists of his day, as were the founders of the various American movements that became the many Churches of Christ in the earliest Republic.
Ironically, fundamentalism is itself a modernist response to the Theory of Evolution. For a more rational response look at where the Roman Catholic Church has come over the past 130 years in response to science. Unfortunately, Mike's brand of American Christianity (although arising only since the 1880s or so) has become the de facto Christianity of choice for most Americans.
Knowledge, critical thinking, and the general idea of edumacation are scary things to Republicans.
#3 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:14 PM EDTAdapting to new data, the process of constantly adding to a body of knowledge, relying on objective observation.............yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head, Brandon.
In science, one must admit the possibility that one's current understanding is flawed and might need to be changed later. Republicans tend to start with the assumption of perfect knowledge: the Bible is absolutely true, the free market is always more effiicent, tax cuts are always an unmitigated good, the government can never do anything correctly and so forth. When reality disagrees with their assumptions, they prefer to alter their understanding of reality, rather than their assumptions. This is counter to the idea of science, where reality is the ultimate arbitor of theory. Hence, the number of Republican scientists is down near the accuracy of the poll.
That many? One would think the 6% would have more brains then that.
#4 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDTMost people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist.
They are wrong: it is character.
Albert Einstein
#5 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:54 PM EDThttp://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/z_Projects_in_progress/050418_Einstein/050405_einstein_tongue.widec.jpg
Exactly!!! and Republicans /Conservatives a frighteningly lacking in character....MORAL character that is.
Not surprising at all... Scientists, like hollywood actors, live in a sheltered, almost fantasy land. The struggles of the real world rarely break into their laboratories and ivory tower university offices, except on the news or a pbs frontline special.
#6 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:03 PM EDTif you can't rebut, mock... your rhetorical failings are clear for all to see...
There is no rebuttal because there is no argument.
I am writing from my fantasy middle class hut, writing on my ivory laptop, communicating via the "tubes of the internet" which were created without the help of scientists and which have nothing to do with maintaining the pedestrian details of medical records, natural disasters, pandemics, development of technologies that make knowledge universally available, communication, recycling, sewage treatment, anthropology, social sciences, medical research and the scientific standards that make advancements in all spheres of knowledge possible.
Science and acting. I knew that the truth would come out someday.
Scientists, like hollywood actors, live in a sheltered, almost fantasy land. The struggles of the real world rarely break into their laboratories and ivory tower university offices, except on the news or a pbs frontline special.
Wow, sure sounds like you've never met an actual scientist. I spent 14 years in higher education, studying science. Although your average PhD is perhaps a bit weird, they definitely don't fit your stereotype. It sounds like you are talking about a cartoon scientist. Try meeting some real ones.
Yeah Uncle MIke, Al Gore and Ted Stevens installed the tubes of the internet is a remarkable display of bipartisanship. And there you have it: the connection between entertainment and science. There were clues in such films as "Impact" and "2001." Now I can go write my bourgeoisie, middle class ivory tower thesis on the connection between the tragedies of Shakespeare and the scientific writings of Roger Bacon. ;)
Scientists, like hollywood actors, live in a sheltered, almost fantasy land. The struggles of the real world rarely break into their laboratories and ivory tower university offices, except on the news or a pbs frontline special.
Scientists have kept you alive, lit your house, furnished it with goods, helped provide clean drinking water, medicine to your loved ones. They also made you able to state your opinion in an online forum, while you take your news from the cable networks and listen to digital music. Show some gratitude.
That many? One would think the 6% would have more brains then that.
I too am surprised as 6% is giving them too much credit.
The only book learnin they needs is da Bible!
The earth is 6000 years old.....?
#7 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:26 PM EDTI'll bet Adam's rib that the 6% figure was made up by the 94% residue of liberal, Atheist, Amerika-hating alchemists. The 6% obviously indicates quality not quantity.
6%........6 thousand years, I think I see a scientific relationship.
Interesting:
Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”
Yet most of them consider themselves liberal. How odd the disparity between the truth and the perception.
#8 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDTAs I said above, quoting the great philosopher Stephen Colbert: Reality has a known liberal bias.
Seeing how Old Testament God is a Libertarian, and New Testament God is a Socialist Buddhist...I'm not sure it matters.
#11 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:38 PM EDTSo true. Most people who put the most creedence on the infallibility of the Bible understand it the least.
Reading some of the comments, it's amusing to watch people not accept reality...sort of scary too since some of them like Bush somehow grab onto power.
#12 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:58 PM EDTJust to be fair, I'm sure Christian Scientists and other "Jesus healers" are almost 100% Republican.
#13 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:53 PM EDTThere are such things as Christian liberals. We are mostly rooted in the oldest Christian groups in America: ELCA, Congregationalists, Methodists, Disciples of Christ, Reformed, etc.
I was talking about a specific group called "Christian scientists." If you don't know what they are I'm not going to explain them to you.
Yeah I caught that when I reread your post. I am aware of who they are.
Yeah I caught that when I reread your post. I am aware of who they are.
:D
Wonder if those 6% scientists are the ones the oil companies paid off to say global warming doesn't exist.
#14 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:02 PM EDTWonder if those 6% scientists are the ones the oil companies paid off to say global warming doesn't exist.
4% are the ones paid to say global warming doesn't exist.
2% are the ones paid to find reasons birth control should not be used.
Oh I forgot the intelligent design scientists. They must be part of that 6% too.
Wow. Reading these posts by you libs is pretty funny. I'm beginning to think that you actually believe that republicans and conservatives don't believe in science. Do you realize how stupid you all sound making those comments? Really, get a grip. lol.
given Democrat plans to slam science to a halt.
And your basis for that comment is?
Son I don't know where you get your information but you really need to use that library card, a lot.
MatB,
You will get a lot better response if you quit talking short and VERY broad generalities, and give a concrete example of democrats shoving either nuclear power or medical science aside.
Mat I don't know what you read but for now put up the Marval comics and go to the library, please.
You know Mat, talking to you is like talking to my 5 year old granddaugher when she's mad. Sorry bud but I'm off this with you.
Mat,
You might try loosing the one-liners some uneducated right wing nutjob told you and actually get involved in a conversation.
Many of us are well educated, and are active in the fields you appear to want to talk about. You might make a few points and ask some interesting questions if you tried, but what you are doing now is neither interesting nor very entertaining.
Mat-
You are tossing around a lot of wild assertions but you have not backed any of them up with a single fact.
How are the Democrats shoving aside nuclear power?
How are the Democrats oppressing medical science?
What do you call shoving nuclear power and medical science aside
How exactly are they shoving aside medical science? What cure or procedure that I know about do they reject for non-scientific reasons?
Science deals in theory, not fact. The people that oppose nuclear power do it because of scientific reasons. They cite scientific hypothesis concerning nuclear waste health/ecosystem contamination concerns about when opposing nuclear power. There are opposing hypothesis that those in favor of nuclear power use to debate their side of the issue.
Also, if you we're really so well educated, you wouldn't be here.
As in exist?
Dear Mat -
I am a democrat, I value ecology along with my husband who is getting his Master's in environmental science. We are both pro-nuclear power for energy use along with diversifying with other sources. As are many of our colleagues.
When used along with other varying energy sources and not relied on as an only source, the waste can be easily contained and maintained.
What do you call shoving nuclear power and medical science aside?
Dang the problem with generalizing is you are usually wrong.
Actually, there are many people who are for nuclear power...until the Powers-That-Be state where the nuclear waste is going to be buried. Then everyone cries "Not In My Backyard!"
Democrats are against medical research? Do the words "Stem Cell Research" mean anything to you? Dems are only against Big Pharma because Big Pharma does not want single payer health care. They are in it for the money, not the humanitarianism. It's a good thing none of those lobbyists have to take the Hippocratic Oath. I would looooove to see Asclepius bitch-slapping in the hiz-ouse!
We actually live right in the middle of one of the two test sites for the first nuclear bomb testing. And there's a handful of nuclear power plants here. There's a lot of old stuff here, a lot of nuclear stored fuel. No glowing, no hairless mutants, but with the negative advertising, people's fear wins out - oil company's win - people loose. Earth looses.
We were pushing for the storage site at Yucca Mt, but it was unsuccessful in the end. So many jobs were lost.
They are in it for the money, not the humanitarianism.
At the end of the week, do you expect a paycheck for your work, or would you be satisfied with a pat on the back and a "thanks for being a good humanitarian, Al"?
Without the profit motive, "big pharma" goes out of business, and we all lose. I'm not suggesting there is no room for humanitarianism, but we need to be realistic. When you factor in R&D, the cost to produce that first miracle pill is usually many millions of dollars. There's no getting around it. They have to pay all those good "democrat scientists" and researchers. You know, the "smart ones" I've been hearing about on this thread. I know most of you libs can't make the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living, but follow it to it's logical conclusion. Remembering this simple formula will be helpful:
Profit: good - Communism: bad
They have to pay all those good "democrat scientists" and researchers. You know, the "smart ones" I've been hearing about on this thread. I know most of you libs can't make the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living, but follow it to it's logical conclusion.
If it's the democrat scientists that are getting paid, and it's the democrats, who are the liberals - it's true, I always hear them linked - then it seems to me the libs are making the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living quite easily. They are the ones with the big jobs, the big brains, the scientific understanding, they are the ones who... also, won the big elections.
It just might be the out of date mythical conservative republicans that aren't getting all this important teaching that's going on here. hmmmmm? Remembering their own concepts, updating them, and bringing it all forward, might be helpful.
No crime in humanitarianism at all and believing that we can have both and striving toward that.
The problem with nuclear power is one of fuel. Setting everything else aside, including waste, there just isn't enough uranium in the ground, and definitely not enough in the ground in this country, to solve our energy needs. You've heard of peak oil? Even with out rather light usage of atomic energy, we only have enough proven reserves for the next sixty years. And that's without swapping all the coal plants out for nuclear.
Sixty years.
That's why scientists aren't really all that excited about fission power. It is not a long term solution. It will be hard enough converting off of fossil fuel, so we only want to do it once.
Fusion, on the other hand...
Sorry repeat post - my first one wouldn't post then they both did.
That's why scientists aren't really all that excited about fission power. It is not a long term solution. It will be hard enough converting off of fossil fuel, so we only want to do it once.
That's why we can't rely on one kind of power source ever again - like we've done with fossil fuels. It's foolish. We need to diversify - nuclear, wind, fusion, tidal, solar, etc... Use them all for our benefit.
Sorry JoMan I have to disagree with you. There's plenty of uranium in the ground. I can take you to mines that were worked heavily and are still 90% viable. I can show you exploration surveys that show veins that run for miles. It's not hard to get uranium, vanadium or pitchblende out of the ground but until the processing is more stabilized and the price goes up it isn't profitable.
We own several assessment leases and keep the assessments up because, one day, it will be worth mining.
Nuclear energy probably does have a future in "clean" energy, either long-term or as a "bridge" source.
The issue of waste storage is not going to go away and will continue to be a "hot button" issue. Liquid Sodium - Thorium fueled reactors offer some interesting advantages but the "full up" technology, including on-site reprocessing is immature. Interestingly, the liquid salt reactors could "burn" the spent rods that are accumulating at EVERY current nuclear reactor facility, and reduce the waste stream significantly. Interesting reading at:
I'm waiting for the StarGate team to find a Naquada Generator. Or the secret to Zero Pont energy!
Check the wikipedia on 'peak uranium'. Yes, there's tons of uranium ore in the ground, but that does not equate to tons of refined, reactor grade uranium fuel. We have, at present usage, sixty years of proven reserves. That's including the mines you've seen.
But even if you wish to argue anecdotes vs statistics for the amount of remaining uranium, the fact remains that it is, in effect, a fossil fuel. All the uranium in on planet was created in one or more supernovae before the planet was formed. Most of it fell, or oozed, to the planet's core. The little that is left in the crust represents a fixed quantity. Once it is gone, it is gone*.
Atomic fission, like coal, gas and oil, is an energy dead end. Eventually, and far, far too soon for comfort, we'll run out. And then we'll have to convert everything again.
_______
* Or, at the very least, will take vastly more energy to create more of
Also people call nuclear energy a "Clean Fuel" source when in fact it could not be farther from the truth.
Nuclear Waste is by far the most hazardous form of energy byproduct out there. compared to the time it takes for the environment deteriorate the waste to the point it is harmless is astronomically higher than even Gas or Coal.
All the people clamoring for the idea of more nuclear reactors would balk at the idea of the waste being dumped in their state let alone their home towns.
From Wikipedia, the current conventional resources is enough for 60 years, and a doubling in price would make about ten times that much available. There is also three times as much thorium as uranium and the use of thorium opens some interesting opportunities.
As always, waste is the biggest problem although thorium cycle solves a big part of that problem.
Sorry JoMan I have to disagree with you.
I think it was waffle who said there is not enough uranium. I said there needs to be diversity in energy sources. We haven't had any trouble around here getting fuel for our nuclear bombs (in the past), and plants that were started in the 40's.
I think he is under the assumption that there needs to be as much uranium as in ratio to fossil fuel to make as much usable energy - that is just not so. Also out of that just the tiniest waste pellet is the result from such huge amounts of energy made. It is a very resourceful power. Sorry if I did not make my self clear.
Still there is no reason to only rely on one source of energy - we need to learn from our past and diversify. Not only for ecology reasons, but economic. One of the biggest problems now for the U.S. is our their soul reliance on oil. It makes us slaves to our own needs and other countries demands. Let's try to stay out of another rut like that.
Poll: Just six percent of scientists are Republican
And in subsequent news; a followup poll found that just 6% percent of Republicans understand and respect science.
#17 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:36 PM EDTIs that 6% of all republicans, or 6% of the 15% of republicans who can read?
6% of republicans believe it's a sin to read - well anything but the Bible, and that then they must interpret incorrectly.
6% of republicans believe it's a sin to read
That actually explains a LOT, including a couple of posts on this thread.
considering 53% of Americans were bs'ed this past election . . . . . . does it matter what % are scientist?
Lonnie explain how 53% of Americans were bias this past election? Or is it that 47% were bias?
media won the election for obama. period. and jaywow, u tell delete post for name calling and as I read this whole thread thats basically all you have done. . . dont like what someone has to say, dont post threads buddy. . .
At the time of the 2008 election G.W Bush had a presidential approval rating in the low 20's. With the Republicans proposing Bush III as a candidate, it seems to me any candidate the Democrats chose to run for office would win the election.
This sounded like a piece from "The Onion," but without the punchline:
"GOP laments that only 6% of scientists are Republican--party leaders say they would like to have Tom Cruise inside 'The Big Tent.'"
#18 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:09 PM EDTI'm not surprised. The number seems low, but that's my perception only. Folks who question things for a living do so naturally. They start as curious and open-minded, seeking answers to their questions. That is their mode of operation. This sort of mentality is not welcome in the Republican Party, where obedience to authority is a key operational goal, and part of the culture and mindset of the Party members.
We see daily, even in this very thread, how people who question things, and especially question Republican Party assumptions and authority, are treated by Republicans and their apologists. We who question things, who are anti-authority, who are pluralistic, who tend toward democracy, enlightenment principles, and liberalism, are routinely cursed and insulted by those in the Republican Party and by their apologists.
Cool, they hate me, so I'll stay the hell away from them! Who needs 'em? I certainly don't, and neither do others who, like our scientists and honest journalists prefer to, or need to, question things.
Why would anybody want to belong to a group whose members hate them? After this analysis, I guess the 6% number is understandable, after all.
#19 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:23 PM EDTI just wish that they'd all get off the grid and stop using our precious natural resources, like air. I used to be a Republican, but then I went to college and became a Libertarian following some flirtation with the Dems. Even Reagan would be appalled at the willful state of ignorance among rank and file Repubs. Barry Goldwater would kick all their #%%^@, and I am sure is spinning non-stop in his grave.
Yep, it is sad when a party disintegrates into nonsense.
The republican party is sinking into its social conservative, mostly Southern base. It's their ideology, mostly based on a variety of religious fundamentalism, and their funding, which is funneled through church's for their tax exempt status, that we're rebelling against. I'm a Californian living in Alabama, so I've recently experienced the culture shock. I'm at a major university where a large segment of the student body (all Republican) will look you in the eye and tell you evolution is either dead wrong, blasphemy, or both. No wonder scientists end up registering democrats. That kind of viewpoint is downright hostile to science. That epitomizes the mind set that follows Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other blatant propagandists. What's sad is that conservatism is a voice that desperately needs to be heard, especially in this economic climate. But the party is so firmly bolted to its social conservative base that Republican fiscal conservatives who are socially moderate are getting purged from the party. Where is their voice now? On the peripheries of two polarized parties. A sensible, compromising, centrist government would be great right now. Instead we have one party rule, the big tent democrats full of blue dogs and republican defectors, getting on board to get their agenda through by domination against a stubborn, senseless Republican block rather than by cooperating with it. What a waste.
Yeah that's why California has more of the top schools than any other state.
That's why California is home to silicon valley, which researches and designs more high tech than nearly the rest of the world put together.
That's why California is home to the HQs of most of the high tech defense companies.
That's why economically even with the budget crisis California is the 8th largest economy in the world.
the list can go on and on.
Reagan was a Californian, Matt. And you call yourself a conservative? They oughta drum you out of the Young Repubs Club.
Excellent points Mac. Interestingly, I'm afraid our "friend" Matt simply proves your point. There is no place for thinking people in the GOP anymore. It's all elite or uneducated Southerners, socially conservative Midwesterners, and a fringe element of Western libertarians. It will die, as it was born, out on the plains, sadly, quietly, and a mere shadow of its once great self.
Actually, the young republicans aren't so young...they range in age up to 40 (all 12 of them),
That's what is so frustrating, jsquaredrev. The voice needs to be heard. There is a compelling conservative thinkingviewpoint, one that defends capitalism and personal liberties, that is getting drowned out in gay marriage, abortion, and other bible-belt bs. One party dominance doesn't benefit anyone. What were the two latest one-party rules in the U.S? the carter administration and the bush administration. Any one want to argue that these were our best moments? I love Obama, but there needs to be a real counter-argument for effective democracy, and the Republican party just isn't getting it. You can't stick your head in the sand and filibuster everything and come out with any kind of cohesive government. Why deafen yourself to science? Science is our friend, not our enemy. Breakthroughs in energy technology can get us out of this economy, not faith and party loyalty. I guess we have to do the best with what we got, and that means voting Democrat for awhile.
MD Mac, you are so right. What the Republicans could bring to the table is needed. Yet, with the Southern strategy -- a plan that laid the groundwork for Karl Rove's dream of a permanent majority -- the GOP doomed itself to become the anti-intellectual, populist, fundamentalist mess that it now is. Sometimes political expediency is not the wisest course of action, and I think that this proves the point.
One thing I will say, however, until they purge their party of illiterate populist rabble rousers, I'll remain a Libertarian.
This blog is what's wrong with our country. People arguing about Republican vs. Democrat. It sounds like a bunch of kids fighting.
Here's a news flash for you. They're both destroying our country and taking away our liberties. Neither party is better than the other. They are both corrupt.
#20 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:13 AM EDTAnd until we enact REAL campaign finance reform, they will continue to be.
BP...here's a RECENT news flash!...Republicans have sunk into an a-moral hypocritical abyss and want to pull down the entire nation and possibly the world just to prove some lame-ass,dogma driven ideology because this ain't their birthday party and they are no longer the center of attention in saner circles.
In other words your proud you throw your vote away on a party with not even a remote chance?
In other words your proud you throw your vote away on a party with not even a remote chance?
im crossing my fingers that the libertarians are able to gain ground to replace the GOP-elect. We really need two thinking parties.
bp- - - people don't get it, never will. . . bunch of idiots . . . being screwed by politicians . . . and this country is not going to last much longer. . . . this world as a whole isn't to be honest. . . its fubar to the hilt
Engineer, no I am proud that I vote my conscience, and refuse to vote either for socialism or theocracy. for Pres. anyway. I am still willing to look at any candidate from any party for local, regional and statewide offices. There I vote based on their views, which are not as totally based on monied interest and the BS of the chattering classes of D.C., NYC, and the West Coast.
That's because the republicans are too busy spending time in church, screwing their mistresses, and then paying people off. They don't have time for that there evil science stuff. You know - that stuff from Satan like reading a book, a nice walk out doors, enjoying nature - using your brain.
#22 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:24 AM EDTThe poll was three out of ten people that are scientists are Republican. The fact does not change, that thrity-three percent of the angles fell from heaven. Why should it surpise anyone that only thirty -three percent are scientists. Did somebody just lose their cherry to understand this reality?
#23 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:26 AM EDTSo, since their are 360 angles in a circle, that means that heaven only has 240 degrees?
Check your spelling. (chek ur spelin)
And the poll says that in each of the areas (industry, acedemia, and government) the BEST showing for republicans was 10% in industry, not 30%.
A full 87 percent of American scientists see their political alignment as Democrat or Independent, according to a new Pew Research poll.
Surprisingly or not, just six percent declared themselves Republican, and only nine percent overall expressed support of conservative ideology.
Scientists might understand why they ought to be democrats, but that doesn't mean democrats all understand science as shown by this quote!
It's disingenuous to stack the numbers like this for comparison and any scientist would know this. The choice is not independent + democrat or republican. This quote is designed intentionally to exagerate the gap between number of democrat scientists and number of republican scientists. A real gap exists in this poll, but it's not 87% to 6%. It's 55% to 6%.
#25 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:01 AM EDTEinstein was a refugee therefore his very survival depended on democratic ideals...
#26 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:13 AM EDTThis is not all that surprising but also weird.
Ok so we have more of an understanding that Republicans tend to fall on the Conservative side and thus are more fused with religion. Ok fair enough got that.
So then you would end up with the idea, from that, that those who are religious don't believe in science. Ok got it.
Now the weird part, some of the most prominent scientists in history have been religious in some way. Religion was not complete void in science of time ago. How it diverged now well I guess the Republican party has become TOO exrtremist in thought.
#27 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:07 AM EDTIs this really a shocker? Science is based on using logic, evidence, and collection of data to support or disprove a hypothesis. That is everything Republicans are against....their arguments are almost never based in fact, it is almost always based upon some sort of ideology or conspiracy. Case in point, look at the posts that we are constantly bombarded with on Newsvine....almost all anti-Obama slams won't be based in fact...it is inevitable that the word "socialism" or something like it creeps into their statement. Why? Because it is some abstract theory you can't prove (or disprove). They will NEVER have alternative solutions (too difficult). For some reason, we're supposed to take their word for it. Evidently, Obama is socialist...why...because he was left an economy that spiraling into oblivian and took action to stop the spiral -OR- is it because he is trying to deal with the health care problems that have been ignored for so long -OR- is it because he is respecting other nations in the hopes of forging ties that aren't riddled with hate, disdain, or war?
A true scientist would look at the evidence and data of the Bush regime and conclude that much of what was done is wrong and a new path needs to be taken. Realistically, I wonder how the Repubs even got 6% of them....my guess is these individuals didn't graduate at the top of their class (or even in the top two thirds).
#29 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:38 AM EDTOh, brother. I guess freedom and liberty are abstract theories. And it is "dictatorial Marxist" for Obama, forget the "socialist" moniker -- too weak. And Obama defies the science of history, his lame cradle to grave society experiments have been done and failed. It is the left who ignores evidence and uses failed ideology alone to hurt people, put our security at risk, and keep themselves well funded and in power.
kissy:
Yeah, the last 8 years was a great experiment promoting "freedom" and "liberty". Kiss, seriously, with every post you look more and more like the crazy, bigoted old coot sitting on his front porch hugging his gun. Can't talk to people, can't work with them..alot easier to shoot 'em! Fear has you so entrenched that all reason and logic is thrown out the window...what's really sad is you're fearing imaginary figures waiting to invade your "rights". It is so easy to throw terms and labels around so you can hide behind your wall of paranoia.
Sorry there champ, but there is a real world out there and there are real issues to deal with. Isolation and insanity can't cut it anymore.
You have one major inconsistency in your statement...if Obama's ideology will fail, hurt people, and put our security at risk....HOW are they going to stay in power? Wouldn't he be voted out right away?
How'd Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Amin, Achmadinijad, all of your heroes, come into power? Men with power tend to abuse it, like Obama. Dumb citizenry tends to allow the escalating abuse of power, like liberals and Democraps, because initially they gain more than they lose, or they think they are in the ruling elite gang. And with enough power, the supreme leader isn't budging without a high casualty fight. So how would Obama stay in power? Either a democratic process where the majority are dumb aggitated people who only see and hear only what the government-media comples allows them to see and hear so their fellow Americans are their enemies, or a series of conjured up crises lead to a "temporary" suspension of the Constitution and rights to get past the crises. Kind of like your ignorant portayal of me to prejudice what others might now think of the quality of my comments, just like Obama's media did it for the last election.
Liberal scientists are the biggest dumbbutts we have and are the biggest threat to world peace and safety we have. Always dreaming up crises like global warming to facilitate their personal government agendas and deprive taxpayers of their hard earned money and property. Liberal scientists would just as soon lie, cheat, and deceive as breathe, no different than their non-scientist Democrap politicians.
Can't work with them? Of course not. Like you implied, everyone but a Democrap scientist is too stupid to have relevant input and should be ignored. Life and governing is not for the common man, the average guy, just for the elite super-smart like Biden, affirmative action Obama, and blatant nincompoops Franken, Reid and Pelosi.
DoctorLog, with your every post, you distance yourself from reason and compassion. Your knowledge of the real world is obviously lacking and your intelligence highly self inflated, suggesting you are an affirmative action beneficiary like most of the Democrap party.
kiss...I think you've officially fallen, no dove, off the deep end. It must be miserable to live in a world of such hatred and paranoia. I see you are passionate in what you feel, and I am genuine when I say this, I actually feel sorry for you. I can't imagine what life would be like in your world.
As stupid as you think I am, I do realize that in order to actually get something accomplished, isolating myself and belittling everyone else accomplishes nothing. Who knows, you could have a clue of what you're talking about but your rhetoric is so inflammatory, nobody that disagrees with you will ever give you the time of day. Therefore, you're wasting your time. But, if it makes you feel better, go ahead...name call, call me dumb, liken Obama to Hitler or Stalin, and go ahead and spread your hate, its a free country (at least for now...remember Obama's plan to take over the world!).
How'd Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Amin, Achmadinijad, all of your heroes, come into power?
You know what is so interesting about Rethugs, what really amazes me, is that they use examples or make comparisons based on the "shock value" versus reality. Not one of those listed above would ever be elected President of the United States.
Somehow their warped minds equate Democrats in gereral and President Obama specifically, with murderous thugs.
"Obama is like Hitler", let's look at that for what it really means, President Obama is a man of color and if he and Hitler sat down for dinner together what would they have in common? Hatred for Jews, a desire to start a world war, or maybe he is a homicidal maniac. Maybe, following in Hitlers shoes, Mr. Obama will invade Mexico and start a holocaust there...I'm sure they would support that!
This is the problem with all their arguments (if you can call it that), they just make no sense.
They compared Ms. Sotomayor to David Duke, the Grand (Wizard, Dragon, Salamander, Maggot or whatever creature they call themselves) of the klan...just plain stupid and not grounded in reality.
kissmyarsenal is a textbook example of this, nothing more than incoherent ranting...are we seeing the last act in the paranoid world of the Rethuglican party...I sure as hell hope so!
Science is to important to humanity, I hope the demographics stay this way...thank god!
...save Chavez, none were elected.
BTW - It was Bush/Cheney supported the overthrow of a democratically elected Head of State and provided intel to the coup...and we wonder why Chavez is pissed off?
...save Chavez, none were elected.
That's the point. Obama won't have to be elected either after he implements his "change" agenda. Achmadinijad was overwhelmingly "elected", by the way, no matter what the people say.
DoctorLog, you started the mischaracterizations. I see you are unable to escape your own wet paper bag.
Achmadinijad was overwhelmingly "elected"
That's what I mean, incoherence... Democrats don't believe the elections in Iran were fair and open, so why do you say he was elected - "shock value".
If you can tie the President Obama to Ahmadinejad by saying he was "elected" too, in an election we all know was rigged, that that somehow means President Obama's election was "also" rigged. we are not that dumb, we KNOW THE TRUTH AS IT IS, not as you wish it to be.
All of these comparisons are just plain foolish and they say more about you than it does about Democrats.
Obama won't have to be elected either after he implements his "change" agenda
Again, this a a direct contradiction to your own argument, most listed are dictators and don't have to worry about elections, one more reason why your comparison is so foolish.
The beauty of our system is if you don't like "change", you can do something about it...vote!
Somehow I doubt President Obama has a devious plan to stay in office past the two term limit.
Look, if all else fails, Oprah Winfrey would chew him out on her afternoon talk show, and he'd be forced to do penance in front of her, Dr. Phil, and possibly Larry King. That is a triple whammy of the worst kind...
Chances are they work in the defense industry, or live in Republican enclaves like Orange Co., CA, or Peoria, IL (which actually has a lot of USDA and Caterpillar scientists).
Maybe, but it is the top 6%.
When you live off of government dollars, it is difficult to be a Republican. Many scientists learned to be saps to stay alive, to get funding, like most other Democrats, and so fit best into the party of dependent special wants kids, the Democrat party.
#30 - Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:48 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
