Republicans hate science

where is my take a deep breath and count to 10 thread?

 

i don't think mr. dean knows about it

 

I meant for me I had to count to 100!

 

The only republican science is creation science.

 

Come on guys, that isn't exactly fair.

 

Of course it isn't, but neither is the article quoted...plus he forgot weapon-related science...

Seriously, as the article states, generally speaking, Science has been left out of Partisan politics...as everyone has an interest in it...

 

I dunno. I don't like some of the ties between religious views and judgements regarding scientific matters; I think it's wrong. But, not all of the allegations are apt insofar as "hating science".

And, the whole deal varies from one side to the other. Back in my environmental engineering days I saw a fair number of Democrats who ignored science in favor of their own preconceived notions.

"Equal opportunity BS"

'Rat

 

YEah, but since a Repub. is in office we get to pick on the Repubs.

 

i feel fine picking on the bush administration for its dodgy science, but i agree w/ IJR that it's unfair to smear republicans in general for this.

 

You mean the Creation comment? I agree. Although they need to get the religious-freak-monkey off their back. So in that sense they deserve it

When you hang out with certain types of people, people tend to assume that you are like those certain types of people.

 

Is that how many days we have to wait till November?

 

Yeah, but it the conservatives that seem to do the most damage to our health and environment as a nation and a world in my view.

 

That's Mister Religious-Freak-Monkey to you, Madam.

By the way, didn't Kerry slip up a few days ago and say that he believes life begins at conception? Just curious, how does that rank on the "religious freak monkey" scale?

 

High. But at least he said he'd keep his beliefs to himself and not impose it on the rest of us. That's all I ask - Mr. Ashcroft, are you listening?

 

There's so much anti-science running loose...Seems to me that the political problem is the mix of neo-con and religionists that have come into power. It's less the political party per se.

A problem with the cited article in the opening post is that there is the occasional grain of truth, and a big batch of chaffish BS. There is the assumption that all environmental regulations are perfection as written, and no possibility that they might go beyond necessity.

The overall tone of the cite also equates profitability with evil and destruction. Yet, we've had lengthy discussion here about jobs going overseas, and that's a direct correlation with profitability.

We've even discussed "rollback" issues here. I've noted that the EPA limit on Cesium is 2/3 the natural content in the soil in Nueces County, Texas, but that doesn't stop all manner of protests against harbor dredging at Corpus Christi--even though the dredged material is identical to the ground on which it's placed. Duh? Could it be the regulation is not written in a scientific manner?

The water where I live is well above the state health department's limit for TDS as sulphates. We having people around who've lived here for decades, and they die in their eighties and nineties and a few in the early 1-0-somethings. Could there be some purely-opinion in the science leading to the limit?

I prefer to pick targets with rifles rather than shotguns. Our discussion here about the gasoline additive problem for groundwater in California was right on target...

Overall, my gripe is the lack of personal knowledge of technical matters on the part of almost all politicos I've ever met. It doesn't matter if you're talking environment or cars or industrial processes; they haven't a clue. I'm waiting for a resurrection of a law making Pi equal to 3.0000000... so life isn't so complicated for geometry or trig students.

, 'Rat

 

I saw something that said Bush's reign of terror was 86.something % over

 

Wasn't talking to or about you

No. He has been very upfront about his personal views which are inline with the Catholic church. But he doesn't believe that his personal views should become public policy!

 

I agree with the sentiment, 'Rat. Let's not bash all Republicans for the failings of the administration. Only small change I'd make is that, and this may shock you, I don't think the neocons are the source of this problem. It is more the mix of "religionists," as you put it, and corporate science "whores" (to put it bluntly.)

 

Very, very low.

It is time for politicians not to inject their personal beliefs into the political decision process. They should represent all, even those that did not vote for them.

 

Wow. I mean, do you seriously believe that?

It sort-of ties into this opinion piece I also found at the Boston Globe's web site. To hit the highlights:

I'd recommend reading the whole thing (it's short).

 

If the quotes are for real, it certainly raises some interesting questions.

Depends on their personal beliefs, surely? I'd like to know what their beliefs were, at any rate. And I'd like to know when they were acting contrary to their beliefs, and why.

 

Yes, thank you -- that was my point exactly.

 

There's much more chance of getting Republican voters to change sides if you don't trash the whole party. Better to treat GW&Co as an aberration.

 

Some of the issues we face as a nation are based on a singular view that ones position is the only right one.

Using the abortion issue, I think that abortion is wrong. But then I support a woman's right to choose also. It is a matter of personal choice. There are those, dare I say on the Right, that do not want people to live by the God given Free Will.

A politician is also supposed to up hold the law of the land. And so far the SCOTUS has held that a woman has the right to choose. I would be very worried, as I am with many of the GOP, if their beliefs got in the way of what the laws were and what the majority of the people desire.

Otherwise we are no longer a democracy, but a totalitarian society ruled by the religious elite.

Your insistence that ones religious beliefs should be part of the decision on how you vote when a member of Congress, or how you lead the nation is troublesome. If you want that, go find a nation that you can become dictator of, or be led by a dictator.

Sure is sounding a lot like the Taliban in this nation.