- This topic has 116 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
Veritas.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 8, 2011 at 2:57 PM #728682September 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM #728683
briansd1
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Clearly, the Dems aren’t soft on terrorism and I don’t see how they’re constrained.Please explain.[/quote]
Even though Obama signed the largest defense budget, the soft on terrorism image persists.
To neutralize criticism, Democrats will spend more on defense than they believe is necessary.
Same goes with immigration. Obama enforced immigration laws more vigorously than Bush. But the talk radio shows still blame him for not doing enough to secure the borders.
Defense, immigration, and police are all political liabilities for Democrats.
September 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #728688
CoronitaParticipant[quote=Jacarandoso]Back on those “green jobs”
The trainees are still in community colleges throughout the state, using financial aid to get up to speed. O.K. problem solved.[/quote]
University of phoenix green job certificate program? š
September 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM #728687Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I hear repeatedly about the GOP being “anti-science” and while people like Michelle Bachmann certainly fall into that camp, its also a false narrative regarding those on the right that do not.[/quote]
Please name some GOP leaders that are not “anti-science” and then tell us how much influence these folks have on the GOP party platform.
Are you referring to the presidential nomination front-runners that claim that evolution never occurred, so therefore dinosaurs never existed?
Because it’s really hard to explain all those bones we’ve been finding…
Oh … ok, we’ll change the story then. Perhaps, people and dinosaurs lived together at the same time?
I’ve seen those depictions of people with dinosaurs as pets. Hilarious! I wonder if a T-Rex can be house trained…
True, we can’t be sure, so we better teach evolution and creationism side-by-side, you know, because the scientific evidence for each is equivalent.
Or perhaps you mean the one (and-a-half) guy(s) at last night’s debate that sorta acknowledged climate change? Ooops! – did someone mention climate change?
[quote]It also omits the fact that there are many on the Left who treat AGW/Climate Change as revealed truth and “settled science” and will brook no argument on the topic. In terms of empiricism and objectivity, there is NO SUCH THING as “settled science” and never will be.[/quote]
Yeah, so we can keep using the “well we are only 99% sure, not 100% sure, excuse” to delay action on every decision. Because the issue is not “settled” and never will be.
But I’m surprised to learn there are people that are so entrenched in their opinions – so entrenched that they refuse to consider ANY evidence that may refute their position. Any of them in the GOP?
Allan, are you seriously trying to defend the GOP’s record on science?
September 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM #728929UCGal
ParticipantI hesitate to post this – for fear of looking like I’m promoting one team and bashing another… but I was surprised to read that the Solyndra loan guarantees were initiated and mostly completed under the former administration.
http://fefwww.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/2686855/pageid/1
I’m sure folks will blame whichever side they feel is to blame. But I’m not sure that the full blame for the Solyndra loan can go to Obama.
September 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM #728934jstoesz
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I hear repeatedly about the GOP being “anti-science” and while people like Michelle Bachmann certainly fall into that camp, its also a false narrative regarding those on the right that do not.[/quote]
Please name some GOP leaders that are not “anti-science” and then tell us how much influence these folks have on the GOP party platform.
Are you referring to the presidential nomination front-runners that claim that evolution never occurred, so therefore dinosaurs never existed?
Because it’s really hard to explain all those bones we’ve been finding…
Oh … ok, we’ll change the story then. Perhaps, people and dinosaurs lived together at the same time?
I’ve seen those depictions of people with dinosaurs as pets. Hilarious! I wonder if a T-Rex can be house trained…
True, we can’t be sure, so we better teach evolution and creationism side-by-side, you know, because the scientific evidence for each is equivalent.
Or perhaps you mean the one (and-a-half) guy(s) at last night’s debate that sorta acknowledged climate change? Ooops! – did someone mention climate change?
[quote]It also omits the fact that there are many on the Left who treat AGW/Climate Change as revealed truth and “settled science” and will brook no argument on the topic. In terms of empiricism and objectivity, there is NO SUCH THING as “settled science” and never will be.[/quote]
Yeah, so we can keep using the “well we are only 99% sure, not 100% sure, excuse” to delay action on every decision. Because the issue is not “settled” and never will be.
But I’m surprised to learn there are people that are so entrenched in their opinions – so entrenched that they refuse to consider ANY evidence that may refute their position. Any of them in the GOP?
Allan, are you seriously trying to defend the GOP’s record on science?[/quote]
Yep…it is only the GOP who are anti-science.
Not carrying water for the GOP here. Just saying, the democrats will turn a blind eye when it is convenient just as quickly.
From Johah Goldberg
Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for āscienceā? Why canāt the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? Or if thatās too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or ā coming soon ā the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?
…
During the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration dishonestly claimed that its independent experts supported a drilling moratorium. They emphatically did not. The president who campaigned on basing his policies on āsound scienceā ignored his own hand picked experts. According to the GAO, he did something very similar when he shut down Yucca Mountain. His support for wind and solar energy, as you suggest, isnāt based on science but on faith. And that faith has failed him dramatically.
The idea that conservatives are anti-science is self-evident and self-pleasing liberal hogwash. I see no reason why conservatives should even argue the issue on their terms when itās so clearly offered in bad faith in the first place.
September 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM #728939Guest[quote=jstoesz]Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for āscienceā?[/quote]
They don’t. The scientific community does.
[quote]Why canāt the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence?[/quote]
I don’t think any scientists are questioning that intelligence is inherited. You really need to get a better strawman.
Or is “heritability of intelligence” some sort of euphemism for the idea that some races aren’t as smart as others?
September 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM #728943Guest[quote=UCGal]I hesitate to post this – for fear of looking like I’m promoting one team and bashing another… but I was surprised to read that the Solyndra loan guarantees were initiated and mostly completed under the former administration.
http://fefwww.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/2686855/pageid/1
I’m sure folks will blame whichever side they feel is to blame. But I’m not sure that the full blame for the Solyndra loan can go to Obama.[/quote]
UGal you have restraint that I admire in progressives. You have stated several times that you’re liberal but you are really good at not posting partisan replies.
Me, I like to play fire with fire. š
The Solyndra loan guarantee was issued on March 2009 just as the Obama Administration was taking office, which means the the application process had already been ongoing.
Yes, Obama touted Solyndra, but he’s not responsible for the failure of the company.
When comparing the industrial policies of our competitors, further reading would reveal that Korea and China supported companies like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Huawei, etc… They suffered failures before they became successful companies and fierce competitors they are today.
And Alcatel received plenty of support from the government of France. Now they own Lucent.
September 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM #728954Arraya
Participant[quote=jstoesz]
During the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration dishonestly claimed that its independent experts supported a drilling moratorium. They emphatically did not. The president who campaigned on basing his policies on āsound scienceā ignored his own hand picked experts. According to the GAO, he did something very similar when he shut down Yucca Mountain. His support for wind and solar energy, as you suggest, isnāt based on science but on faith. And that faith has failed him dramatically.The idea that conservatives are anti-science is self-evident and self-pleasing liberal hogwash. I see no reason why conservatives should even argue the issue on their terms when itās so clearly offered in bad faith in the first place.[/quote]
Rep. John Shimkus, the new head of a subcommittee on the environment who explained that global warming cannot be a problem because God promised Noah that there will not be another flood. Not quite a scientific analysis but interesting nonetheless. Would you label this a pro-science stance?
September 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM #728956Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=jstoesz]Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for āscienceā?[/quote]
They don’t. The scientific community does.
[quote]Why canāt the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence?[/quote]
I don’t think any scientists are questioning that intelligence is inherited. You really need to get a better strawman.
Or is “heritability of intelligence” some sort of euphemism for the idea that some races aren’t as smart as others?[/quote]
You side stepped a whole bunch of other topics to call me a racist.
Wow
September 13, 2011 at 8:55 PM #728974GuestFunny. I was just kidding – implying you were a racist just to poke a little fun – but it turns out that the term is associated with just that. Here’s the leading proponent of the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen
While he has been rated as one of the top-50 eminent psychologists of the 20th Century, Jensen remains a controversial figure, largely for his conclusions based on his and other research regarding the causes of race-based differences in intelligence.
And here’s where he gets his funding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_fund
The Pioneer Fund was incorporated on March 11, 1937. The first five directors were:Wickliffe Preston Draper, heir to a large fortune and the fund’s de facto final authority, served on the Board of Directors from 1937 until 1972. He founded the Pioneer Fund after having acquired an interest in the Eugenics movement which was strengthened by his 1935 visit to Nazi Germany where he met with the leading eugenicists of the Third Reich who used the inspiration from the American movement as a basis for the Nuremberg Laws.
So you are either a racist or clueless or both.
But hey, let’s not sidestep other topics. Now let’s hear about the scientific controversy regarding the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation…
September 14, 2011 at 1:04 AM #728986patb
ParticipantWhy canāt the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve
Because there is no policy implications. You want to argue Blacks are notably less intelligent then whites. Okay. So what’s the policy implication? Are you then going to argue we need to increase school hours in black areas? Are you oing to argue blacks shouldn’t vote?
Even if Fetal pain exists, so what? Abortion is a medical procedure done by the request of a woman. It’s her right to do that. Are you going to argue that because there may be fetal pain, abortion shouldn’t be done, or that it should be done under general anesthesia? What’s your policy battle?
Or cognitive skills based upon sex. So are you going to say, men can’t be interior designers because they have no color sense? Are you going to argue women shouldn’t be allowed to sit the PE because they are inherently abd at math?
There are lots of hot battles in science. Exo-planets, is pluto a planet or asteroid? Distance to gamma ray bursters. Higgs Bosons. Gravitons and gravity waves. Dark Matter. DNA structure. Environmental switches in genetic expression. Quantum Computing. Causes of cancer.
it’s only the last one that has policy battles on it.
September 14, 2011 at 7:54 AM #728992DomoArigato
Participant[quote=UCGal]I hesitate to post this – for fear of looking like I’m promoting one team and bashing another… but I was surprised to read that the Solyndra loan guarantees were initiated and mostly completed under the former administration.
http://fefwww.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/2686855/pageid/1
I’m sure folks will blame whichever side they feel is to blame. But I’m not sure that the full blame for the Solyndra loan can go to Obama.[/quote]
Hmmmm … so both sides are full of corrupt idiots. Hoocoodanode?
September 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM #729013Veritas
ParticipantNice try, but not so fast:
“The White House noted to ABC News that the Bush administration was the first to consider Solyndra’s application and that some executives at the company have a history of donating to Republicans. The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.”September 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM #729016Participant[quote=patb]
Why canāt the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve
Even if Fetal pain exists, so what? Abortion is a medical procedure done by the request of a woman. It’s her right to do that. Are you going to argue that because there may be fetal pain, abortion shouldn’t be done, or that it should be done under general anesthesia? What’s your policy battle?[/quote]
Margaret Sanger considers abortion to be a disgrace: “In a chapter from Woman and the New Race (1920) titled “Contraceptives or Abortion?,” Sanger wrote, “While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.” -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.