The Republican war on science

[woot]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...at-s-it-up-to-

That is a beautiful segment. Nothing new, but particularly well done.

[RobinFinderson]

That was an excellent piece. The interview was also good, and touched on many of the same themes. It was a good night for science.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The republican wars on science, art, education, the poor--what's not to like?

That clip is just more Occupy Wall Street $%*^#.

[Clark Addison]

I haven't seen the clip yet. I don't know if I would call it a war, but many Republicans and Republican-supported policies do seem to be hostile to science. This is one of the things that stops me from being a Republican, despite agreement on several "traditional" Republican ideas. Others would include:

• In bed with Evangelicals
• Attitudes toward immigration
• Unwillingness to consider any amount of cuts from Military
• Policies on Gay issues

I have a list just as long for the Democrats, which does create some problems.

[oxcoug]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...at-s-it-up-to-

That is a beautiful segment. Nothing new, but particularly well done.

Hah yeah - particularly good by honing in on a couple of dumb Republicans then extrapolating to distort the hell out of it. But it's cool, Stewart's just a comedian right? So he tells us?

That was an excellent piece. The interview was also good, and touched on many of the same themes. It was a good night for science.

Is it "good" or is it just a bit clever / well-made? Republicans aren't actually waging "war" on science - so how is this good?

That clip is just more Occupy Wall Street $%*^#.

Pretty much.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I haven't seen the clip yet. I don't know if I would call it a war, but many Republicans and Republican-supported policies do seem to be hostile to science. This is one of the things that stops me from being a Republican, despite agreement on several "traditional" Republican ideas. Others would include:

• In bed with Evangelicals
• Attitudes toward immigration
• Unwillingness to consider any amount of cuts from Military
• Policies on Gay issues

I have a list just as long for the Democrats, which does create some problems.

Most of the issues you (and others, myself included) have with the R party are based on the first item of your list.

A better representation of the Republican Party, or at least one I would prefer, would be Gov. George Romney openly supporting the Civil Rights Amendment, and hosting a protest in 1963 by Rev. Dr. M.L. King, Jr (also a registered Republican, fwiw).

Romney later ignored a letter sent to him by the Quorum of the Twelve demanding he stop his support of the Civil Rights legislation (I need a reference on this, I can't recall who wrote the letter). This was a very bold move for a prominent LDS politician, and is in line with the true beliefs of the party of Frederick Douglas and M.L King. Going against the direct wishes of the QOT and Presidency of the church in such a public manner has caused the church to excommunicate many people over the years.

I don't like some of the positions the party has taken in the past. In many ways I wish the system was set up more in a 'cafeteria style' than having two overwhelmingly huge national parties controlling every aspect of each election, because the Rs, the Ds, and every other party has a mix of very admirable positions stirred in with a pile of shitty positions.

But at the same time I don't know that we would be better off with 20 small national parties.

[Uncle Ted]

This thread should have the title of "The Republican and Democrat war on science". For example, there is that dumbass democrat from Minnesota that claims the EPA is "in bed with" corporations opposed to the ethanol industry and said that he and the farmers would welcome warmer weather cause by global warming.

[woot]

Hah yeah - particularly good by honing in on a couple of dumb Republicans then extrapolating to distort the hell out of it. But it's cool, Stewart's just a comedian right? So he tells us?



Is it "good" or is it just a bit clever / well-made? Republicans aren't actually waging "war" on science - so how is this good?




Pretty much.

Did you really just try to distinguish between "clever/well-made" and "good"? The Republican war on science is something I've been following for many years. I'm not basing my opinions on a daily show piece. I just thought it was a funny take on some of the absurd views on which this war is based.

I think a great many republicans, including several current presidential candidates, actually do hold beliefs similar or identical to those exposed in the daily show piece, and those those folks contribute to a mistrust of not only science but of scholarship in general. I also think that few republicans have ever had to articulate them or even think about them very much.

One of the reasons I'm hoping one of the mormons get the republican nomination is that they are about the only ones that don't seem crazy. Not crazy in a "I don't agree with them" sense, but rather crazy in the "they consistently proclaim obvious falsehoods that only someone who'd never thought about it for 2 minutes would say out loud" sense. I don't agree with Romney on a lot of things, but he seems like the type of Republican I would be comfortable with representing the conservative positions, which, whether I agree with them are not, are generally valid positions to hold. Having one of the crazies in office scares me, because not only do I disagree with their positions, I have no confidence that they have any idea of how to evaluate evidence or string a chain of logic together.

None of this is to say that the dems tend to do a great job either, but I don't think there've been any anti-science presidential candidates from that side in the last few cycles, nor do I imagine MSNBC or any other liberal outlet stating confidently that scientific ideas they have no understanding of are certainly wrong.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Did you really just try to distinguish between "clever/well-made" and "good"? The Republican war on science is something I've been following for many years. I'm not basing my opinions on a daily show piece. I just thought it was a funny take on some of the absurd views on which this war is based.

I think a great many republicans, including several current presidential candidates, actually do hold beliefs similar or identical to those exposed in the daily show piece, and those those folks contribute to a mistrust of not only science but of scholarship in general. I also think that few republicans have ever had to articulate them or even think about them very much.

One of the reasons I'm hoping one of the mormons get the republican nomination is that they are about the only ones that don't seem crazy. Not crazy in a "I don't agree with them" sense, but rather crazy in the "they consistently proclaim obvious falsehoods that only someone who'd never thought about it for 2 minutes would say out loud" sense. I don't agree with Romney on a lot of things, but he seems like the type of Republican I would be comfortable with representing the conservative positions, which, whether I agree with them are not, are generally valid positions to hold. Having one of the crazies in office scares me, because not only do I disagree with their positions, I have no confidence that they have any idea of how to evaluate evidence or string a chain of logic together.

None of this is to say that the dems tend to do a great job either, but I don't think there've been any anti-science presidential candidates from that side in the last few cycles, nor do I imagine MSNBC or any other liberal outlet stating confidently that scientific ideas they have no understanding of are certainly wrong.

You mean Michelle Bachman? Do you realize that some of these people are running just so they cash in later on like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin? Look at who actually gets the nomination as opposed to who's running. John McCain, George W. Bush (you may disagree here), Bob Dole and George Bush don't strike me as stridently anti-science. The guy who is most likely going to get the nomination this time is Mitt Romney -- is he anti-science? Conservatives were clamoring for Paul Ryan and Chris Christie to run -- are they anti-science?

And as long as we're talking about crazy people running for presidential office, maybe we should paint the Democrats as their own brand of crazy because of Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich. Is Democratic party full of a bunch of sociopathic narcissists because John Edwards was a serious Democratic candidate?

Judging by the Occupy Wall Street idiots I guess I should assume the Democrats are engaging in a war on soap and taking dumps in a toilet.

[woot]

You mean Michelle Bachman? Do you realize that some of these people are running just so they cash in later on like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin? Look at who actually gets the nomination as opposed to who's running. John McCain, George W. Bush (you may disagree here), Bob Dole and George Bush don't strike me as stridently anti-science. The guy who is most likely going to get the nomination this time is Mitt Romney -- is he anti-science? Conservatives were clamoring for Paul Ryan and Chris Christie to run -- are they anti-science?

And as long as we're talking about crazy people running for presidential office, maybe we should paint the Democrats as their own brand of crazy because of Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich. Is Democratic party full of a bunch of sociopathic narcissists because John Edwards was a serious Democratic candidate?

Judging by the Occupy Wall Street idiots I guess I should assume the Democrats are engaging in a war on soap and taking dumps in a toilet.

Par for the course, I suppose, but "dems do dumb stuff too!" is irrelevant to my point and is not something I would ever dispute. "Romney isn't anti-science" is stated in my post, so that obviously doesn't refute anything I wrote either. Listing all the candidates that you consider to not be anti-science in response to my claim that several of them are, also seems to be avoiding the point.

[DU Ute]

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior." Paul Bourn, (R-Georgia)

This guy sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

[YOUTUBE]ZBy3MbP4WDo[/YOUTUBE]