If this is your criteria, then over half of Mississippi’s Republicans (and nearly half of Alabama’s) have 49% or less decent brain:
The same polling shows that Republicans of the deep south also have interesting views on interracial marriage:
R&D expenditures of the US over time:
You can see a slight rise in 2009 due to ARRA.
From the middle of the last decade:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c0/tt00-04.htm
US R&D as a share of GDP is slightly above average relative to other developed nations (OECD) and below that of Japan, Sweden and South Korea. It is equal to Germany. I’ve heard worries though that a larger share was devoted to basic research 30 years ago.
I wouldn’t say that the house is burning. Half the country is relatively sane after all.
People tend to confuse R&D with research. Pretty much all IC development, like for new processors, falls under R&D. I know, I filled out the tax form one year. But this, while vitally important, is not creating the technology for 10 years out. Especially not the highly risky project that no VC would fund, and which are less and less popular in industry.
At Bell Labs in the good old days the whole place was R&D, but only 10% was R. My budget was split between them, and my deliverables for the two pieces were very different.
I’m not worried about the D part these days - only the R part.
Please give a scenario where the majority of Dems running for president would believe any of these things.
By the way - Chernobyl did cause cancer.
**Clothahump **is atheist, IIRC **Oakminster **is a churchgoer.
Yes, I had previous remarks by you in mind.
I haven’t stumbled across any statistics that take this concern seriously. They may exist though.
This:
No one in the BNP is a nationally viable candidate. The BNP were elected to European Parliament.
Point out to him that the “birther” lawsuits were all about people in the military trying to weasel out of serving in combat. Does the want to stand with those people?
There are no Chernobyl-style plants in the US nor are any contemplated. We’re talking about conventional US nuclear power plants in normal operation (or almost all disaster scenarios, for that matter.)
That has nothing to do with science. Most likely you brought it up because you feel the argument slipping away.
Economics is not a science.
Ed Markey thinks radiation from cell phones can cause cancer.
Al Gore often cites neo-paganist beliefs as a good reason to protect the environment
Most Catholics are Democrats, and Catholics believe any number of unscientific things, such as transubstantiation of the eucharist.
38% of Democrats, including some prominent politicians, are creationists.
A Congressional Republican tried to override the FDA’ scientific finding that a genetically engineered fish was not safe — with three Democratic co-sponsors.
Obama declared himself “suspicious” that vaccines cause autism
Don’t expect me to defend Republican flat-earthers. But you need to look at the root causes on both sides of the political spectrum.
Apropos of nothing, this reminds me of the apocraphal story of someone asking Einstein what good the Theory of Relativity was. His answer was, “What good is a baby?”
I’ve often thought that Boolean algegra would never had gotten any funding because, at the time, damned if I can see any reason for it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2005/12/1218doonesbury_lg.gif
Cute little Doonesbury cartoon addressing evolution.
And once again you need to use examples that do not follow to make a point.
He only has demanded more research, The GAO did recommend that course of action after an inquiry, BTW he does accept the science, otherwise he would had already make moves to ban or demand changes to the manufacturers.
Cite? Most of his sayings on the matter and in context are just calls to the people of faith to get involved. This item you are posting here is also part of the denier bag of tricks, It is not religion what Al Gore uses as the basis for protecting the environment. Your point here is indeed a perfect example of false balance.
And where are the bills and declarations that they will effectively shovel those beliefs down our throats?
And not a successful effort, as most do not see it that way.
And once again, no effort from him or a request to ban the stuff.
Oh, you already did the equivalent of defending flat-earthers by mentioning a climate denier myth.
Why would Answers in Genesis have that on their website?
They use it to bash Garry Trudeau.
It is once again the old and debunked idea that the resistance to drugs by bacteria was already there since creation and not the result of evolution.
BTW Answers in Genesis also pushes climate change denialism, turns out that among the few denier scientists like Spenser, there are also creationists.
The ones with the “Get Down” Syndrome can.
When Democrats do it, it doesn’t matter, but when Republicans do it, it’s a threat to the very fabric of our nation. Is that the general idea?
Apparently, you are not satisfied with simply voting against people. You want more options for stopping these halfwits. How about a scientific supreme court that has the power to overturn any law not in accord with the scientific consensus? Sorry, but that’s a cure far worse than the disease, for scientific as well as political reasons.
A Congress composed of people who got their jobs by winning 51% of the vote in some district full of dopes is always going to contain a significant fraction of dopes. The guys who wrote the Constitution realized this and set things up to limit the amount of mayhem these dopes could cause. But nobody cares about that any more. They have a touching, naive faith in the competence and good will of government, a faith that is strangely unaffected by example after example of government arrogance and stupidity. No matter how baldly the government demonstrates its incompetence, they want more government programs.
Look at the healthcare law. All good liberals were in favor of increasing government’s role in healthcare. When conservatives said the mandate and other aspects of the law were unconstitutional, liberals said it was just self-serving obstructionism. So you got your healthcare law. Now you get to enjoy a health care system where idiot congressmen decide whether your sore back would be better treated by surgery or by aromatherapy. How do you like them apples?
There are people who think power lines cause cancer, and there are people who think cellphones cause cancer. Again, are most Dems opposed to nuclear power plants because of cancer? Are any substantial number opposed due to this? Are leaders opposed due to this?
The opposition I’ve seen has been around the potential for catastrophic failure (which we’ve seen,) around the problem of waste disposal, and on the problem of terrorist threats. I’m for nuclear power personally. but all of these issues are real and nothing like global warming denial or creationism.
By the way, anyone looking for an obnoxious anti-science democrat only has to go back to Proxmire, who attacked real science in order to get in cheap shots.