The GOP, Conservatives, and Insanity

[foolsguinea]

Schizophrenics, Psychopaths Holding America Hostage

@Dr Brian Moench

Our nation’s responses to the climate crisis, the federal deficit, our economic stagnation and many of our other serious challenges are still being held hostage by people who manifest a detachment from reality as profound as that of schizophrenics. We are still allowing a powerful elite, who behave like psychopaths, to steer our government towards protecting their interests at the expense of everyone else. The greatest threat to the United States will never be Al Qaeda, Russia, China or Iran. It will be our failure to wrest control of public policy from the inmates of our own insane asylum.

This is an imperfect piece, trying to throw several different things at the wall to make an overarching case. Yet at least one of his points is shockingly effective: we have business leaders who will happily destroy countries for their own profit.

He gives examples of widespread delusion, sociopathy, or paranoia as political piety: Refusal to acknowledge global warming, insistence on cutting benefits to the poor while keeping money flowing to the rich, and the belief in nuttier quarters that Obama is engaged in some kind of diabolical mind control.

And this:

the famous quote from a George W. Bush insider, offered to Ron Suskind for an article in the New York Times Magazine in 2004, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” That’s how schizophrenics talk and think.

[Sam_Stone]

Speaking of living in bubbles… You guys sit here and preen about how stupid/insane conservatives are, without recognizing that liberals live in a bubble as well, and that there are plenty of crazy Democrats in the government.

Furthermore, you tend to advocate for policies that have been shown to be disastrous. You utterly refuse to accept that high taxes damage economic growth, despite the evidence. You seem to think that the sole problem facing America is that the rich just aren’t paying ‘their fair share’, despite the fact that a little grade school math will show you that they don’t have enough money to fix the deficit or to even make a big dent in it, let alone to fund the vast array of new spending programs liberals always want.

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power, who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated. Your standard-bearers in Hollywood are some of the most screwed-up, anti-science idiots in society. There may be more creationists on the right, but then the left has more believers in astrology, the healing power of crystals, alternative medicine, and other secular non-scientific nonsense.

But most importantly, the left seems to ignore very basic economic laws. They rail against ‘price gougers’ because they don’t understand the very positive function prices have in allocating resources - especially in times of crisis. They advocate for rent controls and price controls on drugs, ignoring the very basic economic principles of supply and demand. They advocate high taxes on capital, failing to understand that private capital is what drives a capitalist economy and removing it and re-distributing it via government is less efficient. They fixate on the gap between the rich and poor rather than on economic growth that benefits all. They have infinite faith in government, despite its horrible track record, and no faith at all in the market, despite it’s generally excellent track record for expanding human happiness.

The fact is, both sides are screwed up because the ranting lunatics have a big megaphone on the internet and in 24hr media. They influence too much policy and provide the opposing side with easy targets for ridicule. You guys only hear about the right-wing crazies because the media you follow has no interest in exposing the craziness of the left. Also, being on the left yourself means that extreme left-wing opinions don’t sound as crazy as extreme right-wing opinions. To someone who thinks that bigger government is a good thing, a communist or hard socialist may sound like someone who’s just gone a little too far, but someone who advocates abolishing the Department of Education is a frothing lunatic. From my perspective, the opposite is true, because I start from a position closer to the guy on the extreme right than to the communist.

[iiandyiiii]

Some quality straw-manning here…

@Sam_Stone

You utterly refuse to accept that high taxes damage economic growth, despite the evidence.

Wrong. We just don’t consider going from 35% to 39% (or thereabouts) “high taxes”. They didn’t seem to damage growth in the 90s, so I don’t see how they would damage growth now.

You seem to think that the sole problem facing America is that the rich just aren’t paying ‘their fair share’, despite the fact that a little grade school math will show you that they don’t have enough money to fix the deficit or to even make a big dent in it, let alone to fund the vast array of new spending programs liberals always want.

Massive straw man here. I don’t think any of the liberals think low-taxes-on-the-rich is the only problem. I certainly don’t. There’s too much wasteful military spending, wasteful health care spending (and many liberals like me believe single payer would be far, far cheaper), corporate welfare, etc., with not enough spending on scientific research, infrastructure, and perhaps education.

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power, who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated.

I don’t think most liberals have these beliefs- some do, but I don’t. I welcome GMO (if it’s been tested) and I believe nuclear power is our best medium-term chance to balance energy needs with environmental impacts. And I think the GOP is, by and large, the anti-science party. Denying global warming and promoting the teaching of creationism (or the non-scientific Intelligent Design) are the prime evidence of this.

Your standard-bearers in Hollywood are some of the most screwed-up, anti-science idiots in society. There may be more creationists on the right, but then the left has more believers in astrology, the healing power of crystals, alternative medicine, and other secular non-scientific nonsense.

The left’s main standard bearers aren’t in Hollywood- they’re in Congress (from districts in VT, CA, IL, NY, MA, and a few other places). And the Democratic party’s standard bearer is in the White House. And while these standard bearers overlap in a lot of things, they’re hardly in lockstep.

But most importantly, the left seems to ignore very basic economic laws. They rail against ‘price gougers’ because they don’t understand the very positive function prices have in allocating resources - especially in times of crisis. They advocate for rent controls and price controls on drugs, ignoring the very basic economic principles of supply and demand. They advocate high taxes on capital, failing to understand that private capital is what drives a capitalist economy and removing it and re-distributing it via government is less efficient. They fixate on the gap between the rich and poor rather than on economic growth that benefits all. They have infinite faith in government, despite its horrible track record, and no faith at all in the market, despite it’s generally excellent track record for expanding human happiness.

Most of this is straw-man stuff and hyperbole. The left, in general, believes in Keynesian economics. And the left, in general, believes in bottom-up economics. That is, consumers drive the economy. Give a business more money (in lower taxes, or some other source besides more customers/orders), and maybe it will expand, but if there are too many customers/orders for them to keep up, they’ll DEFINITELY expand. And the customers and orders generally come from the bottom up- for lots of businesses, that means working people need more money to spend! Thus, I tend to think of the Democratic policies as bottom-up (trickle up), versus trickle down for the Republicans (which I believe is less effective).

[Voyager]

@Sam_Stone

Speaking of living in bubbles… You guys sit here and preen about how stupid/insane conservatives are, without recognizing that liberals live in a bubble as well, and that there are plenty of crazy Democrats in the government.

Furthermore, you tend to advocate for policies that have been shown to be disastrous. You utterly refuse to accept that high taxes damage economic growth, despite the evidence. You seem to think that the sole problem facing America is that the rich just aren’t paying ‘their fair share’, despite the fact that a little grade school math will show you that they don’t have enough money to fix the deficit or to even make a big dent in it, let alone to fund the vast array of new spending programs liberals always want.

We’ve got tons of examples of bat shit insane Republican leaders and candidates. You’ve got strawmen. High taxes damage economic growth? Please tell me who is advocating high taxes. What is being advocated is a return to the tax rate of the Clinton years, which we all know really damaged economic growth a lot. Please give a cite of any leading Democrat saying that the problem will be totally fixed by raising taxes on the rich, especially by the proposed amount. The giant spending plans I’ve seen are things like extending unemployment benefits or stimulus through infrastructure repair. Oh the horror.

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power, who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated. Your standard-bearers in Hollywood are some of the most screwed-up, anti-science idiots in society. There may be more creationists on the right, but then the left has more believers in astrology, the healing power of crystals, alternative medicine, and other secular non-scientific nonsense.

Gee, even in California, that hotbed of nuttiness, the proposal to even label GM foods got defeated - in no small measure thanks to scientists who were opposed to it. And if during a Democratic debate the moderator asked the candidates who believed in astrology, who would raise their hands? (Sit down, Nancy Reagan!) Not that the bastion of liberal correctness, the New York Times, does not run a horoscope.
As for Hollywood, I think Clint demonstrated that looniness is not on the left. In any case, if Republican politicians were sane I’d forgive all sorts of insanity from Republican actors and Glenn Beck.

But most importantly, the left seems to ignore very basic economic laws. They rail against ‘price gougers’ because they don’t understand the very positive function prices have in allocating resources - especially in times of crisis. They advocate for rent controls and price controls on drugs, ignoring the very basic economic principles of supply and demand. They advocate high taxes on capital, failing to understand that private capital is what drives a capitalist economy and removing it and re-distributing it via government is less efficient. They fixate on the gap between the rich and poor rather than on economic growth that benefits all. They have infinite faith in government, despite its horrible track record, and no faith at all in the market, despite it’s generally excellent track record for expanding human happiness.

Call the Fed! The most serious economic problem we have today is price gouging and rent control! And again, the economy did just great with higher taxes on top earners and higher taxes on capital gains. The economy isn’t doing so great today with historically low taxes. Yeah, I know, Obamacare, lack of confidence, blah blah. Sounds just like the Commies explaining why the latest Five Year Plan didn’t work so well.

The fact is, both sides are screwed up because the ranting lunatics have a big megaphone on the internet and in 24hr media. They influence too much policy and provide the opposing side with easy targets for ridicule. You guys only hear about the right-wing crazies because the media you follow has no interest in exposing the craziness of the left. Also, being on the left yourself means that extreme left-wing opinions don’t sound as crazy as extreme right-wing opinions. To someone who thinks that bigger government is a good thing, a communist or hard socialist may sound like someone who’s just gone a little too far, but someone who advocates abolishing the Department of Education is a frothing lunatic. From my perspective, the opposite is true, because I start from a position closer to the guy on the extreme right than to the communist.

No, the problem is that the right wing attacks on so-called left wing looniness are based in invisible strawmen just like yours is. Some loon posting in the message boards at WND doesn’t scare me - Inhofe scares me.
Who exactly says bigger government is a good thing by itself? If it does things like provide the health care that today’s market cannot, then it is good. If it prevents the financial sector for running wild and making big, irrational, bets which can bring down the economy, then it is good. However the right says that smaller government is an end to itself, and who cares who goes hungry or dies? That it their problem.

When come back, bring some cites that important and significant Democratic leaders believe in the stuff you claim they believe in. And don’t bring quotes from Madonna or Paris Hilton. Hell, Al Franken as a senator is twice as responsible as Inhofe.

[Kobal2]

Furthermore, you tend to advocate for policies that have been shown to be disastrous. You utterly refuse to accept that high taxes damage economic growth, despite the evidence.

What evidence ? European countries have some of the highest taxes on the planet, they’re growing fine. Not as fast as the Asian up-and-comers perhaps, but certainly the US isn’t handily lapping them despite only enjoying, like, one third of their tax burden or thereabouts.

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power, who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated. Your standard-bearers in Hollywood are some of the most screwed-up, anti-science idiots in society. There may be more creationists on the right, but then the left has more believers in astrology, the healing power of crystals, alternative medicine, and other secular non-scientific nonsense.

You might have noticed there’s a fair bit of hostility against those on this here board, despite its housing a largely left of center population. In that, it is no exception - on the web at least, left-wing boards tend to also be science-friendly boards. But on the other hand, I haven’t really encountered any overly RW forum where AGW deniers, hardline creationists etc are quite as unwelcome as woo-peddlers, along with anything PETA, Scientology… are here.

The fact is, both sides are screwed up because the ranting lunatics have a big megaphone on the internet and in 24hr media.

Perhaps, but one side is clearly more screwed up than the other, from where I’m standing. Also more likely to actually listen to their fuck-ups and empower them. You were harping on the left’s anti-science contingent for example - I haven’t heard about any motion to push the healing power of crystals into school curriculums. But creationism ? AGW denial ? Abstinence only, and the bogus unreliability of condoms/birth control ? Having an abortion leads to suicide ? Oh yeah. That’ll get in the books and no mistake.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Sam_Stone

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power, who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated. Your standard-bearers in Hollywood are some of the most screwed-up, anti-science idiots in society. There may be more creationists on the right, but then the left has more believers in astrology, the healing power of crystals, alternative medicine, and other secular non-scientific nonsense.

What utter bullshit. Come back when you can give a cite of for a single liberal leader who advocates teaching astrology, crystals, or alternative medicine in science classes.

[septimus]

@Sam_Stone

You utterly refuse to accept that high taxes damage economic growth, despite the evidence.

Ignoring that you have no evidence, the bankruptcy of this meme is shown by the refusal to understand the problem is quantitative. A tax hike from 33% to 36% will cause Armageddon? How about a hike from 23% to 26%? Is it ever possible for the tax rate on the rich to be too low? I don’t think you’re advocating that taxes on the Job Creating Rich be dropped to zero, with the poor to make up the shortfall, but that’s what’s implied by the constant droning qualitative whine “Don’t raise taxes on the rich!” without admitting that quantitative distinctions exist.

@Sam_Stone

You think Republicans are anti-science … but then the left has more believers in astrology…

Before this becomes a race to the intellectual bottom (“More morons support your side!” … “Maybe so, but imbeciles mostly support your side!” … “Oh yeah? What about absolute idiots??” ) let’s agree to restrict attention to political leaders and policy makers.

Do you need a cite that Reagan’s schedule was determined, in part, by an astrologer? Do you have a similar cite for a Democratic leader? (Please, don’t cite some random widow in Oshkosh who happened to vote Democratic; try someone with at least one-twentieth the stature of Reagan.)

Sam Brownback, once a prestigious GOP candidate for President, denied believing in evolution (though he tried to appeal to rationalists with a letter to the N.Y. Times in which he admitted that he believed in “microevolution, small changes over time within a species”). Do you have a similar cite for a Democratic leader?

[Bremidon]

Wow, I have to agree with the guy who complained about the strawmanning. Only thing is, I’d have to say that mostly our lefties here are doing most of it. One guy shows up with an opinion different than the going froth, and he gets dogpiled.

Using Europe as an example of a high-tax/high-growth utopia probably counts as an own-goal. Only Germany has an economy of any size that had any growth the last few years, and over the last 2 decades, even that growth is laggard. Let’s just ignore the half-dozen countries on the ropes. Let’s ignore the security free-ride they have had. And, let’s ignore that the highest taxing countries lowering their rates, because they were dying.

Perhaps complaining about a race to the intellectual bottom should not be followed by the old Reagan/astrologer silliness. Yes, Nancy Reagan used an astrologer. Yes, it influenced his schedule. And yes, she did so, because she became terrified after he had been shot. I don’t believe in astrology myself, but I’ve seen smarter people do kookier things when someone they love is in mortal danger. Besides, with the plethora of truly bizarre things the Republicans have done, is this really necessary anyway?

You want a truly bizarre Democrat? How about Obama? Some wackos start agitating about his birth, and instead of immediately publicly releasing all documents surrounding his birth to shut them up, he goes into secrecy mode, basically fanning the flames. That is pretty weird for someone who is supposed to be so politically smooth.

Or heck, let’s take a Speaker of the House openly admitting that she doesn’t have any idea what’s in probably the most important legislation to go through Congress in 40 years, but she’ll vote for it anyway. Pretty kooky stuff.

How about Jesse Jackson: ‘‘See, Barack’s been talking down to black people on this faith-based…I want to cut his nuts off.’’

Or how about Joe Biden (oh, where to start…how about this one to the Irish PM): ‘‘His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she’s- wait- your mom’s still- your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.’’

And who said this: ‘‘I’ve now been in 57 states – I think one left to go.’’

Or maybe Marion Barry: ‘‘What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?’’

Ooh and Hank Johnson had a good one too: ‘‘My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.’’

Maxine Waters is always good for a laugh: “Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing…uh, um…Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”

Oh we could go on and on, and think of all the fun we could have? But I think the point is made: the left have their own Looney Tunes (one is a heartbeat away from the Presidency) to shelter and protect.

As for Global Warming, how in the world are we supposed to know anything when the scientists doing the research get caught doing rather shoddy science? I don’t believe in conspiracies. I do believe in complete idiocy. But hey: we’re not even allowed to debate it anymore, because we’ll immediately get scarlet letters pinned on our chests. Even the scientific community has been guilty of silencing the dissenters (oh, don’t get like that. The science community is human like the rest of us and tends to run on momentum). I don’t disbelieve them, but we sure have a few holes to fill before embarking on a major civilization change. The first hole to fill is: how do we know that the proposed solutions won’t make things worse? sigh

I noticed that noone countered the point that many on the left claim to believe in Global Climate Change (wasn’t it warming just a moment ago?), but won’t even consider using the one technology that we have that could really make a dent in emissions until we can get a viable reusable energy grid up and running.

Finally, I saw lots of indirect insults thrown around here, basically insulting the intelligence of anyone who does not agree with the left agenda. In fact, the one olive branch that was offered by Same Stone was slapped away by everyone else. In any case, I agree with his end analysis. The endless screeching from both extremes are starting to get on my nerves.

[iiandyiiii]

I wanted to single this gem out for special consideration.

@Bremidon

You want a truly bizarre Democrat? How about Obama? Some wackos start agitating about his birth, and instead of immediately publicly releasing all documents surrounding his birth to shut them up, he goes into secrecy mode, basically fanning the flames. That is pretty weird for someone who is supposed to be so politically smooth.

There’s a comical falsehood here (“secrecy mode”), and some even more comical “analysis” (implying that somehow Obama handled the birther issue poorly, or even more laughable, politically detrimentally). Bravo, sir!

[septimus]

@septimus

Do you need a cite that Reagan’s schedule was determined, in part, by an astrologer? Do you have a similar cite for a Democratic leader?

Sam Brownback, once a prestigious GOP candidate for President, denied believing in evolution (though he tried to appeal to rationalists with a letter to the N.Y. Times in which he admitted that he believed in “microevolution, small changes over time within a species”). Do you have a similar cite for a Democratic leader?

While Sam hunts through press releases to find a Congressman’s sister-in-law who prescribes homeopathic remedies, perhaps he’d also like to comment on Bush’s scientific(?) reason for invading Iraq, as explained to the French President. I don’t think this is off-topic in a thread relating GOP and insanity.

Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.” … After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne … [who later] recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir…

Subsequently, ex-President Chirac confirmed the nutty event in a long interview with French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice

[septimus]

@Bremidon

Or how about Joe Biden (oh, where to start…how about this one to the Irish PM): ‘‘His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she’s- wait- your mom’s still- your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.’’

Oh we could go on and on, and think of all the fun we could have? But I think the point is made: the left have their own Looney Tunes (one is a heartbeat away from the Presidency) to shelter and protect.

Biden getting a biographical fact wrong may be quite impolitic, or even “Looney” for those whose case is so poor that they need to exaggerate. But is it really on the same scale as GWB invading Iraq to fight Gog and Magog? Or the many Republican leaders who disbelieve in evolution?

I realize the GOP would evaporate without the “Your side is just as stupid” meme, but you meme pursuers are getting really desperate.

[Ulfreida]

<thread hijack>I’d like to point out that the reason the GMO labeling bill lost in California could also be attributed to the fact that supporters raised 9.2 million dollars for the campaign while opposers raised 42 million – mostly from Big Food and Monsanto & Co.</thread hijack>

[Kobal2]

@septimus

Do you need a cite that Reagan’s schedule was determined, in part, by an astrologer? Do you have a similar cite for a Democratic leader? (Please, don’t cite some random widow in Oshkosh who happened to vote Democratic; try someone with at least one-twentieth the stature of Reagan.)

FWIW, so was Mitterrand’s, the socialist French President in the Reagan era - a fantastically cultured, nuanced, refined and “high brow” man… Still had a pet star reader (which caused the same amount of consternation and derision among the public as Reagan’s when it became known).

There’s just something about people at the highest levels of power and astrologers (and religions & cults, and every other “higher” source of answer), I don’t think it has much to do with political stripe or even a tendency to deny reality/be otherwise seduced by nonsense and woo.
I think it’s simply that, while underlings can always defer a difficult decision they can’t arbitrate themselves higher up the food chain to someone who’ll probably know what they’re doing or at least take the blame should it go pear shaped, Presidents and CEOs, Popes and generals can’t. The buck stops there. The only way for them to defer issues is to leave them up to the stars and the High Priests of this or that god, even if it’s just for tie-breaking or really influences like 0.0001% of their decisions or decision-making process.

Plus getting supposed hints on the future must be tempting when you’re the one supposed to be the one telling people how it’s going to turn out on a daily basis, I suppose.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Voyager

Who exactly says bigger government is a good thing by itself?

Really good point, Voyager. What I see happening on ‘the right’ which supports the OP’s bubble hypothesis is that a great many of them attribute beliefs and labels which aren’t accurate. ‘Liberal’ is the prime example- poll people and there are only so many who self-identify with that label. But listen to the right and apparently everyone who doesn’t vote for their guy is a ‘liberal’. They rail against a largely imaginary opposition.

The ‘big government’ meme is great example. It is just another generalization to attribute to the opposition. It is a convenient way to avoid going into the actual details of what is being discussed, which might lead to an analysis of the data, which might lead to a reasoned conclusion that demonstrates one plan would yield better results than another, regardless of ideologies.

Meanwhile it is easy to find self-identified conservatives, or conservative leaders who doubt evolution and climate change, believe in a 6000-year-old Earth, that tax cuts are always good and so on.

[GIGObuster]

Many already destroyed once again the joke points of Sam Stone, but I have to remark on some there:

@Sam_Stone

You think Republicans are anti-science for denying global warming, yet your side has large numbers of people who oppose genetically modified foods, who claim that global warming is destroying the planet yet utterly refuse to consider nuclear power,

This was posted before and it was just ignored as it is convenient.

Indeed Republicans are deniers of global warming, and this is even observed in the current Republican congress.

http://scienceprogress.org/2011/03/house-energy-and-commerce-committee-votes-for-science-denial/

[ul]

[li]Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado offered an amendment that simply reaffirmed what EPA scientists stated, that “‘the scientific evidence is compelling’ that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic emissions ‘are the root cause of recently observed climate change.’” That amendment was rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.[/li][li] Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington state offered an amendment, again quoting the EPA, which stated “the public health of current generations is endangered and the threat to public health for both current and future generations will likely mount over time as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change.’” This, too, was rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.[/li][li] The last amendment, offered by Rep. Henry Waxman of southern California, asserted even more unassailable scientific findings. His amendment stated simply that “Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” It was also unanimously rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.[/li][/ul]
This is really getting ridiculous. In countries around the world, political parties on the left and right are debating how to deal with climate change. But by continuing to debate whether the world is even warming—an objective, empirical, verifiable, scientific fact—our great nation is demonstrating to the rest of the world that we are still in the Stone Age on this issue.

But this is not a “rule” for the Democrats, they on the whole do not refuse Nuclear power:

Media Center

Barbara Boxer and many other Democratic leaders are on the record supporting it, in fact many of the latest regulations proposed on alternative fuel sources do add sections for nuclear power development, guess whose side votes no on those proposals all the time?

The reality is that Republicans today do prefer to throw the nuclear baby with all the alternative power water.

@Sam_Stone

who think that anything man-made is full of ‘toxins’ and that pesticides should be eradicated.

Still not smarting from accusing environmentalists of being mass murderers in the past? Please, that point was the most venomous and most baseless one to make, it is high time that you dismissed any sources that continue to tell you that trash.

Rehabilitating Carson

[Voyager]

Here is some real data from Charles Blow’s column in today’s Times, from a 2009 Pew survey of scientists.

6% identify as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 55% as Democrats. As for political philosophy, 9% identify as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 52% as liberal.

I’m unaware of any political test for becoming a scientist - except that we get trained to rigorously evaluate data, which I guess represents a liberal bias.

A Gallup poll taken in June of this year showed that 58% or Republicans believed that God created man in the last 10,000 years. He doesn’t give the number for Independents and Democrats, but Gallup says it is 39% of independents and 41% or Democrats - better, but still depressing.

[Voyager]

@GIGObuster

But this is not a “rule” for the Democrats, they on the whole do not refuse Nuclear power:

Media Assets

Barbara Boxer and many other Democratic leaders are on the record supporting it, in fact many of the latest regulations proposed on alternative fuel sources do add sections for nuclear power development, guess whose side votes no on those proposals all the time?

The reality is that Republicans today do prefer to throw the nuclear baby with all the alternative power water.

I have to point out that maybe the biggest enemy of the nuclear power industry is the nuclear power industry itself. Look what happened in Japan. It is kind of hard to assure those unsure of its safety when they screw up in Japan, which is usually seen as competent unlike Russia.

[Trinopus]

@Bremidon

. . . One guy shows up with an opinion different than the going froth, and he gets dogpiled. . . .

Because what he said was demonstrably incorrect.

. . . Ooh and Hank Johnson had a good one too: ‘‘My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.’’

And liberals were right up there among the people laughing at his stupidity. If you could point to an organized body of liberal thought that agreed with him, you might have a point. But you don’t, and you don’t. All you have are anecdotes, and we can top them with one year of Dan Quayle.

As has been noted above: wake us when liberal Congressmen try to get “islands float” legislation passed to compel its teaching in public schools. Meanwhile, we have conservatives passing laws involving compulsory vaginal ultrasound, etc. Point to the liberal equivalent of that.

[Kobal2]

@Voyager

I have to point out that maybe the biggest enemy of the nuclear power industry is the nuclear power industry itself. Look what happened in Japan. It is kind of hard to assure those unsure of its safety when they screw up in Japan, which is usually seen as competent unlike Russia.

Competent but notably earthquake-prone, what with sitting smack dab atop a tectonic rift and all that. While buildings can be reinforced against mild earthquakes, the harsh ones are pretty fricking harsh. In this case, the worst earthquake *ever recorded *in Japan, and one of the five most powerful ever recorded period. And yet the plant held up remarkably well, considering.
I shouldn’t think the nuclear industry or its safety codes and procedures can be held responsible for the Earth throwing a truly massive bitch fit. The old girl don’t fuck around. Still, there are a handful of places in the US that aren’t sitting on fault lines. Such as, um, the whole of it, give or take the West Coast ?

[Der_Trihs]

@Kobal2

Competent but notably earthquake-prone, what with sitting smack dab atop a tectonic rift and all that. While buildings can be reinforced against mild earthquakes, the harsh ones are pretty fricking harsh. In this case, the worst earthquake *ever recorded *in Japan, and one of the five most powerful ever recorded period. And yet the plant held up remarkably well, considering.

And the plant was an old, less-safe design to boot.