Re: No wonder these talking heads don't like talking to Ron Paul

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 21, 2:54 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We'd have progress if Republitards weren't so anti-science
> ---
> cite reference

You should cite your own as you're obviously not paying attention to
the cuts they want to make, or the funding they won't provide certain
critical endeavors.

But here you go:

1. Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P.
— namely, that it is becoming the "anti-science party."
This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify
us.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by
dismissing evolution as "just a theory," one that has "got some gaps
in it"
— an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of
biologists.

A 2010 Gallup Poll found that a majority of Republicans believe that
"God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years."
Potential presidents Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann see more evidence
for creationism and intelligent design than they do for evolution.

2. Michael Bloomberg said; "We have presidential candidates who don't
believe in science. "I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a
company of any size in the world where the CEO said 'oh I don't
believe in science' and that person surviving to the end of that day?
Are you kidding me? It's mind-boggling!"

3. Bush Jr. prohibited federal funding for stem cell research and
cloning activities... but rest assured, just because the US stops it,
doesn't mean other countries did, and those other countries will
benefit with your $'s in medical cures, medicines and treatments.
Bush, for instance, had half as many Ph.D.s in his cabinet as Clinton
had two years into his term.
It took 20 months to choose an FDA director, 14 months to choose an
NIH director, and seven months to choose a White House science adviser
for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Once Bush had
appointed a head of OSTP, he demoted the rank of the position, moved
the office out of the White House, and cut the number of associate
directors from four to two.

(It took so long because he had to find the right .1% of scientists
who agree with his positions, or are willing to keep their mouth
shut).

4. Or the Solyndra hearings in front of Congressional investigation
committee now...

A company put on fast track for loans by the Bush Jr. admin... but
after Obama became President, Republican oil operatives had oil execs
invest heavily into solar panel development in China in order for the
Solyndra company to collapse and make Obama look bad!
This is how the pro-jobs Republitards are creating high tech high
paying jobs! In other countries, not here!

>  and pro-God...

And that's precisely why they're anti-science.
Beliefs trump facts with them. Politics and religion comes first, not
facts or people.

The irony of course is that the Neo-Cons are the exact opposite of
what they once were.
Much like their counterparts in crime the Taliban, they are more
interested in going backwards in time, to a simpler time, than moving
forward and dealing with complex issues.
They want blind obedience.... in short a Utopia of worker bees all
looking to do what the queen tells them to. And then they say; "that
isn't socialism"!

i.e. it was Abraham Lincoln who created the National Academy of
Sciences in 1863
or Teddy Roosevelt who created The National Park Service to preserve
lands in their pristine condition for future generations
or William McKinley, a president much admired by Karl Rove, won two
presidential victories over the creationist Democrat William Jennings
Bryan, and supported the creation of the Bureau of Standards,
forerunner of today's National Institutes of Science and Technology.
or Dwight Eisenhower, who established the post of White House science
adviser
or Richard Nixon who created the EPA... (take a look at La's current
bad smog... if not for the EPA, LA would literally be uninhabitable by
now).

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.