Republican Judgement

[Accountable]

Well, this list if it is accurate (I admit to accepting the source), it does illustrate where State GOP organizations are coming from.

There are fifty states, fifty state parties, fifty party platforms. Unless they are all identical the list can't possibly be accurate.

Does it matter if it's on a federal or state level?

Only to those of us who still value the US Constitution, so I guess it's a 'no' for you.

 

[Minor Axis]

how is one to reply to what is a supposed real list?

how about actually digging up the real platforms

nah that would mean finding the facts versus posting somebodys interpretation as per what Maulds posted

I admit that this is more work than I want to engage in for a forum post... and if I did, you'd just shrug it off.

There are fifty states, fifty state parties, fifty party platforms. Unless they are all identical the list can't possibly be accurate.

I never said or implied they were identical. This list, if it is accurate, and I have no reason to feel otherwise, opens a window into where the GOP on the State level is coming from.

Only to those of us who still value the US Constitution, so I guess it's a 'no' for you.

Come now. If you are a politician promoting a standard, it's relevant regardless if it's on the State or National Level. The two are frequently intertwined.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Accountable]

I admit that this is more work than I want to engage in for a forum post... and if I did, you'd just shrug it off.

Actually, you're wrong. The TX platform on critical thinking was brought up in another forum I frequent and we had a really good discussion on it. I was floored when I discovered how they phrased it.

I never said or implied they were identical. This list, if it is accurate, and I have no reason to feel otherwise, opens a window into where the GOP on the State level is coming from.

Each item may be factual, if you want to call it accurate in that sense, but it can't possibly be used to paint an acceptable picture. It's like noting your AV has bug eyes and claiming that the typical dem partisan hack denies he's a partisan hack and is bug-eyed.
See? You can't generalize that all repubs are against critical thinking simply because the TX state committee declares it for TX repubs.

Come now. If you are a politician promoting a standard, it's relevant regardless if it's on the State or National Level. The two are frequently intertwined.

It's relevant, but it's also critical whether the standard is being promoted at the state or federal level.
A TX repub may agree to be against critical thinking and may agree that TX law should prohibit it in TX schools, but would (or at least ought to) be against federal laws forcing the issue nationally, preferring to allow each state to make its own decision.

 

[Minor Axis]

Each item may be factual, if you want to call it accurate in that sense, but it can't possibly be used to paint an acceptable picture. It's like noting your AV has bug eyes and claiming that the typical dem partisan hack denies he's a partisan hack and is bug-eyed.
See? You can't generalize that all repubs are against critical thinking simply because the TX state committee declares it for TX repubs.

Ok, I'll validate your point. Now that I live in Texas, I am very disturbed that the State GOP thinks higher learning is a detriment. They must think it creates liberals, lol. Better to have a bunch of common sense (their version), brainwashed* and stupid citizens.

*brainwashed about how much the GOP loves the common folks, hehe.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Ok, I'll validate your point. Now that I live in Texas, I am very disturbed that the State GOP thinks higher learning is a detriment. They must think it creates liberals, lol. Better to have a bunch of common sense (their version), brainwashed* and stupid citizens.

*brainwashed about how much the GOP loves the common folks, hehe.

At the heart of the Republican base, in philosophical terms is the protection from huge invasive government, the right to allow the states to have authority, the protection from backbreaking tax burden, the development of free enterprise and the right for people to defend themselves from tyranny.

What it has morphed into now is something UN-recognizeable...

 

[Minor Axis]

At the heart of the Republican base, in philosophical terms is the protection from huge invasive government, the right to allow the states to have authority, the protection from backbreaking tax burden, the development of free enterprise and the right for people to defend themselves from tyranny.

What it has morphed into now is something UN-recognizeable...

I can't argue with that.

 

[Accountable]

At the heart of the Republican base, in philosophical terms is the protection from huge invasive government, the right to allow the states to have authority, the protection from backbreaking tax burden, the development of free enterprise and the right for people to defend themselves from tyranny.

What it has morphed into now is something UN-recognizeable...

You should change that first paragraph to past tense, BB.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You should change that first paragraph to past tense, BB.

Right!

 

[Minor Axis]

If you want to read an eye opening story, one that illustrates the unrelenting conservative/business attack on scientists who are exploring climate change see this Popular Science article: The Battle over Climate Change. (<link)

It illustrates the agenda which is not to discover the truth or determine human contributions to climate change, buy to squelch any such notion because, it will cost business money to make the changes that could make a difference in the outcome. They are more worried about their profits, making liberal conspiracy accusations, than wondering if we are ruining the Earth.

83% of Americans and 98% of scientists who specialize in this research are convinced that Earth warming is real along with our species contribution to the problem. Worst case scenarios could develop by the year 2300 are just as good as any disaster movie- Half the world becoming unlivable due to heat/desert/drought, huge dead zones in the ocean, and sea levels rising up to 40 feet... 40 feet. Any idea what that will do to our coasts and coasts of countries around the world? Say good bye to Florida.

The organizations that make the attacks and file dozens of lawsuits, go so far as to put up billboards that equate climate scientists to Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and the Unibomber.

It's purely disgusting, but is it surprising that this kind of thinking comes from the right? In my mind, it's no surprise at all. My point is this, conservatives feel that it would cost too much to fix, while liberals feel like we can't afford not to do what we can to change a bad outcome.

 

[Alien Allen]

The issue is not if there is a climate change. The issue is whether it is natural or man made. There is just as much crap pro as there is con trying to prove the hypothesis. And neither side can definitively prove anything because it all is based on theories. 30 some years ago we were headed for an ice age. If one follows the money behind both sides they will rarely find an case study that is not biased by the funding. IMO

 

[Minor Axis]

The issue is not if there is a climate change. The issue is whether it is natural or man made. There is just as much crap pro as there is con trying to prove the hypothesis. And neither side can definitively prove anything because it all is based on theories. 30 some years ago we were headed for an ice age. If one follows the money behind both sides they will rarely find an case study that is not biased by the funding. IMO

Read the article. 98% of scientists involved in climate change research acknowledge that humans contribute. The only ones who insist otherwise are the conservatives. Even a conservative scientist who acknowledged human involvement has been trashed by this anti-climate change movement. Bottom line, they don't want to know the truth because they can't handle it and more importantly don't want to pay for it.

 

[Alien Allen]

Read the article. 98% of scientists involved in climate change research acknowledge that humans contribute. The only ones who insist otherwise are the conservatives. Even a conservative scientist who acknowledged human involvement has been trashed by this anti-climate change movement. Bottom line, they don't want to know the truth because they can't handle it and more importantly don't want to pay for it.

98% is a pretty large number. You have anything to back that up? Coming from an unbiased source

The problem is people assume that all environmental activists are pure. Which is far from true.

Like I said follow the money. And not the talking points and headlines

If we are 100% at fault for causing global warming then tell me how it is that we have reduced pollution over the last 30 years and yet things are suddenly worse.

A little common sense would tell one to be skeptical on this issue as to both sides

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

We might never have to worry about climate change if they continue to alter the food we do eat with carcinogens.

The corn that will grow during el nina produces its own pesticide

 

[Minor Axis]

98% is a pretty large number. You have anything to back that up? Coming from an unbiased source

The problem is people assume that all environmental activists are pure. Which is far from true.

Like I said follow the money. And not the talking points and headlines

If we are 100% at fault for causing global warming then tell me how it is that we have reduced pollution over the last 30 years and yet things are suddenly worse.

A little common sense would tell one to be skeptical on this issue as to both sides

Why would you automatically assume the source is unbalanced? This was pointed out in my linked article btw and it's a consistent method of casting doubt used by the deniers (a term from that article). The example would be if we were to have a debate on if the Earth was round and Fox News would include a counter view from the Flat Earth Society. This is an attempt to legitimize the counter argument. If you look at the spectrum of scientists, I would not say they are all liberals or conservatives, yet I am inclined to believe the 98% figure. I also find it interesting that to find deniers, you won't find independent scientists, but usually someone who has been paid by forces who don't want the concept of humans being responsible/partially responsible for global warming. The final piece of evidence is to look at the virulent way these scientists are being attacked. Instead of lets examine this issue and let the evidence fall where it may, the attempt is to squelch any findings that disagree and this is coming exclusively from conservative corners. That is not how science is supposed to work.

 

[Accountable]

And don't you think there are commercial interests behind the global warming, erm, climate change scare?

 

[Minor Axis]

And don't you think there are commercial interests behind the global warming, erm, climate change scare?

There could be. But if you want to approach it in any reasonable manner, lets say that we want to reduce carbon emissions, so we insist that cars run cleaner. What commercial interest is going to benefit? Who is going to make the cleaner cars? I'd argue it will be the same companies as always making these cars. Will their profit margins be reduced? Possibly, but it is not assured, and you must consider the positive effect on the environment. At this point, I'd say it is a scientific consensus that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the culprit and that man, not the environment is the primary contributor to it. This Popular Science Article:Strategies for a Changing Planet discusses worst case scenarios.

There is no longer any question of preventing climate change. Some 98 percent of working climate scientists agree that the atmosphere is already warming in response to human greenhouse-gas emissions, and the most recent research suggests that we are on a path toward what were once considered “worst case” scenarios.
How much warmer must it get before things really go to hell? “Climate sensitivity” remains a subject of intense investigation, and what counts as hellish is a matter of judgment, but United Nations climate negotiators have settled on a goal to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million, which would cause the global mean temperature to peak no more than 3.6°F above preindustrial levels. If it gets much hotter than that, we will most likely be confronted by levels of drought and severe storms for which humanity has no precedent. That sounds bad enough—and indeed, postindustrial temperatures have already risen by as much as 1.6°—but there’s increasing reason to believe, as James Hansen and many other climate scientists do, that severe effects will arrive well below 450 ppm, and possibly below today’s level of 396 ppm. Danger is much closer than we thought.

Most importantly this is not a liberal plot, it is based on sound science. Those pushing back imagine this as a meaningless theory that will cause their profits to be reduced. That is their sole motivation.

 

[Accountable]

There could be.

:24:
You're dismissed on this subject.

 

[Minor Axis]

:24:
You're dismissed on this subject.

Sure, use my comment as an excuse not to discuss the argument that follows.