Why So Few Scientists Are Repugliars
Bret Cahill
tunderbar
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
goes. Those "scientists" who are political are not real scientists.
They are activists.
Desertphile
> > http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Of course. Stop defending them.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
From the article:
"Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists? Ask the Republican Party. It lives in such a world.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table."
Well yeah, but fortunately most scientists are conservatives and
not Republican Party members. If left alone, they are free to work
and publish without interference from the America Treason Party;
sadly that has not been the case under the Bush2 Regime.
Remember when the Bush2 administration ordered NASA to censor
facts about the Big Bang? NASA temporarily did so. (SHUDDER!)
"Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the
Pew Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the
GOP, while fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats
or lean Democratic."
Or are independant of political party.
dr yacub
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/drool
>
> From the article:
>[crap flushed]
It's written by a left-turd-drooler.
Only shit-eating-imbeciles think anything in it is true.
walt tonne
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Because they for the most part are simply cogs.
walt tonne
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Why are so many negroes Democrats?
Ringer
"dr yacub" <doctor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1bf921a-6ee1-4f64...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
If republicans say everything you say and do is a lie, wouldn't you lean
democratic?
James
news:562215a9-c461-4df6...@9g2000prn.googlegroups.com
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Libs know everything. They are God. Just ask one of them.
sarge
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Where was the scientist revolt against the BUSH wars?
I cannot see what political value scientists not being republicans
has, since scientists seem to support neocon policies, whatever their
political affiliation.
Hell, so do the democrats.
dr yacub
> "dr yacub" <doctor.ya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Retard:
If you're a demonkrap,
everything you say and do is a lie.
Just listen to your chimp messiah...
if his purple lips are moving-he's lying!
dr yacub
> On 15 Okt, 19:31, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Where was the scientist revolt against the BUSH wars?
Bit of a retard, ain't you, sarge?
Salvation Army?
Good organization.
Immortalist
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
...Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists? Ask the Republican Party. It lives in such a world.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table...
...We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-
based thinking have abandoned the Republican Party. The GOP has
proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global warming
shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement the image
by persistently subverting science to serve a religious agenda or
corporate greed...
...Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise
and create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and
prosperous middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand
and practice the scientific method. Every hope we have of advancing
human understanding of the physical universe and bettering our lives
in it, is tied to professionals now represented by only one of our
nation's two major political parties — while the other party attempts
to obstruct them.
Global warming is a prime example...
dr yacub
> On Oct 15, 10:31 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> ...Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
No.
As long as there is a buck to be made,
there will be scientists.
Keeeerist, you tards are stupid.
sarge
Well argued, yacub. Me, I always figure labeling people comes off as
having no back up for a position. But perhaps I am too stringent.
Bret Cahill
Sounds like that old joke about the mathematician physicist and
engineer in a burning building.
Bret Cahill
Desertphile
wrote:
"Libs?" What the fuck are "libs?"
The subject is Republican Party Members (i.e., the America Treason
Party). They hate science because their Pravda (FOX "News") orders
them to.
Transition Zone
> On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Real scientists are apolitical.
Its College Professors vs Polluters, Bigots, Sex offenders, Organized
Crime and Oil Ringleaders.
So who are you going to believe on Global Warming?
Roger Coppock
> On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
> goes.
NOPE! NOT AT ALL!
As a scientist myself I can tell you the truth.
Real scientists do real science, which comes to real conclusions that
very often have political consequences.
Roger Coppock
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Why are so few scientists Republicans?
It's part of a larger trend. High school,
2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
ladder one climbs, the further to the left
one's politics is likely to be.
The US Republican Party knows this and
that is why they often work to restrict
higher education. They are against
student loans and aid to higher education,
for example.
Bret Cahill
>
> > Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
> > goes.
>
> NOPE! NOT AT ALL!
>
> As a scientist myself I can tell you the truth.
> Real scientists do real science, which comes to real conclusions that
> very often have political consequences.
Scientific developments almost always have at least some political
consequences.
Scientific interests naturally follow human interests.
Life for physical scientists, at least in the U. S., would be a whole
lot easier if they spent a little more time in politics. Not a lot
more. Just a little more.
Simply feeding a fundy some scientific facts or truths isn't going to
have much effect if his mind has been completely shut down by fear,
economic insecurity.
GOP strategists know how to exploit this fear to great advantage.
Jefferson would have called it an "engine of despotism."
Scientists need to snarl up GOP bottom fishing tackel which is
actually quite easy.
Bret Cahill
>
> Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> one's politics is likely to be.
>
> The US Republican Party knows this and
> that is why they often work to restrict
> higher education. They are against
> student loans and aid to higher education,
> for example.
A lot of the GOP rank and file seem to be _trying_ to look dumb, as
though they believe that will make them more employable at their zero
education level jobs.
The life of a frightened wage slave consists of little more than being
like the dog who barks at the postman when the owner is home to show
that he's "on the job."
The only difference is a dog is smart enough to know he is wasting his
time barking when the owner isn't home.
That's why it is always so easy to get so many supposedly vehemently
anti-Marx rightards to believe the Federalist #10 was written by Karl
Marx.
They don't really give a rat's ass about Marx or Madison or political
theory.
They just want to be "extra safe" and say what they think their
employer wants them to say.
They are always projecting their own vile fears onto others, i.e.,
"the scientists are bought off by government" and Big Carbon is
exploiting this to the max.
If the economy gets worse they won't start wondering why "socialist"
Germany is exporting more than 5 times/capita than the U. S. with its
unparalleled economies of scale
Minds frighted shut don't wonder.
Instead they will just act even more stupid "to be extra safe."
Letting the frightened silly have power and expecting good results is
like jumping off a cliff.
Bret Cahill
Education.will only uncoil the springs of a despotic society.
-- Montesquieu
". . . the feeble engines of despotism . . ."
-- Jefferson
"You will rarely err if you attribute extreme actions to vanity,
moderate actions to habit and mean actions to fear."
-- Nietzsche
Shrikeback
> On Oct 15, 10:31 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> one's politics is likely to be.
To the degree there is the slightest
tendency in that direction, it is caused
by the huge number of graduates who,
though they have enormous debt burdens,
are unable to find socially useful work,
and are forced to rely in government
make-work jobs.
Anyway, this is all so 2008, when the
Democratic Party was fashionable. The
worm has turned, and soon, the only
Democrats left will be the complete dorks,
dufuses, muttering schizos, and those
suffering from some old-age dementia,
such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
dr yacub
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:47:06 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:562215a9-c461-4df6...@9g2000prn.googlegroups.com
> > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> > Libs know everything. They are God. Just ask one of them.
>
> "Libs?" What the fuck are "libs?"
Shit-eating-disciples of the demonkrap party
and their chimp messiah.
> The subject is [drool]
Shit-eating-disciples of the demonkrap party
and their chimp messiah.
Do keep up, drooler.
dr yacub
> On Oct 15, 11:15 am, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
> > goes.
>
> NOPE! NOT AT ALL!
>
> As a scientist myself I can tell you the truth.
As a lib-turd-shit-eater it is impossible for you to tell you the
truth
> Real scientists do real science,
Oh, so we're not talking about climate science...
> which comes to real conclusions that
> very often have political consequences.
Funny.
All your so called "scientists" only have
political solutions to the agw hoax.
Why is that?
Are they incompetent shit-eaters?
> > Those "scientists" who are political are not real scientists.
All agw believers fall into that category.
> > They are activists.
Lib-turd-shit-eaters.
dr yacub
> On Oct 15, 10:31 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Why are so few scientists Republicans?
Like the agw hoax...
Start with a false premise
then
make shit-up and spread lies.
> [drool]
Bret Cahill
>
> > Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> > It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> > 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> > Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> > ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> > one's politics is likely to be.
>
> To the degree there is the slightest
> tendency in that direction, it is caused
> by the huge number of graduates who,
> though they have enormous debt burdens,
The top five highest paying degrees require a math background -- just
like most science degrees -- so who is making all the money in the U.
S.?
High school drop outs?
> are unable to find socially useful work,
> and are forced to rely in government
> make-work jobs.
Why do ignorant poor libertarians envy those in the American middle
class?
It's not like being able to oil your AK-47 and hiss "out of my cold
dead hands" has much value in a globalized economy.
Why not learn a skill and become a diesel mechanic or a welder?
> Anyway, this is all so 2008, when the
> Democratic Party was fashionable. The
> worm has turned, and soon, the only
> Democrats left will be the complete dorks,
> dufuses, muttering schizos, and those
> suffering from some old-age dementia,
> such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
That certainly explains why the young overwhelmingly support Obama.
> > The US Republican Party knows this
GOP strategists know demographics alone dooms the Repugliar Party so
they must rip off as many people as they can while they can.
> > and
> > that is why they often work to restrict
> > higher education. They are against
> > student loans and aid to higher education,
> > for example.
Rightards are proud of being dog poop stoopid.
Bret Cahill
Clave
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:540d5ba3-b036-427e...@w9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Don't ignore their opposition to public education in general.
Jim
Shrikeback
> > > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > > Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> > > It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> > > 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> > > Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> > > ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> > > one's politics is likely to be.
>
> > To the degree there is the slightest
> > tendency in that direction, it is caused
> > by the huge number of graduates who,
> > though they have enormous debt burdens,
>
> The top five highest paying degrees require a math background -- just
> like most science degrees -- so who is making all the money in the U.
> S.?
>
> High school drop outs?
Well, if you are trying to get me to guess what you're
income is, I'm guessing you have a high-end cardboard box
under the bridge. It's probably a really nice cardboard box,
only used once for shipping IBM blade servers. It's probably
covered with tinfoil so the DEA microwave beam weapons
will be thwarted.
And try not to take hostages, but if you must take hostages,
spay and neuter them as Paul Ehrlich commands.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
As a group, they are stupid motherfuckers that
don't know how to leave the plantation.
Right, shit-eater?
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
Look what it did to you and cockpuke, shit-eater.
Retarded morons with high opinions of themselves.
Clave
message
news:d755a8ee-2ce4-4611...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Not sure what you mean. I'm a rather highly-compensated engineer with a
Fortune 200 company, with a successful 24-year marriage and happy,
straight-A, college-bound, public-educated kids.
So in spite of my own education at public schools and state universities, I
think I have every reason to think of myself as a success at least so far,
even by the standards of Republicans as childish and stupid as yourself.
Jim
Desertphile
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:31�am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> one's politics is likely to be.
I don't know about "to the left." Republicans these days are not
conservatives (the Democrats are). "The left" has not been seen or
heard from in the USA for decades.
> The US Republican Party knows this and
> that is why they often work to restrict
> higher education. They are against
> student loans and aid to higher education,
> for example.
Stupid uneducated ignorant people are much easier to order around.
Bret Cahill
>
> > Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> > It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> > 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> > Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> > ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> > one's politics is likely to be.
>
> I don't know about "to the left." Republicans these days are not
> conservatives (the Democrats are). "The left" has not been seen or
> heard from in the USA for decades.
The rich have plenty of minions. For example the "liberal" media will
be gush hyping culture war issues the next 3 weeks to get out the
fundy vote for the GOP.
Just as the Chia Pet comes out every December 17, every October of
every election year the "liberal" media will start hyping abortion-
this-gay-that-naked-nazi-flag-burner-parades.
First the "liberal" media Jerry Springerize the political debate to
displace economic issues which "just happens" to be exactly what their
rich paymasters want.
Then they put on this production about "not being able to figger out
why the U. S. is have economic difficulties" when they only issues
they'll ever gush hype are non economic.
> > The US Republican Party knows this and
> > that is why they often work to restrict
> > higher education. They are against
> > student loans and aid to higher education,
> > for example.
>
> Stupid uneducated ignorant people are much easier to order around.
According to Montesquieu you don't need or want education in a
despotic society.
Bret Cahill
"Can't figger out why I get paid so much to never figger anything
out."
-- any corp. media whore
Bareback Insane O'bungler
wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
>
> > On Oct 15, 10:31 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> > It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> > 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> > Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> > ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> > one's politics is likely to be.
>
> I don't know about "to the left." Republicans these days are not
> conservatives (the Democrats are). "The left" has not been seen or
> heard from in the USA for decades.
>
> > The US Republican Party knows this and
> > that is why they often work to restrict
> > higher education. They are against
> > student loans and aid to higher education,
> > for example.
>
You resemble that remark, shit-pile.
--------------
They Hate Our Guts
And they’re drunk on power.
Oct 23, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 07 • By P.J. O'ROURKE
Perhap you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about
voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and
the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the
fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated
isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine
O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch.
(I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?)
Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the
Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in
Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against
Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed
mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick
for the Democratic party leadership implies they
are people with a capacity for moral redemption
who want to call good plays on the legislative
gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t.
The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative,
libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts.
They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate
everybody who has any. Democrats hate men,
women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays,
straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all.
Witness the policies that Democrats have
inflicted on their core constituencies,
resulting in vile schools, lawless slums,
economic stagnation, and social immobility.
Democrats will do anything to make sure
that Democratic voters stay helpless and
hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
Whence all this hate?
Is it the usual story of love gone wrong?
Do Democrats have a mad infatuation
with the political system, an unhealthy
obsession with an idealized body politic?
Do they dream of capturing and ravishing
representational democracy?
Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?
No. It’s worse than that.
Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs
clambering upon the Statue of Liberty
carrying a wilted bouquet and trying
to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind
of love story. Power, not politics,
is what the Democrats love.
Politics is merely a way to power’s heart.
When politics is the technique of seduction,
good looks are unnecessary,
good morals are unneeded,
and good sense is a positive liability.
Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios.
And politics comes with that reliable boost
for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal
monopoly on force. If persuasion
fails to win the day, coercion
is always an option.
Armed with the panoply of lawmaking,
these moonstruck fools for power go
about in a jealous rage. They fear
power’s charms may be lavished
elsewhere, even for a moment.
Democrats hate success.
Success could supply the
funds for a power elopement.
Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan:
Grand Cayman. Democrats
hate failure too. The true
American loser laughs at
legal monopoly on force.
He’s got his own gun.
Democrats hate productivity,
lest production be outsourced
to someplace their beloved
power can’t go. And Democrats
also hate us none-too-productive
drones in our cubicles or behind
the counters of our service
economy jobs. Tax us as hard as
they will, we modest earners don’t
generate enough government
revenue to dress and adorn the
power that Democrats worship.
Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses,
no matter what gender or gender preference.
Democratic advocacy for feminism,
gay marriage, children’s rights, and
“reproductive choice” is simply a
way to invade -power’s little realm of
domestic private life and bring it
under the domination of Democrats.
Democrats hate immigrants.
Immigrants can’t stay illegal
because illegality puts immigrants
outside the legal monopoly on force.
But immigrants can’t become legal either.
They’d prosper and vote Republican.
Democrats hate America being a
world power because world power
gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.
And Democrats hate the military, of course.
Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men
and women who possess what, if they chose,
could be complete control over power.
Yet they treat power with honor and
respect. Members of the armed forces
fight not to seize power for themselves
but to ensure that power can bestow
its favors upon all Americans.
This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.
Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats.
Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship.
And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats
off if they promise to get counseling.
P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html
Bareback Insane O'bungler
>
> > On Oct 15, 10:31 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Why are so few scientists Republicans?
> > It's part of a larger trend. High school,
> > 2-year college, 4-year college, Masters
> > Degree, PhD: the higher up the educational
> > ladder one climbs, the further to the left
> > one's politics is likely to be.
>
> I don't know about "to the left." Republicans these days are not
> conservatives (the Democrats are). "The left" has not been seen or
> heard from in the USA for decades.
That purple lipped fraud just slipped under your radar/gaydar,
you ignorant shit-eating-liar?
> [drool]
Immortalist
> On Oct 15, 11:15 am, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
> > goes.
>
> NOPE! NOT AT ALL!
>
> As a scientist myself I can tell you the truth.
> Real scientists do real science, which comes to real conclusions that
> very often have political consequences.
>
If the OP meant that real scientists don't filter truth to reflect
their dogmas and instead follow truth wherever it may lead, and you
claim that your research has political consequences and this somehow
contradicts the assumption that real scientists don't filter the truth
through their prejudices, then are you claiming that the political
consequences were manufactured from your own biases or that your
conclusion just happened to lead to particular political consequences,
whereby you actually do follow the truth where it goes in an unbiased
manner and it sometimes leads to political consequences in the
unbiased following of those truths, which henceforth only appear
biased because of coincidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9kJZvYBB0
Transition Zone
> On Oct 16, 7:49 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 11:15 am, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > > Real scientists are apolitical. Especially insofar as their SCIENCE
> > > goes.
>
> > NOPE! NOT AT ALL!
>
> > As a scientist myself I can tell you the truth.
> > Real scientists do real science, which comes to real conclusions that
> > very often have political consequences.
>
> contradicts the assumption that real scientists don't filter the truth
> through their prejudices
Scientists make recommendations, get funding and continue research.
(if there is prejudice, why fund it?)