HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2
The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: truth be told 2u ()
Date: February 24, 2012 05:40PM

A must read for all americans to be released in april. The more we understand each other the better.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-brain-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&;

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: yea right ()
Date: February 24, 2012 05:48PM

Yea im sure he takes an unbaised look at things. The fact that his description starts with climate change shows that the book is a complete joke. Man made climate change is a complete fallacy.

Dont believe me how about Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.
"In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Or how about Nasa even written by Yahoo. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

That book is a joke and so is anyone who takes it seriously

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Republicanthinker3 ()
Date: February 24, 2012 05:56PM

Actually, studies show Republicans think more logically and understandably with liberals, with more balanced views, and less emotionally charged responses.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 24, 2012 06:49PM

Republicanthinker3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, studies show Republicans think more
> logically and understandably with liberals, with
> more balanced views, and less emotionally charged
> responses.
Attachments:
thirdworld.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hay Zeus ()
Date: February 24, 2012 06:56PM

Looks more like the workers paradise known as North Korea to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 24, 2012 07:03PM

That's a "this could be you!" type of pic,,,you know,,,if you vote for Bachmann,,,

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: after 4 more years ()
Date: February 24, 2012 07:36PM

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a "this could be you!" type of pic,,,you
> know,,,if you vote for Bachmann,,,


Theres a 0 percent chance that would have been America if Bachmann were to win. More realistically that looks like the end of an Obama second term once all his energy policies that are designed to raise prices are in effect and our deficit with well past the 20 trillion mark.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hay Zeus ()
Date: February 24, 2012 08:15PM

It actually looks more like the Democrat Paradise of inner city Detroit, Oakland, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, New Orleans or anywhere else where Democratic social engineering has failed but overlooked because the "intentions" were earnest.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: after 4 more years ()
Date: February 24, 2012 08:21PM

detroit
Attachments:
detroit-ghetto3.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: MoonE? ()
Date: February 24, 2012 09:47PM

yea right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yea im sure he takes an unbaised look at things.
> The fact that his description starts with climate
> change shows that the book is a complete joke.
> Man made climate change is a complete fallacy.
>
> Dont believe me how about Nobel Laureate Ivar
> Giaever.
> "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass
> of the proton changes over time and how a
> multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global
> warming is incontrovertible?"
>
> "The claim (how can you measure the average
> temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?)
> is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to
> ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if
> true) means to me is that the temperature has been
> amazingly stable, and both human health and
> happiness have definitely improved in this
> 'warming' period."
>
> Or how about Nasa even written by Yahoo.
> http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-g
> lobal-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>
> That book is a joke and so is anyone who takes it
> seriously


Sounds like you are proving the OP's point lol!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Dirac ()
Date: February 24, 2012 10:37PM

Republicanthinker3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Republicans think more logically and understandably with liberals, with more balanced views, and less emotionally charged responses.


Republicans should use this as their campaign slogan in 2012. I'd love to see these commercials on Fox. LOL

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: yea right ()
Date: February 24, 2012 11:24PM

MoonE? Wrote:


>
> Sounds like you are proving the OP's point lol!

You just proved my point. Dam facts and what Science and NASA says, Global Warming is as real as Manbearpig.

But why let facts get in the way of what you want to be true

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Atom ()
Date: February 25, 2012 06:13AM

Republicans have an inlarged left temporal lobe.

If you don't believe me, kill yourself and have someone check it out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 06:13AM by Atom.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: MoonE? ()
Date: February 25, 2012 09:30AM

yea right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MoonE? Wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Sounds like you are proving the OP's point lol!
>
> You just proved my point. Dam facts and what
> Science and NASA says, Global Warming is as real
> as Manbearpig.
>
> But why let facts get in the way of what you want
> to be true


yea right are you in this video?


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: yea right ()
Date: February 25, 2012 11:15AM

MoonE? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yea right Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MoonE? Wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds like you are proving the OP's point
> lol!
> >
> > You just proved my point. Dam facts and what
> > Science and NASA says, Global Warming is as
> real
> > as Manbearpig.
> >
> > But why let facts get in the way of what you
> want
> > to be true
>
>
> yea right are you in this video?
>
>

So what your saying is Republicans are stupid because they dont believe in made up scare tactics science that has been proven false?

Might wanna take a look in the mirror before name calling. But in all honestly thank god you think were stupid, I would be worried if someone dumb enough to think man made global warming is real agreed with me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hay Zeus ()
Date: February 25, 2012 01:28PM

More pictures of the Democratic workers Paradise - Chicago
Attachments:
178.x600.feat.art.gangNot.jpg
DownloadedFile.jpg
DownloadedFile2.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 01:42PM

Wow,,,it's almost like draining all the wealth from the working class and creating a small ultra-rich class doesn't work,,,

The working class needs better lobbyists,,,

The economy can only recover if the middle class is healthy,,,

Eventually, it starts affecting the wealthy too,,,

http://www.trulia.com/blog/Gary_Youngman/2012/02/beverly_hills_super-rich_ditch_increasingly_worthless_mansions
Attachments:
r-FORECLOSURE-CRISIS-large570.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hay Zeus ()
Date: February 25, 2012 02:19PM

That might be true if we were still on the gold standard and banks had to keep 100% of their deposits in reserve.

However the US dollar is a floating currency and banks are only required to keep 20% (i think) of deposits in reserve allowing money to move more freely.

A dollar earned by one person is not at expense of another. Fortunes are made and lost in this country all the time.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 02:57PM

That video is from the 70's,,,and he's argueing against minimum wage which was probably less than $3/hr at the time,,,

4 minutes of this guy, and I wanted to push him down a flight of stairs,,,

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hay Zeus ()
Date: February 25, 2012 03:25PM

The purchasing power of the $3 was significantly greater back in 70's. You want to push him down the stairs because you disagree with him, how civilized.

I notice that socialist and communist are Intolerant of people of who disagree with them and violence is used more often by them then any other ideological group. Since the 20th century 150million have died at the hands of communist and social governments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 03:26PM by Hay Zeus.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 03:34PM

And typically socialist and communist uprisings have overthrown totalitarian regimes that have forced the majority to live in poverty,,,

From one extreme to the other,,,

Even the US had a civil war based on economics,,,

I love how everyone who disagrees with the "make the rich richer" philosophy are socialists and communists,,,

Where does "fair" fall into your rhetoric? Do you think they spend billions on lobbyists so it's a "fair" playing field for everyone?

How about the same rules for EVERYONE,,,How about that? Is that too radical for you?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 03:39PM

Completely agree with this post,,,

Not about calling stones names, but the rest is accurate,,,


Re: Obamas are out of Touch with Regular American new

Posted by: Hay Zeus ()

Date: February 25, 2012 03:18PM


Stones just comes across as another out of touch selfish arrogant asshole, because using this area which has more half of the top 10 richest counties within a stones throw as a barometer for the economic health of the whole country does not appear to be very well imformed at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 03:40PM by Hatemotor.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: hypocracy ()
Date: February 25, 2012 05:38PM

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And typically socialist and communist uprisings
> have overthrown totalitarian regimes that have
> forced the majority to live in poverty,,,

Sometimes, and always to find themselves in even greater poverty after the uprising. The only long standing communist country where more than the elite can do okay is China and thats because of capitalist tweeks they added like letting farmers sell left over product after they meet their quota. Still not the greatest place to live depending on who you are but the USSR fell, homesless people are better off than people in NK, Cuba is very poor too but considering following Chinas lead.

> Even the US had a civil war based on economics,,,

And in all likely hood will have one again. Most likely not our life time but another generation or two highly likely.

> I love how everyone who disagrees with the "make
> the rich richer" philosophy are socialists and
> communists,,,

The same can be said for saying economic policies are based off of peoples own work and that includes what they did in school ect is a policy of make the rich richer.

> Where does "fair" fall into your rhetoric? Do you
> think they spend billions on lobbyists so it's a
> "fair" playing field for everyone?

A true definition of fair would be everyone contributing. 49 percent of the population pays no federal income tax. The top 10 percent pay over 70 percent of taxes. Theres nothing fair about taking away money from people to give it to others. Income taxes are needed and the amount of money they give is more than fair. Saying they arent paying their fare share when they pay the overwhelming majority of it and that they should be giving half their money ect isnt fair its a class warefar tactic that will bring on that civil war as we are pinned against each other for political gain.

> How about the same rules for EVERYONE,,,How about
> that? Is that too radical for you?

Okay same rules for everyone, flat tax across the board 1 rate. Everyone has to pay something. Thatd be the same rules for everyone

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 07:07PM

How about we limit lobbying the government,,,,

And one thing that is never mentioned, and is the reason "1/2 the country doesn't pay taxes" are the deductions for people WITH CHILDREN,,

THE CHILD TAX CREDIT IS WHAT EXEMPTS A HUGE MAJORITY IN THAT GROUP,,,

AND THE ELDERLY'S TAX CREDITS,,,

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: hypocracy ()
Date: February 25, 2012 07:18PM

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we limit lobbying the government,,,,
>
> And one thing that is never mentioned, and is the
> reason "1/2 the country doesn't pay taxes" are the
> deductions for people WITH CHILDREN,,
>
> THE CHILD TAX CREDIT IS WHAT EXEMPTS A HUGE
> MAJORITY IN THAT GROUP,,,
>
> AND THE ELDERLY'S TAX CREDITS,,,


Deductions are part of it but theres a good number of people that dont pay for other reasons. My point wasnt exactly that everyone should be paying, more so that the idea that the rich arent paying their fair share is a fallacy. Its a great campaign soundbite, but their taxes largely fund the country as a whole.

Really we need to get spending under control. You could take every penny from everyone and not be able to erase the debt and then everyone would have 0 dollars. IF you took all of bill gates money you would be able to pay for 3 days of interest on the debt.

I do however think that we would be better off with a flat tax somewhere around 15 percent. Revenue would probably increase and the IRS could be downsized and people would be able to keep more of their own money.

I also dont really think lobbying is the problem. The problem is we keep electing people that just tell us what we want to hear and never fix the problems. Fixing the real problems doesnt get you reelected and when ever there is a straight shooter who tells it like it is they rarely win. The only way for real honest change would be to get rid of the bs in politics which will probably never happen

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hatemotor ()
Date: February 25, 2012 07:44PM

I think the Gov't is already trying to figure out how to implement a VAT tax like in Europe,,,

Sales tax raises money much faster than yearly (or quarterly) income taxes,,,

And most likely it will be in addition to some kind of income tax,,

I'm not advocating this, but it could happen,,,

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: hypocracy ()
Date: February 25, 2012 08:04PM

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the Gov't is already trying to figure out
> how to implement a VAT tax like in Europe,,,
>
> Sales tax raises money much faster than yearly (or
> quarterly) income taxes,,,
>
> And most likely it will be in addition to some
> kind of income tax,,
>
> I'm not advocating this, but it could happen,,,


With how things are I dont really see a whole sale change coming, at the very least not while Obama is in office. Any change could make the IRS brutally oversized for its new function which would require layoffs.

A at tax or a consumption tax overall would be better for everyone. Considering the economic state of europe as a whole I dont really get why people seem to think it would be a great idea to be more like them. Were much bigger than any country there as well making comparisons not really relevant. That said a consumption tax as opposed to high income taxes is one thing that may be an exception to that statement.

A combination of the two could work as well like a 10 percent flat tax and then just raise sales tax. It probably wont happen though for several years until things get really bad. Sadly is seems in the current political climate around the world people have to be on the verge of collapse before change occurs. Hell even in greece where collapse was imminent the people still were willing to give any benefits up to help save the country.

Even our current system could work, but not with how much we spend. Fundamentally im not opposed to a tax raise in need, but the government should have to prove its capable of managing money properly first before thats an option. It shouldnt just be their response because they dont want to cut spending

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: zennnnn ()
Date: February 26, 2012 07:27AM

Remember that we must have republicans in this world. They complete the frame of reference.
Without evil there can be no good.
without ignorance there can be no intelligence.

Next time you encounter a republican you should thank him or her for their hate, ignorance and selfishness.
Everything happens for a reason.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Genevieve ()
Date: February 26, 2012 10:01AM

This forum has helped me recognize one fact. We focus way too much on political parties (or liberal versus conservative) instead of simply having open debates on the issues. It seems like any political debate on this site devolves (almost immediately) into ridiculous stereotypes and accusations. This is true regardless of which party is being attacked. In other words, everyone is guilty.

Why bother with the facts or trying to be open-minded? Or admitting that sometimes a consensus is impossible because some opinions are based on emotion/faith? Apparently name calling is so much more productive.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: truth be told 2u ()
Date: February 26, 2012 10:42AM

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This forum has helped me recognize one fact. We
> focus way too much on political parties (or
> liberal versus conservative) instead of simply
> having open debates on the issues. It seems like
> any political debate on this site devolves (almost
> immediately) into ridiculous stereotypes and
> accusations. This is true regardless of which
> party is being attacked. In other words, everyone
> is guilty.
>
> Why bother with the facts or trying to be
> open-minded? Or admitting that sometimes a
> consensus is impossible because some opinions are
> based on emotion/faith? Apparently name calling
> is so much more productive.


You are right Gen. The book that I suggested in the original post is a tool to try and understand each other, I did not think it was about hate. But I suppose the title alone has caused people to be offended. My bad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: 4 more years, II ()
Date: February 26, 2012 10:49AM

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...We focus way too much on political parties (or
> liberal versus conservative) instead of simply
> having open debates on the issues...

The Imploding Party of No's top priority - top STATED-by-THEM priority - is to see that Obama is a one-term President.

THAT is the issue.

[Sec of State, BTW, JUST said to a foreign audience that Obama's gonna be re-elected]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: FruppiesBuddy ()
Date: February 26, 2012 10:54AM

[Sec of State, BTW, JUST said to a foreign audience that Obama's gonna be re-elected]

That's stupid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: 4 more years, II ()
Date: February 26, 2012 12:15PM

FruppiesBuddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> That's stupid.

Perhaps - but it's interesting to see what's the thinking internal to the Obama admin, huh, without the Me-Too Media's bogus "They're concerned" or "They're worried" or "They're struggling to get the campaign on track" or something equally incorrect.

Instead, a straightforward "Oh yeah, he's gonna win" STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth is wonderfully refreshing.

4 more years.

Bet on it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: get real ()
Date: February 26, 2012 07:12PM

truth be told 2u Wrote:

>
> You are right Gen. The book that I suggested in
> the original post is a tool to try and understand
> each other, I did not think it was about hate. But
> I suppose the title alone has caused people to be
> offended. My bad.


If that book was about liberals you would be up in arms about what a piece of trash it is. Of course you think an attack book based on lies is about understanding the other side

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: truth be told 2u ()
Date: February 26, 2012 08:31PM

Wow!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: lovin it ()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:21PM

republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: stupid is ()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:48PM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&


Too funny!

This political hack is an Al Gore, global warming, tax you for the CO2 you exhale nutcase.

And the stupid liberals eat it up.

So dumb.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: kitty67 ()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:51PM


..

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: 4 Army ()
Date: February 29, 2012 12:27PM

lovin it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!

If there is ever a democratic president... mark my words! The banks will fail, gas will triple, wars will start, and recession will hit Wall St.

Oh wait, that's was the last republican president.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Jim Carter ()
Date: February 29, 2012 08:40PM

4 Army Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lovin it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!
>
> If there is ever a democratic president... mark my
> words! The banks will fail, gas will triple, wars
> will start, and recession will hit Wall St.
>
> Oh wait, that's was the last republican president.


EXACTLY RITE 2

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Science This Fucker ()
Date: February 29, 2012 10:37PM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&

Take Mooney's book and jam it in your ass. That will make it easier for you to read seeing that's where your head is also. After you are done pop your morning after (plan B) meds then miscarry your head back out of your ass. But just before you complete this action grab an ice pick and stab yourself in your brain stem. A self induced partial birth abortion is the goal here. Allow the stem cells to puddle on the floor for the rats to eat.

You are a full fledged piece of human shit who can't expire soon enough. Fuck you, eat shit, get aids, get cancer, bird flu, hepatitis "C", flesh eating virus and fucking die! Cursed be the whore who squeezed you out of her anus.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: truth be told 2u ()
Date: March 01, 2012 08:23PM

Science This Fucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth be told 2u Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A must read for all americans to be released in
> > april. The more we understand each other the
> > better.
> >
> >
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
>
> >
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
>
> >
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&
>
> Take Mooney's book and jam it in your ass. That
> will make it easier for you to read seeing that's
> where your head is also. After you are done pop
> your morning after (plan B) meds then miscarry
> your head back out of your ass. But just before
> you complete this action grab an ice pick and stab
> yourself in your brain stem. A self induced
> partial birth abortion is the goal here. Allow the
> stem cells to puddle on the floor for the rats to
> eat.
>
> You are a full fledged piece of human shit who
> can't expire soon enough. Fuck you, eat shit, get
> aids, get cancer, bird flu, hepatitis "C", flesh
> eating virus and fucking die! Cursed be the whore
> who squeezed you out of her anus.


Awesome response dude! I think that when I read the book I may be able to better understand your condition. Peace man.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: under the table ()
Date: March 03, 2012 07:58AM

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we limit lobbying the government,,,,
>
> And one thing that is never mentioned, and is the
> reason "1/2 the country doesn't pay taxes" are the
> deductions for people WITH CHILDREN,,
>
> THE CHILD TAX CREDIT IS WHAT EXEMPTS A HUGE
> MAJORITY IN THAT GROUP,,,
>
> AND THE ELDERLY'S TAX CREDITS,,,


Seems like people who have children are creating future taxpayers and the deserve a break.
tradesmen who work under the table as well as drug dealers are some of the worst tax cheats. They get welfare and make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars tax free.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Date: March 03, 2012 11:36AM

What's the point of this? You sayin' I'm stupid?

F that, I aint a leming, I think like I like. I didn't have to go to college to be smart and know facts. Like who wants a black man as president. Not me, fact!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Scientists reject GOP ()
Date: March 03, 2012 02:46PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: swarmy ()
Date: March 03, 2012 02:58PM

.
Attachments:
Obama-God.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: last time sorry ()
Date: March 05, 2012 08:11PM

swarmy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


That's dumb.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: kirby road ()
Date: March 22, 2012 05:09AM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&


Looks like a good read but I may wait until its available in a used book store or the bargin bin. I simply dont care that much why republicans are the way they are. I just try to avoid them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: left wing educator ()
Date: April 18, 2012 12:02PM

kirby road Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth be told 2u Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A must read for all americans to be released in
> > april. The more we understand each other the
> > better.
> >
> >j
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
>
> >
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
>
> >
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&
>
>
> Looks like a good read but I may wait until its
> available in a used book store or the bargin bin.
> I simply dont care that much why republicans are
> the way they are. I just try to avoid them.


Looks like a good book for me to assign my 8th graders to read.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: BushWhacked4Oil ()
Date: April 18, 2012 12:55PM

Republican and Cavemen? Same thing!

Why use science to solve something when religion can?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: OBlomney ()
Date: April 18, 2012 12:56PM

Same
Attachments:
obamaromney19.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: The_Ghost_of_Yucky24. ()
Date: April 18, 2012 03:41PM

The Left is all for science until it proves that their nigger pets are sub-human scum.












Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Ted Nguyen ()
Date: April 18, 2012 03:55PM

Looks like we gotta dumb down the dinks. How about we send the darkies over to China and Japan and let them drag their societies down for 400 years and see how they deal with it (I think we know tho).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Caveman Republican ()
Date: April 18, 2012 04:21PM

Republicanthinker3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, studies show Republicans think more
> logically and understandably with liberals, with
> more balanced views, and less emotionally charged
> responses.

Let me know if every meet some republican where this is true. The general consensus I've found is most republicans are just trying to cover for themselves, not use logic in decisions.

Republicans with pickup trucks or Hummers hate Hybrids or Volts. Why because they make their pickup trucks look like fools.
Republicans in the Army think we should invade other countries and wipe out people. The list goes on.

It's caveman thinking.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: April 18, 2012 04:54PM

Caveman Republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicanthinker3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually, studies show Republicans think more
> > logically and understandably with liberals,
> with
> > more balanced views, and less emotionally
> charged
> > responses.
>
> Let me know if every meet some republican where
> this is true. The general consensus I've found is
> most republicans are just trying to cover for
> themselves, not use logic in decisions.
>
> Republicans with pickup trucks or Hummers hate
> Hybrids or Volts. Why because they make their
> pickup trucks look like fools.
> Republicans in the Army think we should invade
> other countries and wipe out people. The list
> goes on.
>
> It's caveman thinking.

You just proved his point with your emotional response to the fact that you dont like republicans because they dont agree with you.

Yes a lot of people hate the Volt, but its not because it exists. Its because it is being funded with tax payer money and attempted to be forced into the market when the sales show people dont want the car. If it was just made with private funds and people wanted to have it no one with a pickup truck would care.

Thanks for demonstrating the small minded ignorance that was being discussed above

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Repuke-icans ()
Date: April 18, 2012 05:31PM

My favorite from the republicans is forcing women to have ultra sounds before an abortion.

Nothing like republicans forcing religious views on others. That's the same shit the Taliban does.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: KFJ ()
Date: April 18, 2012 07:26PM

How is an ultrasound religious?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: moderate1 ()
Date: April 18, 2012 08:14PM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Caveman Republican Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Republicanthinker3 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Actually, studies show Republicans think more
> > > logically and understandably with liberals,
> > with
> > > more balanced views, and less emotionally
> > charged
> > > responses.
> >
> > Let me know if every meet some republican where
> > this is true. The general consensus I've found
> is
> > most republicans are just trying to cover for
> > themselves, not use logic in decisions.
> >
> > Republicans with pickup trucks or Hummers hate
> > Hybrids or Volts. Why because they make their
> > pickup trucks look like fools.
> > Republicans in the Army think we should invade
> > other countries and wipe out people. The list
> > goes on.
> >
> > It's caveman thinking.
>
> You just proved his point with your emotional
> response to the fact that you dont like
> republicans because they dont agree with you.
>
> Yes a lot of people hate the Volt, but its not
> because it exists. Its because it is being funded
> with tax payer money and attempted to be forced
> into the market when the sales show people dont
> want the car. If it was just made with private
> funds and people wanted to have it no one with a
> pickup truck would care.
>
> Thanks for demonstrating the small minded
> ignorance that was being discussed above


Most republicans are not bad people, just mentally weak people who are a tad bit selfish.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: April 18, 2012 09:39PM

moderate1 Wrote:

> Most republicans are not bad people, just mentally
> weak people who are a tad bit selfish.


Once again another brilliant assessment from the left of this website. The only ones who are mentally weak are the lefties on here who are to afraid to think for themselves and stand up for things that are right and wrong. Instead they just want to play the victim 24/7 because its easier

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: moderate1 ()
Date: April 19, 2012 08:27PM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> moderate1 Wrote:
>
> > Most republicans are not bad people, just
> mentally
> > weak people who are a tad bit selfish.
>
>
> Once again another brilliant assessment from the
> left of this website. The only ones who are
> mentally weak are the lefties on here who are to
> afraid to think for themselves and stand up for
> things that are right and wrong. Instead they
> just want to play the victim 24/7 because its
> easier


thank you!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: greenhouse lady ()
Date: July 12, 2012 06:22PM

lovin it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!


They brought it upon themselves.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: hammer lane ()
Date: October 20, 2012 09:49AM

kirby road Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth be told 2u Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A must read for all americans to be released in
> > april. The more we understand each other the
> > better.
> >
> >
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
>
> >
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
>
> >
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&
>
>
> Looks like a good read but I may wait until its
> available in a used book store or the bargin bin.
> I simply dont care that much why republicans are
> the way they are. I just try to avoid them.


Amen to that brother.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: bradlick ()
Date: November 21, 2012 05:12AM

lovin it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!


Yes it is and no one hates repubs more than me. I do however believe in the two party system. The republican party is set to lose all control in the next decade, they are self destructing from the inside out. This may not be a good thing in the long run. Tea party extremists and hate radio are destroying what little respect republicans had left.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Why believe in two parties? ()
Date: November 21, 2012 08:44AM

bradlick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lovin it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > republican hate is on the rise. Thank God!
>
>
> Yes it is and no one hates repubs more than me. I
> do however believe in the two party system. The
> republican party is set to lose all control in the
> next decade, they are self destructing from the
> inside out. This may not be a good thing in the
> long run. Tea party extremists and hate radio are
> destroying what little respect republicans had
> left.


Why do you believe in a system imposed upon us by the people who benefit from it? There is no reason to have only two parties, it is purely for the benefit of those that control those parties. They rig the system to prevent other parties from emerging, and they dictate the issues and policies that keep us divided and dependent.

It would be nice to see both parties implode, but the beauty of their system is that when one party is on the wane, the other waxes. Which is perfect for the people who profit from legislative influence, they can direct all their money at the party "in power" at that moment.

There is nothing good, for the average hard working American, about the two-party system. Unless your mentality is prone to identifying with a team or group, in which case having two parties gives you a stark contrast that is easy for you to grasp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 23, 2012 12:15AM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> moderate1 Wrote:
>
> > Most republicans are not bad people, just
> mentally
> > weak people who are a tad bit selfish.
>
>
> Once again another brilliant assessment from the
> left of this website. The only ones who are
> mentally weak are the lefties on here who are to
> afraid to think for themselves and stand up for
> things that are right and wrong. Instead they
> just want to play the victim 24/7 because its
> easier


I hold views that are considered liberal, and I also hold conservative views. The fact is this: Obama's policies haven't worked. His ideas (while relatively well-intentioned) haven't really done anything. He was chosen by the Democratic Party because he's a smiley black man. He's an empty suit, and now that people like Hillary Clinton are getting out of the administration, he'll crash and burn even more.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how we can pay for healthcare. I can't figure out how taxing those who make over 250,000 dollars will balance our budget. I can't figure out how we can continue with our levels of spending and not go onto the Road to Greece.

There are no easy solutions, but the solution is threefold.

1. We need to cut entitlements. Everything is on the board. Social Security taxes have to be raised, the amount of taxable income for Social Security has to be raised. The retirement age needs to become 68 or 70. Partial privatization may be a solution. Medicare has to be allowed to bargain, and fraud needs to be cracked down on. The eligibility age should probably go up as well. Finally, a repeal of Medicare part D would go a long way towards helping it. Austerity is the only solution to reign in the entitlements. Paul Ryan's budget is somewhat indicative of what needs to be done, though making Medicare a voucher isn't a solution.

2. We need to raise taxes on everyone. Not just on those who make over 250,000 dollars per year. Now, I know everyone hates taxes... I get it. But you can't balance a budget just by reducing spending. It simply doesn't work, unless you cut everything by 50% or more.

2a. The tax code needs to be reformed. The loopholes cause huge loss of revenue. Loopholes need to be closed, and the tax code needs to be somewhat accessible to the average man.

3. Defense cuts... now, I don't support Obama's defense cuts. They're overly restrictive. Special Forces are expensive. Very expensive, when you factor in training, salary, and other expenses. It probably costs less to field a company of infantry than a platoon of SEALS. The military has to be given the amount it asks for (i.e. about 1/2 of what it gets). The Air Force can be folded into the Navy, there's no real reason we need fixed land bases. I understand the counter arguments but I don't agree with them. We need to stop spending recklessly on untested weapons systems. Some of the stuff we use in Afghanistan is crap. And it's crap because it wasn't tested. These things need to be rigorously tested prior to combat, to save both our men's lives and money. Finally, we need to reduce the size of the Navy's hunter-killer force. The 688i class is huge. And, the submarines are Cold War relics. We're not out there fighting enemy submarines. We need to begin building more surface ships, and stop spending so much on aircraft carriers. We can maintain our aircraft carriers, and keep them in service longer. The Essex class was commissioned during WWII. They served through the 70s. It's not impossible to use these ships for 10-15 years longer than we do.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: November 23, 2012 01:36AM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I hold views that are considered liberal, and I
> also hold conservative views. The fact is this:
> Obama's policies haven't worked. His ideas (while
> relatively well-intentioned) haven't really done
> anything. He was chosen by the Democratic Party
> because he's a smiley black man. He's an empty
> suit, and now that people like Hillary Clinton are
> getting out of the administration, he'll crash and
> burn even more.
>
> For the life of me, I can't figure out how we can
> pay for healthcare. I can't figure out how taxing
> those who make over 250,000 dollars will balance
> our budget. I can't figure out how we can continue
> with our levels of spending and not go onto the
> Road to Greece.

I agree. Common sense seems to be something not so common these days and it doesnt take a lot of it to see the numbers just dont add up.

> There are no easy solutions, but the solution is
> threefold.
>
> 1. We need to cut entitlements. Everything is on
> the board. Social Security taxes have to be
> raised, the amount of taxable income for Social
> Security has to be raised. The retirement age
> needs to become 68 or 70. Partial privatization
> may be a solution. Medicare has to be allowed to
> bargain, and fraud needs to be cracked down on.
> The eligibility age should probably go up as well.
> Finally, a repeal of Medicare part D would go a
> long way towards helping it. Austerity is the only
> solution to reign in the entitlements. Paul Ryan's
> budget is somewhat indicative of what needs to be
> done, though making Medicare a voucher isn't a
> solution.

I agree, a voucher may not be the best way to do it but it could be a baby step towards getting where it needs to be. It seems pretty apparent no one is willing to give an inch when we need to move more than that to really solve the problem.

Tax raises are fine too that are reasonable. However before any tax is raised the other issues you mentioned need to be addressed. Without the spending reform the tax increase will do little to nothing and no one should have to pay a dime more until real solutions or viable options are in place. The majority of people arent against tax raises, but they are against them if were going to keep the status quo which really would be just taking more money from them because you want to and not trying to actually fix the problem.

> 2. We need to raise taxes on everyone. Not just on
> those who make over 250,000 dollars per year. Now,
> I know everyone hates taxes... I get it. But you
> can't balance a budget just by reducing spending.
> It simply doesn't work, unless you cut everything
> by 50% or more.
>
> 2a. The tax code needs to be reformed. The
> loopholes cause huge loss of revenue. Loopholes
> need to be closed, and the tax code needs to be
> somewhat accessible to the average man.

A flat tax for everyone would be the most fair and raise revenue. If you make a little you pay a little if you make a lot you pay a lot. Something along the lines of 20 percent if you make a 100k or more and 10 percent if you make under sounds pretty fair and would actually lower the rate for those making under 10k. Not to mention the amount you would save on the IRS which has become extremely bloated with the overcomplicated tax laws.

> 3. Defense cuts... now, I don't support Obama's
> defense cuts. They're overly restrictive. Special
> Forces are expensive. Very expensive, when you
> factor in training, salary, and other expenses. It
> probably costs less to field a company of infantry
> than a platoon of SEALS. The military has to be
> given the amount it asks for (i.e. about 1/2 of
> what it gets). The Air Force can be folded into
> the Navy, there's no real reason we need fixed
> land bases. I understand the counter arguments but
> I don't agree with them. We need to stop spending
> recklessly on untested weapons systems. Some of
> the stuff we use in Afghanistan is crap. And it's
> crap because it wasn't tested. These things need
> to be rigorously tested prior to combat, to save
> both our men's lives and money. Finally, we need
> to reduce the size of the Navy's hunter-killer
> force. The 688i class is huge. And, the submarines
> are Cold War relics. We're not out there fighting
> enemy submarines. We need to begin building more
> surface ships, and stop spending so much on
> aircraft carriers. We can maintain our aircraft
> carriers, and keep them in service longer. The
> Essex class was commissioned during WWII. They
> served through the 70s. It's not impossible to use
> these ships for 10-15 years longer than we do.

This is where well disagree. Cuts can be made there, hell simply changing how they procure things would save money. Instead of having the lowest bidder for projects have someone make it them selves and then try out their products and pick and choose what you like. Some other things would be cheaper to just go tell Home Depot you need to put in a huge order than the prices paid for tools from the lowest bidder method.

The Subs are necessary though and have been greatly reduced. We dont even have any stationed on the west coast anymore, theyre in Hawaii which is about a days cruise if they were needed at home. Russia is building its fleet back up and has been caught snooping on our coast several times, the moment you get rid of them is when youll need them. China is also greatly modernizing their naval forces, you dont want to be caught in a situation where your trying to play catch up. They arent really cold war relics either the vast majority are very advanced. The older a ship is the more it costs to keep it going it can be cheaper overall to build a new carrier 10 years earlier then to keep one going another ten years. The cost is more upfront with the new one but it will have to be built sooner or later and if youll save money over those 10 extra years with the new one you have reduced total cost.

Something else that could be done would be get rid of the ATF. Everything the ATF does the FBI can do and you can absorb there agents into the fbi leaving an AFT wing so to speak saving on the administrative costs of support staff and office space. Making more government jobs teleworking jobs too would help, Im sure we can find some offices around the country where a physical presence of employees is no longer necessary as well as reduce other agencies that all do the same job.

The final thing too is pretty much no matter what we do the economy needs to grow to get back in the black. We need to stop demonizing business and encourage their growth and relocation here instead of driving them overseas. International companies have no ties to the US and dont have to have their headquarters here if they deem it to expensive. Look at what Zucckerburg did he saved something like 100 or 200 million by leaving the US before the FB stock went public.

Its nice to finally see an intelligent response on this board

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: republogic ()
Date: November 23, 2012 07:17AM

.
Attachments:
repub logic.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Econ 101 ()
Date: November 23, 2012 11:43AM

The republican motto, "If at first it is a miserable failure, do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Because eventually Democrats will come along and fix it."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: SoylentGreen ()
Date: November 23, 2012 07:42PM

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The republican motto, "If at first it is a
> miserable failure, do it again, and again, and
> again, and again, and again. Because eventually
> Democrats will come along and fix it."


So this fixing thing.....it's going to take another four years?

And once it's all fixed......who is picking up the check?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 23, 2012 11:27PM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Common sense seems to be something not
> so common these days and it doesnt take a lot of
> it to see the numbers just dont add up.

Anybody with a calculator and the willingness to think critically about it can see it doesn't add up. As Bill Clinton said, "it's arithmetic". We have a massive deficit as it is. Obama's plan doesn't address it. Nor does Ryan's. The answer is closer to what I outlined earlier.

> I agree, a voucher may not be the best way to do
> it but it could be a baby step towards getting
> where it needs to be. It seems pretty apparent no
> one is willing to give an inch when we need to
> move more than that to really solve the problem.

A voucher isn't the best way to get there. These are guarantees to the American people. You shouldn't give someone a voucher and say "you're on your own now". If the voucher increases with inflation, where are the savings? Now, what I feel is reasonable (for Medicare) is allowing Medicare to bargain. AND, a slight cut in benefits. Medicare covers a lot, and that's a good thing about Medicare. But, this is also a bad thing. Unfortunately, as you said, neither side is willing to compromise. The voucher plan isn't a terrible choice, if it's implemented properly (i.e. not what Ryan wants to do).


> Tax raises are fine too that are reasonable.
> However before any tax is raised the other issues
> you mentioned need to be addressed. Without the
> spending reform the tax increase will do little to
> nothing and no one should have to pay a dime more
> until real solutions or viable options are in
> place. The majority of people arent against tax
> raises, but they are against them if were going to
> keep the status quo which really would be just
> taking more money from them because you want to
> and not trying to actually fix the problem.

Right, we need to raise taxes, but we also need to be more responsible in our spending. Raising taxes right now is pointless. Our spending is out of control, and raising taxes will do nothing but allow the government to spend more than it does. Now, if we couple the reforms I've outlined with a slight universal tax raise, it'll work reasonably well. Will it eliminate the deficit? NO. What it will do is reduce the deficit in such a way that we can take steps towards eliminating it. This will require patience, which most of the country doesn't have. This is not a problem. for which there are quick fixes.

> A flat tax for everyone would be the most fair and
> raise revenue. If you make a little you pay a
> little if you make a lot you pay a lot. Something
> along the lines of 20 percent if you make a 100k
> or more and 10 percent if you make under sounds
> pretty fair and would actually lower the rate for
> those making under 10k. Not to mention the amount
> you would save on the IRS which has become
> extremely bloated with the overcomplicated tax
> laws.

I disagree, and I think a flat tax would actually not work out very well in the long run. I think the flat tax would screw the poor over and piss off the rich as well. I'm unsure what the poverty line is, but I think it's over 10k. I think the graduated tax we have now works well. However, we need to simplify the tax code. There are a ridiculous amount of loopholes that the rich can easily take advantage of. Now, I believe the wealthiest Americans create the most jobs. However, they also make the most money. The IRS is an important government agency, but one that must be pared down. If we simplify the tax code (by closing loopholes and re-writing it), we reduce the size of the IRS and make the tax code accessible to all.


> This is where well disagree. Cuts can be made
> there, hell simply changing how they procure
> things would save money. Instead of having the
> lowest bidder for projects have someone make it
> them selves and then try out their products and
> pick and choose what you like. Some other things
> would be cheaper to just go tell Home Depot you
> need to put in a huge order than the prices paid
> for tools from the lowest bidder method.

I completely agree with this section. Why can't the armed services have their own facilities? And yes, in many cases, acquiring it through Home Depot or Lowe's would be cheaper than going through the whole bureaucratic process.


> The Subs are necessary though and have been
> greatly reduced. We dont even have any stationed
> on the west coast anymore, theyre in Hawaii which
> is about a days cruise if they were needed at
> home. Russia is building its fleet back up and
> has been caught snooping on our coast several
> times, the moment you get rid of them is when
> youll need them. China is also greatly
> modernizing their naval forces, you dont want to
> be caught in a situation where your trying to play
> catch up. They arent really cold war relics
> either the vast majority are very advanced. The
> older a ship is the more it costs to keep it going
> it can be cheaper overall to build a new carrier
> 10 years earlier then to keep one going another
> ten years. The cost is more upfront with the new
> one but it will have to be built sooner or later
> and if youll save money over those 10 extra years
> with the new one you have reduced total cost.

See, this is something I knew about, in terms of a counter-argument. The Russians have operated off of our coast since the 50s, that's really nothing new. I don't recall exactly when the 688i class was built, but I believe it was either the late 70s or early 80s. The Seawolf class is far more modern, but I believe there are only two or three. Now, both of these classes are outstanding submarines. I agree that the age of a ship definitely has an impact on its maintenance costs. Now, is it unreasonable to refit a Forrestal Class carrier rather than build the newest class? I would argue no, but that's really debateable. New ships have to be built, and it's probably cheaper in the long run to build them than to constantly refit.


> Something else that could be done would be get rid
> of the ATF. Everything the ATF does the FBI can
> do and you can absorb there agents into the fbi
> leaving an AFT wing so to speak saving on the
> administrative costs of support staff and office
> space. Making more government jobs teleworking
> jobs too would help, Im sure we can find some
> offices around the country where a physical
> presence of employees is no longer necessary as
> well as reduce other agencies that all do the same
> job.

The ATF is more or less an offshoot of the FBI. It can (and should) be eliminated. It's superfluous (sorry if that's spelled incorrectly), and would save some money.

> The final thing too is pretty much no matter what
> we do the economy needs to grow to get back in the
> black. We need to stop demonizing business and
> encourage their growth and relocation here instead
> of driving them overseas. International companies
> have no ties to the US and dont have to have their
> headquarters here if they deem it to expensive.
> Look at what Zucckerburg did he saved something
> like 100 or 200 million by leaving the US before
> the FB stock went public.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES! Business creates jobs, and there are a lot of ways to grow business in this country. The US has an amazing amount of resources and the ability to use these resources better than anywhere else in the world. We need to use them and get the economy back to where it was during the 90s. The dot com bubble is gone. We need to replace it with manufacturing, though technology is still a huge portion of the economy.

> Its nice to finally see an intelligent response on
> this board

You're welcome, it's nice to have an intelligent, informed back and forth rather than the usual "you're wrong, the Republicans/Democrats are evil/racist/elitist/socialist/whatever else."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: my two cents ()
Date: November 23, 2012 11:58PM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Right, we need to raise taxes, but we also need to
> be more responsible in our spending. Raising taxes
> right now is pointless. Our spending is out of
> control, and raising taxes will do nothing but
> allow the government to spend more than it does.
> Now, if we couple the reforms I've outlined with a
> slight universal tax raise, it'll work reasonably
> well. Will it eliminate the deficit? NO. What it
> will do is reduce the deficit in such a way that
> we can take steps towards eliminating it. This
> will require patience, which most of the country
> doesn't have. This is not a problem. for which
> there are quick fixes.

We probably should worry about fixing the economy before we get into reworking the tax code and attempting to pay down the debt.

I'm not saying go crazy with deficit spending, but it's a bad time to try to fix the debt. Tax receipts are down, no matter what rates and loopholes do or do not exist. Once the economy gets moving, we will be in a better position to look at taxes with a full glass instead of a half-empty glass.



>
> I completely agree with this section. Why can't
> the armed services have their own facilities? And
> yes, in many cases, acquiring it through Home
> Depot or Lowe's would be cheaper than going
> through the whole bureaucratic process.
>

You are oversimplifying things. First, individual base commanders do exactly this for small scale stuff. But you cannot expect Home Depot to be able to fill an order for 50,000 units of some piece of hardware, nor should military readiness have to suffer if Home Depot is unable to fill that order. There is no Home Depot in Kaiserslautern, Germany, or Kabul, Afghanistan so there's already a gap in the logistic supply chain.

Also, the "bureaucratic process" isn't really the problem, it is the abuse of that system, both by people inside the pentagon and the contractors who leech off the system.


>
> See, this is something I knew about, in terms of a
> counter-argument. The Russians have operated off
> of our coast since the 50s, that's really nothing
> new. I don't recall exactly when the 688i class
> was built, but I believe it was either the late
> 70s or early 80s. The Seawolf class is far more
> modern, but I believe there are only two or three.
> Now, both of these classes are outstanding
> submarines. I agree that the age of a ship
> definitely has an impact on its maintenance costs.
> Now, is it unreasonable to refit a Forrestal Class
> carrier rather than build the newest class? I
> would argue no, but that's really debateable. New
> ships have to be built, and it's probably cheaper
> in the long run to build them than to constantly
> refit.
>

Why not build new ships of the same class, rather than always going through the process of creating a whole new class? Is the forrestal class a bad or outdated design just because a ship of that class that was built in 1954 requires a lot of maintenance?

A lot of the "evolution" isn't really evolutionary, but more or less a welfare program for ship builders. They make more doing the design, testing, proofing and redesigning, before they even get to the building and delivery phase.


>
> The ATF is more or less an offshoot of the FBI. It
> can (and should) be eliminated. It's superfluous
> (sorry if that's spelled incorrectly), and would
> save some money.

Well, isn't ATF part of Treasury? They are really a revenue protection service, and like any agency, they crept into an expanding role so that the agency head could wear a larger crown and ride around in a fancier motorcade.



>
> YES, YES, YES, YES, YES! Business creates jobs,
> and there are a lot of ways to grow business in
> this country. The US has an amazing amount of
> resources and the ability to use these resources
> better than anywhere else in the world. We need to
> use them and get the economy back to where it was
> during the 90s. The dot com bubble is gone. We
> need to replace it with manufacturing, though
> technology is still a huge portion of the
> economy.
>

Government really can't do anything to make manufacturing return from China. But I've always wondered why the government gives private companies access to our natural resources for pennies, no wait, fractions of pennies on the dollar, and all the wealth creation from those resources end up in private hands. It is possible to extract minerals and energy with arrangements that could actually eliminate the need for individual income taxes, maybe even provide dividends to all citizens. But I've always suspected that taxes are less about funding the government and more about keeping people form being able to build wealth because government exists to be in control, and wealth frees people from that control.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: November 24, 2012 08:40PM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody with a calculator and the willingness to
> think critically about it can see it doesn't add
> up. As Bill Clinton said, "it's arithmetic". We
> have a massive deficit as it is. Obama's plan
> doesn't address it. Nor does Ryan's. The answer is
> closer to what I outlined earlier.

Ryans may not have solved the issues but they were a heck of a lot closer to addressing them than anything Obama has put out. One thing is apparent from the election in that it looks like it will have to come in baby steps. Anything that would really address the issue wont get you elected.


> A voucher isn't the best way to get there. These
> are guarantees to the American people. You
> shouldn't give someone a voucher and say "you're
> on your own now". If the voucher increases with
> inflation, where are the savings? Now, what I feel
> is reasonable (for Medicare) is allowing Medicare
> to bargain. AND, a slight cut in benefits.
> Medicare covers a lot, and that's a good thing
> about Medicare. But, this is also a bad thing.
> Unfortunately, as you said, neither side is
> willing to compromise. The voucher plan isn't a
> terrible choice, if it's implemented properly
> (i.e. not what Ryan wants to do).

A voucher plan within reason could work. Say theyll cover up to x amount and if you want more than that youre on the hook for it. Gives people the option to get what they want without the feds paying for it all. Agreed though at the very least bargaining for prices should allowed. Also if you just made insurance plans nation wide they would be cheaper with the competition instead of state by state basis. The feds really are the only organization that not only doesnt get bulk discount rates but actually pays more.

> Right, we need to raise taxes, but we also need to
> be more responsible in our spending. Raising taxes
> right now is pointless. Our spending is out of
> control, and raising taxes will do nothing but
> allow the government to spend more than it does.
> Now, if we couple the reforms I've outlined with a
> slight universal tax raise, it'll work reasonably
> well. Will it eliminate the deficit? NO. What it
> will do is reduce the deficit in such a way that
> we can take steps towards eliminating it. This
> will require patience, which most of the country
> doesn't have. This is not a problem. for which
> there are quick fixes.

Couldnt agree more about raising taxes. If you do nothing with spending theres absolutely no point to raise them. Thats one of the misunderstood positions about the GOP and its their own fault for not explaining it better that cuts need to be made for taxes to be on the table. Right now any tax increase is nothing more than trying to get reelected and playing some form of class warfare making it seem like the rich arent paying enough and thats the problem which couldnt be further from the truth.

> I disagree, and I think a flat tax would actually
> not work out very well in the long run. I think
> the flat tax would screw the poor over and piss
> off the rich as well. I'm unsure what the poverty
> line is, but I think it's over 10k. I think the
> graduated tax we have now works well. However, we
> need to simplify the tax code. There are a
> ridiculous amount of loopholes that the rich can
> easily take advantage of. Now, I believe the
> wealthiest Americans create the most jobs.
> However, they also make the most money. The IRS is
> an important government agency, but one that must
> be pared down. If we simplify the tax code (by
> closing loopholes and re-writing it), we reduce
> the size of the IRS and make the tax code
> accessible to all.

See I say flat tax because basically everyone making less than 50k is paying their full rate or close to it anyway which over 30k I believe puts you in the 15 to 20 percent range. You could keep a waiver for anyone under the poverty line or even implement some sort of flat increasing rates by income level, but because its a flat no matter what rate it has to be lower than what we currently have. Id also keep cap gains and stocks at 15 percent for everyone to keep investing being encouraged but have the other rates for earned income. I dont see the rich having a problem with it if it was 20-25% tops since they still get to keep the bulk of their money and dont have to go through all the hassels of writeoffs to get out of that 40 percent range.

But yes at the very least make it more common sense related and not have it be the most complicated thing ever.


> I completely agree with this section. Why can't
> the armed services have their own facilities? And
> yes, in many cases, acquiring it through Home
> Depot or Lowe's would be cheaper than going
> through the whole bureaucratic process.

I know two cents mentioned thats not possible, but with advanced notice they could fill the orders. Theyre in the business of selling they dont care if its to the military or to the guy down the street. With stores nation wide they can come up with 50,000 hammers as long as you give them a little heads up. Or heres an idea buy directly from the manufacturer and tell them youll pick them up yourself and cut the middle men out entirely.

> See, this is something I knew about, in terms of a
> counter-argument. The Russians have operated off
> of our coast since the 50s, that's really nothing
> new. I don't recall exactly when the 688i class
> was built, but I believe it was either the late
> 70s or early 80s. The Seawolf class is far more
> modern, but I believe there are only two or three.
> Now, both of these classes are outstanding
> submarines. I agree that the age of a ship
> definitely has an impact on its maintenance costs.
> Now, is it unreasonable to refit a Forrestal Class
> carrier rather than build the newest class? I
> would argue no, but that's really debateable. New
> ships have to be built, and it's probably cheaper
> in the long run to build them than to constantly
> refit.

Your right that class did start in the late 70s but ran through 96. Half the the class is older from the 80s but the other half is the newer ones from the 90s. Even the 80s boats have mostly been refit but do run a little louder. The seawolf class was supposed to replace it but got scrapped after three boats and replaced with the Virginia class which is being built now. As they come out theyll replace some of the older LA class ones which still are better than most of the other subs out there that we didnt built. Personally Id rather have a few to many than not enough. Putin can put on whatever friendly face he wants but like the marines once KGB always KGB and his actions indicate the cold war isnt over to him.

I dont know exact figures but my guess is it would be more costly to refit the carries. Bigger the ship the more a refitting costs and it may even be faster to just build a new one in all honesty. Plus with modern planes and traps they dont have to be quite as big so they can be faster. At least with war ships you do provide some jobs and get useful things out of it. The money to Solrydra (ap?) could have built a few carriers so with all the money we waste military ships wouldnt be at the top of my list.


> The ATF is more or less an offshoot of the FBI. It
> can (and should) be eliminated. It's superfluous
> (sorry if that's spelled incorrectly), and would
> save some money.

Agreed. In response to what two cents said below I do believe they are part of the treasury but only on paper. They have nothing to do with the treasury and never did. In fact the treasury has a separate police force for that they were just there because DOJ didnt take them under and they needed an endorsement basically for LEO powers.

> YES, YES, YES, YES, YES! Business creates jobs,
> and there are a lot of ways to grow business in
> this country. The US has an amazing amount of
> resources and the ability to use these resources
> better than anywhere else in the world. We need to
> use them and get the economy back to where it was
> during the 90s. The dot com bubble is gone. We
> need to replace it with manufacturing, though
> technology is still a huge portion of the
> economy.

I agree but it cant just be any manufacturing. We need to realize that some of those jobs that left for china are never coming back. That said theres no reason we cant increase oil, nat gas, and mineral production with the vast amounts sitting on federal lands. Look at what nat gas has done for north dakota their economy is booming because the private owners opened up the land. Nevada, California could both greatly benefit from more opened land and even Alaska should be allowed to go into ANWAR the Caribu will be fine.

I also agree about the .com bubble. The 90s really were the best time to be in charge and it had little to do with our policies. The massive expansion of the internet was going to bring a booming economy under any leadership and it seems like now were just sitting back waiting for the next big thing to carry us.


> You're welcome, it's nice to have an intelligent,
> informed back and forth rather than the usual
> "you're wrong, the Republicans/Democrats are
> evil/racist/elitist/socialist/whatever else."

Agreed, especially considering how brain dead this thread was for so long. Id actually come on here more if there was more of this and less of the crap that just infests the board, I suspect its a small number of people with truly nothing to do but it gets old either way.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 25, 2012 12:15AM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ryans may not have solved the issues but they were
> a heck of a lot closer to addressing them than
> anything Obama has put out. One thing is apparent
> from the election in that it looks like it will
> have to come in baby steps. Anything that would
> really address the issue wont get you elected.

I could've sworn I replied on this thread earlier... not a problem. Ryan's plan is closer to what needs to happen. Austerity is being foisted upon us; it isn't a choice any longer. Yes, it won't get you elected, but there's no "quick fix" for this problem. It's going to be a long road until we fix the problem.


> A voucher plan within reason could work. Say
> theyll cover up to x amount and if you want more
> than that youre on the hook for it. Gives people
> the option to get what they want without the feds
> paying for it all. Agreed though at the very
> least bargaining for prices should allowed. Also
> if you just made insurance plans nation wide they
> would be cheaper with the competition instead of
> state by state basis. The feds really are the
> only organization that not only doesnt get bulk
> discount rates but actually pays more.

That's basically private insurance then. You have to let Medicare bargain at the minimum. But, Medicare doesn't cover a certain amount. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid take up over 66% of the budget. They are out of control. It is incumbent upon the government to DO something about them. Yes, the government shoots itself in the foot with the way it bargains.


> Couldnt agree more about raising taxes. If you do
> nothing with spending theres absolutely no point
> to raise them. Thats one of the misunderstood
> positions about the GOP and its their own fault
> for not explaining it better that cuts need to be
> made for taxes to be on the table. Right now any
> tax increase is nothing more than trying to get
> reelected and playing some form of class warfare
> making it seem like the rich arent paying enough
> and thats the problem which couldnt be further
> from the truth.

Right, we can't have another "tax and spend" time. Again, it's irresponsible to raise taxes just so we can spend more. We need to CUT spending, then we can RAISE taxes. Everyone needs to pay more. The rich create the jobs. It's just a fact of how a capitalist economy works. The "class warfare" thing is crap, and almost everyone knows it. Simply put, we have to cut spending and raise taxes if there's any hope of getting out of this mess. It's just basic logic!

> See I say flat tax because basically everyone
> making less than 50k is paying their full rate or
> close to it anyway which over 30k I believe puts
> you in the 15 to 20 percent range. You could keep
> a waiver for anyone under the poverty line or even
> implement some sort of flat increasing rates by
> income level, but because its a flat no matter
> what rate it has to be lower than what we
> currently have. Id also keep cap gains and stocks
> at 15 percent for everyone to keep investing being
> encouraged but have the other rates for earned
> income. I dont see the rich having a problem with
> it if it was 20-25% tops since they still get to
> keep the bulk of their money and dont have to go
> through all the hassels of writeoffs to get out of
> that 40 percent range.
>
> But yes at the very least make it more common
> sense related and not have it be the most
> complicated thing ever.

A flat tax is a very complicated thing. It sounds simple, but there are a lot of little issues I'm sure we're not thinking about. Romney paid 14% in taxes. That's obscenely little. As I said earlier, I believe the rich create the jobs. But, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay a bit more. Just cutting the loopholes makes everything far more level.

The tax code is nuts. It's WELL over 1000 pages. Nobody understands it, not even the people who are supposed to enforce it.


> I know two cents mentioned thats not possible, but
> with advanced notice they could fill the orders.
> Theyre in the business of selling they dont care
> if its to the military or to the guy down the
> street. With stores nation wide they can come up
> with 50,000 hammers as long as you give them a
> little heads up. Or heres an idea buy directly
> from the manufacturer and tell them youll pick
> them up yourself and cut the middle men out
> entirely.

Again, something that makes perfect sense. Tool manufacturers are in the business of making tools! Hell, you don't even need to go through Home Depot or Lowe's. Just sign a contract with a manufacturer. You can make things far easier for the armed services. And, you can eliminate the pork of "my district makes this, but it's more expensive... BUT I want to get re-elected, so here you go!". It's just basic sense, and it provides the best possible savings and cost-effectiveness for the country.


> Your right that class did start in the late 70s
> but ran through 96. Half the the class is older
> from the 80s but the other half is the newer ones
> from the 90s. Even the 80s boats have mostly been
> refit but do run a little louder. The seawolf
> class was supposed to replace it but got scrapped
> after three boats and replaced with the Virginia
> class which is being built now. As they come out
> theyll replace some of the older LA class ones
> which still are better than most of the other subs
> out there that we didnt built. Personally Id
> rather have a few to many than not enough. Putin
> can put on whatever friendly face he wants but
> like the marines once KGB always KGB and his
> actions indicate the cold war isnt over to him.

I'm not really current on Navy submarine classes. I knew the Seawolf only had 3 or so built, but I didn't know the 688i was being built up until 96. Yes, Putin is no friend of the US. It's probably better to have a handful too many, but again, there's a law of diminishing returns with this stuff.


> I dont know exact figures but my guess is it would
> be more costly to refit the carries. Bigger the
> ship the more a refitting costs and it may even be
> faster to just build a new one in all honesty.
> Plus with modern planes and traps they dont have
> to be quite as big so they can be faster. At
> least with war ships you do provide some jobs and
> get useful things out of it. The money to
> Solrydra (ap?) could have built a few carriers so
> with all the money we waste military ships wouldnt
> be at the top of my list.

Again, Forrestal class carriers are a tremendous design. As twocents pointed out, the "improvements" don't really exist. Do we need to replace 14 Nimitz-Class carriers (none of which are older than 30) with 14 Ford-class carriers? In the long run, it may be more expensive. But yes, I agree, Obama's cuts to the Navy are founded in ignorance and a lack of understanding of how things really work. Our Navy is likely to become too small.


> Agreed. In response to what two cents said below
> I do believe they are part of the treasury but
> only on paper. They have nothing to do with the
> treasury and never did. In fact the treasury has
> a separate police force for that they were just
> there because DOJ didnt take them under and they
> needed an endorsement basically for LEO powers.

As I said in an earlier post (now apparently deleted), the ATF is part of the Department of Justice. As is the FBI. There's no need for a separate ATF. Again, not a huge expenditure, but one that's unjustified. On the other hand, it might be beneficial to pare down the Department of Education. Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell it does.



> I agree but it cant just be any manufacturing. We
> need to realize that some of those jobs that left
> for china are never coming back. That said theres
> no reason we cant increase oil, nat gas, and
> mineral production with the vast amounts sitting
> on federal lands. Look at what nat gas has done
> for north dakota their economy is booming because
> the private owners opened up the land. Nevada,
> California could both greatly benefit from more
> opened land and even Alaska should be allowed to
> go into ANWAR the Caribu will be fine.

Yes and no. It's very very tough to convince the Sierra Club people and the environmentalists that drilling in the ANWR would be beneficial. Natural gas appears to have reached a plateau (in terms of market size) but it's really ambiguous at this point. Unfortunately, a lot of our manufacturing jobs are gone for good. Oil production needs to increase for the short-term. For the long-term, we must start looking at other sources. Wind is a joke (regardless of what Obama says), Solar isn't powerful enough. Hydroelectric is a good idea, but you need water. Lots of water. Nuclear is the solution, though again, you'd have to convince the environmentalists and the EPA that it's safe. Most are cowed by Chernobyl... though few know the truth of Chernobyl.

Fusion is another possibility, though it's years away at best.

> I also agree about the .com bubble. The 90s
> really were the best time to be in charge and it
> had little to do with our policies. The massive
> expansion of the internet was going to bring a
> booming economy under any leadership and it seems
> like now were just sitting back waiting for the
> next big thing to carry us.

Clinton was deemed a "good president" because he was in the 90s. He did some positive things, sure. As did H.W. Bush, as did W. Bush, as did Nixon, as did LBJ, etc. All did negative things as well. The 90s were a very easy time for the country. The real leaders come out during tougher times. Truman, FDR, LBJ, Lincoln, and Reagan would do well today. They have leadership skills. Obama doesn't.

> Agreed, especially considering how brain dead this
> thread was for so long. Id actually come on here
> more if there was more of this and less of the
> crap that just infests the board, I suspect its a
> small number of people with truly nothing to do
> but it gets old either way.

Most people here are idiots. A few of the registered people are well informed. Most of the people are trolls.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 25, 2012 12:22AM

my two cents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We probably should worry about fixing the economy
> before we get into reworking the tax code and
> attempting to pay down the debt.
>
> I'm not saying go crazy with deficit spending, but
> it's a bad time to try to fix the debt. Tax
> receipts are down, no matter what rates and
> loopholes do or do not exist. Once the economy
> gets moving, we will be in a better position to
> look at taxes with a full glass instead of a
> half-empty glass.

Yes, I agree. The rich create jobs. We should close loopholes, but we need to address the debt sooner, rather than later. This country has kicked the proverbial can down the road for far too long. Reference my reply to "not true" for more information.



> > I completely agree with this section. Why can't
> > the armed services have their own facilities?
> And
> > yes, in many cases, acquiring it through Home
> > Depot or Lowe's would be cheaper than going
> > through the whole bureaucratic process.
> >
>
> You are oversimplifying things. First, individual
> base commanders do exactly this for small scale
> stuff. But you cannot expect Home Depot to be
> able to fill an order for 50,000 units of some
> piece of hardware, nor should military readiness
> have to suffer if Home Depot is unable to fill
> that order. There is no Home Depot in
> Kaiserslautern, Germany, or Kabul, Afghanistan so
> there's already a gap in the logistic supply
> chain.
>
> Also, the "bureaucratic process" isn't really the
> problem, it is the abuse of that system, both by
> people inside the pentagon and the contractors who
> leech off the system.

Yes, and no. You can contract with a manufacturer, eliminating the middle man. Hell, you could even fund a factory and make these things yourself. The Pentagon, Congress, and contractors abuse the system for their own gain. Case in point: the M-16.

>
> Why not build new ships of the same class, rather
> than always going through the process of creating
> a whole new class? Is the forrestal class a bad
> or outdated design just because a ship of that
> class that was built in 1954 requires a lot of
> maintenance?

The Forrestal class is a tremendous class. As I said, replacing the Nimitz-Class with 14 new carriers is pointless. Ship designs really don't evolve, and haven't evolved significantly since World War II.
>
> A lot of the "evolution" isn't really
> evolutionary, but more or less a welfare program
> for ship builders. They make more doing the
> design, testing, proofing and redesigning, before
> they even get to the building and delivery phase.

Reference above comments. Defense contractors help get our soldiers killed.


> Well, isn't ATF part of Treasury? They are really
> a revenue protection service, and like any agency,
> they crept into an expanding role so that the
> agency head could wear a larger crown and ride
> around in a fancier motorcade.

It's part of the DOJ, but apart from that, it has the same role as the FBI. There's no reason why it can't be folded into the FBI.


> Government really can't do anything to make
> manufacturing return from China. But I've always
> wondered why the government gives private
> companies access to our natural resources for
> pennies, no wait, fractions of pennies on the
> dollar, and all the wealth creation from those
> resources end up in private hands. It is possible
> to extract minerals and energy with arrangements
> that could actually eliminate the need for
> individual income taxes, maybe even provide
> dividends to all citizens. But I've always
> suspected that taxes are less about funding the
> government and more about keeping people form
> being able to build wealth because government
> exists to be in control, and wealth frees people
> from that control.

It could, but there's a lot that would have to be done. Huge tax credits and government intervention to prevent labor disputes. There are a lot of things the government could do. I suspect the income tax is simply the easiest way to collect large sums on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, exploiting natural resources isn't that reliable in terms of a yearly income.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: November 25, 2012 01:05AM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could've sworn I replied on this thread
> earlier... not a problem. Ryan's plan is closer to
> what needs to happen. Austerity is being foisted
> upon us; it isn't a choice any longer. Yes, it
> won't get you elected, but there's no "quick fix"
> for this problem. It's going to be a long road
> until we fix the problem.

Which is the true problem, anyone who wants to address it gets unemployed by the voters so until were forced to address it we wont.

> That's basically private insurance then. You have
> to let Medicare bargain at the minimum. But,
> Medicare doesn't cover a certain amount. Medicare,
> Social Security, and Medicaid take up over 66% of
> the budget. They are out of control. It is
> incumbent upon the government to DO something
> about them. Yes, the government shoots itself in
> the foot with the way it bargains.

Id be fine with medicare turning into just letting people buy private insurance up to x dollar amount. Would probably be cheaper for the feds and private insurance allows you to get the plan that best fits your needs.

They are out of control and without changes will continue to be, but whenever someone tries to address it you get people coming out with insane things like the last election about how Romney Ryan want to throw seniors in the cold. No one will have a mature discussion about finding a plan until voters force them too which doesnt look like it will happen.

> Right, we can't have another "tax and spend" time.
> Again, it's irresponsible to raise taxes just so
> we can spend more. We need to CUT spending, then
> we can RAISE taxes. Everyone needs to pay more.
> The rich create the jobs. It's just a fact of how
> a capitalist economy works. The "class warfare"
> thing is crap, and almost everyone knows it.
> Simply put, we have to cut spending and raise
> taxes if there's any hope of getting out of this
> mess. It's just basic logic!

Logic and common sense left elections years ago. We probably wont see an election be about actual issues for quite sometime. The biggest problem is that there are more people who want the rich to pay then there are rich to cancel out their vote.

Like Franklin said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. "


> A flat tax is a very complicated thing. It sounds
> simple, but there are a lot of little issues I'm
> sure we're not thinking about. Romney paid 14% in
> taxes. That's obscenely little. As I said earlier,
> I believe the rich create the jobs. But, that
> doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay a bit more.
> Just cutting the loopholes makes everything far
> more level.

He paid that because his tax rate was 15% from cap gains where it should be, he doesnt have a normal job for earned income hes an investor. Also just because he paid 14 percent he still paid millions and more that 99% percent of the country paid. He also gave millions to charities which lowered that rate.

Its true unintended consequences could happen with a flat rate but to me what better way to allow people to budget accordingly then saying this is what you have to pay not a penny more or less so you know at the start of the year what youll owe instead of those surprises on tax day.

> The tax code is nuts. It's WELL over 1000 pages.
> Nobody understands it, not even the people who are
> supposed to enforce it.

Too much of it is in grey areas, the more they try and close loops the more they create

> Again, something that makes perfect sense. Tool
> manufacturers are in the business of making tools!
> Hell, you don't even need to go through Home Depot
> or Lowe's. Just sign a contract with a
> manufacturer. You can make things far easier for
> the armed services. And, you can eliminate the
> pork of "my district makes this, but it's more
> expensive... BUT I want to get re-elected, so here
> you go!". It's just basic sense, and it provides
> the best possible savings and cost-effectiveness
> for the country.

I dont get that either. Things are at their cheapest straight from the source, no manufacturer is going to say sorry we dont want to give you those.


> I'm not really current on Navy submarine classes.
> I knew the Seawolf only had 3 or so built, but I
> didn't know the 688i was being built up until 96.
> Yes, Putin is no friend of the US. It's probably
> better to have a handful too many, but again,
> there's a law of diminishing returns with this
> stuff.

Im not saying we should go out and build a 100 of them, but if the question is do we have 50 or 25 with all things considered Ill take 50.

> Again, Forrestal class carriers are a tremendous
> design. As twocents pointed out, the
> "improvements" don't really exist. Do we need to
> replace 14 Nimitz-Class carriers (none of which
> are older than 30) with 14 Ford-class carriers? In
> the long run, it may be more expensive. But yes, I
> agree, Obama's cuts to the Navy are founded in
> ignorance and a lack of understanding of how
> things really work. Our Navy is likely to become
> too small.

Ill leave it to the Navy to decide if those improvements are necessary, my guess would be the crews would greatly appreciate a newer ship and over time it would save money but probably doesnt give you to much more tactically.

I do agree about the navy getting too small. He probably figures if its to small in 10 years its not his problem. Its like with oil they always say we cant drill to be self sufficient because that will take 10 or 15 years, well if we started 10 or 15 years ago wed be there now.

> As I said in an earlier post (now apparently
> deleted), the ATF is part of the Department of
> Justice. As is the FBI. There's no need for a
> separate ATF. Again, not a huge expenditure, but
> one that's unjustified. On the other hand, it
> might be beneficial to pare down the Department of
> Education. Honestly, I can't figure out what the
> hell it does.

Thats another one that can go, it just makes teachers teach towards tests and that money would be better spent giving it right to the schools.

> Yes and no. It's very very tough to convince the
> Sierra Club people and the environmentalists that
> drilling in the ANWR would be beneficial. Natural
> gas appears to have reached a plateau (in terms of
> market size) but it's really ambiguous at this
> point. Unfortunately, a lot of our manufacturing
> jobs are gone for good. Oil production needs to
> increase for the short-term. For the long-term, we
> must start looking at other sources. Wind is a
> joke (regardless of what Obama says), Solar isn't
> powerful enough. Hydroelectric is a good idea, but
> you need water. Lots of water. Nuclear is the
> solution, though again, you'd have to convince the
> environmentalists and the EPA that it's safe. Most
> are cowed by Chernobyl... though few know the
> truth of Chernobyl.

Enviromentalists dont care if ANWAR would be beneficial or not they just have a cause they will support to the end. The pipeline increased caribu mating because they liked the warmth. An animal that couldnt mate around a few oil wells would have died off long ago from the Alaskan winter. Nat gas is at a weird stage, we have a ton but dont look into uses for it enough. How about a nat gas car?

All those power options are viable for certain things in certain parts of the country, wind wont work the majority of places neither will solar and like you said none are powerful enough to be the sole provider. Like it or not oil is here to stay for a while. Nuclear is the only viable replacement for power plants right now, nat gas maybe could be with research, but anything you do will have accidents. Nuclear is pretty safe and cheap, nothing is 100 percent but candle makers will be thrilled if the best they can come up with is wind and solar.

> Fusion is another possibility, though it's years
> away at best.

Probably wont see it in our lifetime, someday though.


> Clinton was deemed a "good president" because he
> was in the 90s. He did some positive things, sure.
> As did H.W. Bush, as did W. Bush, as did Nixon, as
> did LBJ, etc. All did negative things as well. The
> 90s were a very easy time for the country. The
> real leaders come out during tougher times.
> Truman, FDR, LBJ, Lincoln, and Reagan would do
> well today. They have leadership skills. Obama
> doesn't.

Exactly. There has been no better time to be president in our nations history than the 90s.


> Most people here are idiots. A few of the
> registered people are well informed. Most of the
> people are trolls.

That is probably the understatement of the year

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 25, 2012 03:46PM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is the true problem, anyone who wants to
> address it gets unemployed by the voters so until
> were forced to address it we wont.

People don't want to deal with austerity. As I've said earlier, austerity isn't a choice anymore! Everyone has his/her own pet program, and nobody wants to give it up. Well here's a clue for everyone. We NEED to change things if you want to go back to the way we've been in the past. We are on the road to Greece, Italy, and Spain. Nobody (Obama especially) wants to acknowledge this. So everyone throws out a couple of good-sounding proposals and platitudes, then hopes the problem will vanish. It's just like the fiscal cliff. Nobody acknowledged it during the election, now we're scrambling to avoid it.


> Id be fine with medicare turning into just letting
> people buy private insurance up to x dollar
> amount. Would probably be cheaper for the feds
> and private insurance allows you to get the plan
> that best fits your needs.
>
> They are out of control and without changes will
> continue to be, but whenever someone tries to
> address it you get people coming out with insane
> things like the last election about how Romney
> Ryan want to throw seniors in the cold. No one
> will have a mature discussion about finding a plan
> until voters force them too which doesnt look like
> it will happen.

Yes, Medicare is out of control. I believe that Medicare may work well as a private insurance option. Let the government run it, but you have to pay into it. The rates won't change drastically, and there won't be anything denied based on "pre-existing conditions". But face it, Medicare needs to be addressed. Ryan tried, and took the wrong path. Neither side wants to discuss it, because it's a big issue to seniors. Seniors vote. But fine, if neither side wants to deal with it, let it run out, and then they can try to deal with it. Everyone will be pissed that the political parties let it run out, but it would force people to address the issue... finally.

> Logic and common sense left elections years ago.
> We probably wont see an election be about actual
> issues for quite sometime. The biggest problem is
> that there are more people who want the rich to
> pay then there are rich to cancel out their vote.
>
>
> Like Franklin said "When the people find that they
> can vote themselves money, that will herald the
> end of the republic. "

The last logical election was probably the 1980 election. Carter lost because his positions hadn't worked. Much like 2012, just the opposite result occurred in 2012. People vote on perceived issues. For example, the "legitimate rape" idiocy and the whole thing about abortion. States should control the entire process, not the government. As long as they do it in the boundaries of Roe V. Wade, it isn't an issue. "The War on Women" is mostly nonsense, and most educated/informed people know it's nonsense. It's a fabrication to obfuscate the actual problems. But, the media reports it, and people believe it.

> He paid that because his tax rate was 15% from cap
> gains where it should be, he doesnt have a normal
> job for earned income hes an investor. Also just
> because he paid 14 percent he still paid millions
> and more that 99% percent of the country paid. He
> also gave millions to charities which lowered that
> rate.

I'm not impeaching Romney's tax returns at all. Yes, he probably paid more than 99% of all Americans. But, he should pay a tax rate equivalent to what most pay. I haven't investigated his returns, and honestly, I don't care. It's a non-issue.


> Its true unintended consequences could happen with
> a flat rate but to me what better way to allow
> people to budget accordingly then saying this is
> what you have to pay not a penny more or less so
> you know at the start of the year what youll owe
> instead of those surprises on tax day.

Again, not something I've looked at in detail. It might work, and it might not. Knowing how the IRS operates, something very basic (like a flat tax) will somehow become very, very complex.

> Too much of it is in grey areas, the more they try
> and close loops the more they create

It's very open, and very vague. The whole thing needs to be rewritten.

> I dont get that either. Things are at their
> cheapest straight from the source, no manufacturer
> is going to say sorry we dont want to give you
> those.

Especially a contract from the government, which is highly lucrative at worst! There's no reason the government has to continue its antiquated ways of purchasing equipment.

> Im not saying we should go out and build a 100 of
> them, but if the question is do we have 50 or 25
> with all things considered Ill take 50.

Right, of course, we're working on the assumption that our submarines are invisible to the enemy at all times. Which simply isn't true. However, that being said, it's probably more valuable to have too many just because we can patrol more consistently and possible avoid any nuclear threats to the country.


> Ill leave it to the Navy to decide if those
> improvements are necessary, my guess would be the
> crews would greatly appreciate a newer ship and
> over time it would save money but probably doesnt
> give you to much more tactically.
>
> I do agree about the navy getting too small. He
> probably figures if its to small in 10 years its
> not his problem. Its like with oil they always
> say we cant drill to be self sufficient because
> that will take 10 or 15 years, well if we started
> 10 or 15 years ago wed be there now.

Again, I think there's little tactical advantage. There may be some savings, and there may not be. I haven't examined the figures. Romney had a good point about the reduction in the size of the Navy. We can't afford to reduce the Navy to where Obama wants it to be. Otherwise, you're going to end up with another Pearl Harbor some day soon. But worse, because we won't have anything left. So we'll end up having to recommission ships and then hope that the Navy can hold the line with them. The Navy needs to stay where it is. The Army and Air Force need to be reduced. There's no reason the Air Force needs the F-35. I hate to say it, but the F-16 and the F-15 are just as good as anything China or Russia have. And, the Navy's F-18 is outstanding... it doesn't need to be replaced.

> Thats another one that can go, it just makes
> teachers teach towards tests and that money would
> be better spent giving it right to the schools.

The tests aren't a bad idea, the issue is forcing the tests to count for so much. I can teach 50 people how to pass a math test. It isn't that tough. What's tough is teaching 50 people the information so that they can pass the test. If we want to have a better rate of return from our educational system, we need to change it. The standardized testing simply isn't a good idea, nor does it prepare people. Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind both failed because students didn't learn the material. They learned to take the tests.

> Enviromentalists dont care if ANWAR would be
> beneficial or not they just have a cause they will
> support to the end. The pipeline increased caribu
> mating because they liked the warmth. An animal
> that couldnt mate around a few oil wells would
> have died off long ago from the Alaskan winter.
> Nat gas is at a weird stage, we have a ton but
> dont look into uses for it enough. How about a
> nat gas car?

Natural gas buses exist in most cities, actually. ANWR is an important step to energy independence. But, we need to look at long term natural gas storage. We have 200 years of it, at the very least. We don't look into uses for it; I propose we try to fuel cars with it, as do you. Of course, Exxon-Mobil and Sunoco wouldn't like that very much. The Democrats scream about corporate welfare. The corporate welfare is minimal to oil companies. Their green energy groups have failed over and over.

> All those power options are viable for certain
> things in certain parts of the country, wind wont
> work the majority of places neither will solar and
> like you said none are powerful enough to be the
> sole provider. Like it or not oil is here to stay
> for a while. Nuclear is the only viable
> replacement for power plants right now, nat gas
> maybe could be with research, but anything you do
> will have accidents. Nuclear is pretty safe and
> cheap, nothing is 100 percent but candle makers
> will be thrilled if the best they can come up with
> is wind and solar.

The future is in nuclear power. Most of Europe knows it, it's time we learn it here.

> Probably wont see it in our lifetime, someday
> though.

15-20 years, minimum.

> Exactly. There has been no better time to be
> president in our nations history than the 90s.

George W. Bush would be seen as a good president by both parties if he was in during the 90s. People who say he's the worst are uninformed.


> That is probably the understatement of the year.

Yeah, probably.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: normal man ()
Date: November 26, 2012 08:25PM

Republicans are always wrong and they cause death.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Young Curmudgeon ()
Date: November 26, 2012 10:05PM

normal man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans are always wrong and they cause death.


So taxing the top 1% of income earners more will reduce the deficit significantly? How will we pay for Obamacare?

This isn't partisan, it's just based on analysis of figures.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: normal man ()
Date: November 27, 2012 08:22PM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> normal man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Republicans are always wrong and they cause
> death.
>
>
> So taxing the top 1% of income earners more will
> reduce the deficit significantly? How will we pay
> for Obamacare?
>
> This isn't partisan, it's just based on analysis
> of figures.


You are wrong.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Errf ()
Date: November 27, 2012 08:28PM

So giving rich people tax cuts is fair to rest of Americans? How fuck is that fair?

And don't give me this crap about rich people are the only people who create jobs with their money. I buy shit too!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: November 27, 2012 08:51PM

Errf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So giving rich people tax cuts is fair to rest of
> Americans? How fuck is that fair?
>
> And don't give me this crap about rich people are
> the only people who create jobs with their money.
> I buy shit too!


Its not a tax cut when its the current tax rate. You arent entitled to their money.

And if you want to talk about fair how is it fair that the top 10 percent pay 70-80 percent of total taxes? Fair means the same for everyone. Nothing about taxes is fair and it has nothing to do with the rich not paying enough

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: It can't be a tax hike either ()
Date: November 27, 2012 09:01PM

not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Its not a tax cut when its the current tax rate.
> You arent entitled to their money.

Then letting the tax cut expire can't be raising taxes, either.


>
> And if you want to talk about fair how is it fair
> that the top 10 percent pay 70-80 percent of total
> taxes? Fair means the same for everyone. Nothing
> about taxes is fair and it has nothing to do with
> the rich not paying enough

That is just plain stupid. The same for everyone as in everybody pays the same amount no matter what they earn?

There's a reason why the top 10% pay 70.47% of the total income taxes and the bottom 50% pay almost no taxes. The top 10% earn over $112,000, and the bottom 50% earn less than $32,000.

The top 50% pay 97.75% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes.

These figures are meaningless.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: not true ()
Date: November 27, 2012 09:09PM

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not true Wrote:

> People don't want to deal with austerity. As I've
> said earlier, austerity isn't a choice anymore!
> Everyone has his/her own pet program, and nobody
> wants to give it up. Well here's a clue for
> everyone. We NEED to change things if you want to
> go back to the way we've been in the past. We are
> on the road to Greece, Italy, and Spain. Nobody
> (Obama especially) wants to acknowledge this. So
> everyone throws out a couple of good-sounding
> proposals and platitudes, then hopes the problem
> will vanish. It's just like the fiscal cliff.
> Nobody acknowledged it during the election, now
> we're scrambling to avoid it.

Exactly which is why nothing will ever be done until it has to be at the last second because actually trying to fix the country doesnt win elections.


> Yes, Medicare is out of control. I believe that
> Medicare may work well as a private insurance
> option. Let the government run it, but you have to
> pay into it. The rates won't change drastically,
> and there won't be anything denied based on
> "pre-existing conditions". But face it, Medicare
> needs to be addressed. Ryan tried, and took the
> wrong path. Neither side wants to discuss it,
> because it's a big issue to seniors. Seniors vote.
> But fine, if neither side wants to deal with it,
> let it run out, and then they can try to deal with
> it. Everyone will be pissed that the political
> parties let it run out, but it would force people
> to address the issue... finally.

People blame politicans for everything then send the exact same government to washington. People just like to bitch. The real truth is it isnt addressed because we dont want it to be. Politicans respond to voters and voters have proven it wont work. Private insurance would work better and cost less even subsidized by the government since you wouldnt have administrative costs or government waste.




> The last logical election was probably the 1980
> election. Carter lost because his positions hadn't
> worked. Much like 2012, just the opposite result
> occurred in 2012. People vote on perceived issues.
> For example, the "legitimate rape" idiocy and the
> whole thing about abortion. States should control
> the entire process, not the government. As long as
> they do it in the boundaries of Roe V. Wade, it
> isn't an issue. "The War on Women" is mostly
> nonsense, and most educated/informed people know
> it's nonsense. It's a fabrication to obfuscate the
> actual problems. But, the media reports it, and
> people believe it.

Yep, we no longer see elections about real issues we get issues drummed up for no reason because frankly Obama couldnt run on his record. It was 1980 all over again only this time America lost. Abortion should have never come up in this election considering the financial situation thats all that should have been discussed instead we get nothing but abortion and fake wars on women with the economy mentioned every now and then.


> I'm not impeaching Romney's tax returns at all.
> Yes, he probably paid more than 99% of all
> Americans. But, he should pay a tax rate
> equivalent to what most pay. I haven't
> investigated his returns, and honestly, I don't
> care. It's a non-issue.

He did pay pay what most people paid. Clinton understand keeping cap gains low to encourage investment, not to mention that money has largely been taxed before as earned income and you can just as easily lose every penny of it as you can make money. It just shouldnt be treated like guaranteed income because its far from it.


> Again, not something I've looked at in detail. It
> might work, and it might not. Knowing how the IRS
> operates, something very basic (like a flat tax)
> will somehow become very, very complex.

Hence the need to scale them down and just put down our foot and say no this is what it is. Humans love to make simple things very complicated for no reason.


> Especially a contract from the government, which
> is highly lucrative at worst! There's no reason
> the government has to continue its antiquated ways
> of purchasing equipment.

Theres no logical reason for it, but logic has little to do with anything we do these days.

> Right, of course, we're working on the assumption
> that our submarines are invisible to the enemy at
> all times. Which simply isn't true. However, that
> being said, it's probably more valuable to have
> too many just because we can patrol more
> consistently and possible avoid any nuclear
> threats to the country.

Very true. Just wait for the report that a sub has gone missing from iran with a dirty nuke missle and people will be screaming why didnt we have more subs.

> Again, I think there's little tactical advantage.
> There may be some savings, and there may not be. I
> haven't examined the figures. Romney had a good
> point about the reduction in the size of the Navy.
> We can't afford to reduce the Navy to where Obama
> wants it to be. Otherwise, you're going to end up
> with another Pearl Harbor some day soon. But
> worse, because we won't have anything left. So
> we'll end up having to recommission ships and then
> hope that the Navy can hold the line with them.
> The Navy needs to stay where it is. The Army and
> Air Force need to be reduced. There's no reason
> the Air Force needs the F-35. I hate to say it,
> but the F-16 and the F-15 are just as good as
> anything China or Russia have. And, the Navy's
> F-18 is outstanding... it doesn't need to be
> replaced.

Right just because one ship can do the job of 10 doesnt mean you should only have 1 ship. Force redundancy is very important. That ship doing the job of 10 is great until it gets sunk or needs repairs. You take casualties in war you can just restart at the last checkpoint. People also say we dont fight conventional wars anymore, well thats because other militarys know they have no shot. If we reduce down to their level that will change.


> The tests aren't a bad idea, the issue is forcing
> the tests to count for so much. I can teach 50
> people how to pass a math test. It isn't that
> tough. What's tough is teaching 50 people the
> information so that they can pass the test. If we
> want to have a better rate of return from our
> educational system, we need to change it. The
> standardized testing simply isn't a good idea, nor
> does it prepare people. Race to the Top and No
> Child Left Behind both failed because students
> didn't learn the material. They learned to take
> the tests.

Education is tricky to actually monitor but the tests certainly dont help. Its very easy to cram for a test and not remember a thing when the idea is to actually learn the subjects. They were both good idea programs in theory but time to pull the plug or make some changes


> Natural gas buses exist in most cities, actually.
> ANWR is an important step to energy independence.
> But, we need to look at long term natural gas
> storage. We have 200 years of it, at the very
> least. We don't look into uses for it; I propose
> we try to fuel cars with it, as do you. Of course,
> Exxon-Mobil and Sunoco wouldn't like that very
> much. The Democrats scream about corporate
> welfare. The corporate welfare is minimal to oil
> companies. Their green energy groups have failed
> over and over.

Exxon and all those other oil companies are the ones pumping nat gas. We really arent endanger or running out of oil anytime soon so I dont really understand the huge push to immediately replace it. Big oil will come up with other energy sources on their own as well, they dont want to be the ones who dropped the ball and killed billion dollar companies when oil runs out. Green energy will never work. Wind and hydro and solar can work in some areas as supplements but cannot work every where and wind and solar will never provide enough energy.


> George W. Bush would be seen as a good president
> by both parties if he was in during the 90s.
> People who say he's the worst are uninformed.

He has one of the crappiest times to be president, theres been worse times in history but it seems extra bad because of the 90s. Had 9-11 not happened we would have seen a very different presidency.

Like him or not theres been far far worse presidents and it really isnt debatable, then again a lot of people blame him for all of Obamas problems. Im sure in 2016 blame bush will still be alive and well

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Browntown ()
Date: January 26, 2013 02:55PM

I found a copy of this book in the bin at Costco. Its a very informative read, not mean spirited like the title suggests.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: lawnmaker ()
Date: February 12, 2013 07:55PM

normal man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans are always wrong and they cause death.


SAD but TRUE!!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Factual information ()
Date: February 13, 2013 12:12AM

lawnmaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> normal man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Republicans are always wrong and they cause
> death.
>
>
> SAD but TRUE!!!!!


Totally! Look what they did in Benghazi!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Hank Johnson ()
Date: February 13, 2013 12:42AM

Which island is about to tip over? Pardon me, I am a confused Democrat.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: left turn clyde ()
Date: February 13, 2013 04:54AM

> not true Wrote:


"George W. Bush would be seen as a good president
by both parties if he was in during the 90s.
People who say he's the worst are uninformed."


Yeah, just because GW killed way more Americans than Ossama did does not make him a bad president.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: ObamaLovesBlackKillers ()
Date: February 13, 2013 05:11AM

Why did Obama support the killer in California after he murdered a young women?

Why does Obama hate women?

He was all out in the news when that boy went crazy in CT, crying those liberal tears, but when a black guy does the same shit, Obama says, hey, boy, I'm with you..... KILL.... Kill

Why does Obama love killers when they're black?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Obama supporter ()
Date: July 19, 2013 04:59PM

ObamaLovesBlackKillers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did Obama support the killer in California
> after he murdered a young women?
>
> Why does Obama hate women?
>
> He was all out in the news when that boy went
> crazy in CT, crying those liberal tears, but
> when a black guy does the same shit, Obama says,
> hey, boy, I'm with you..... KILL.... Kill
>
> Why does Obama love killers when they're black?

Thats funny.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Educ8tor ()
Date: September 12, 2013 04:28AM

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The republican motto, "If at first it is a
> miserable failure, do it again, and again, and
> again, and again, and again. Because eventually
> Democrats will come along and fix it."


Sadly, true.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: southern man ()
Date: September 12, 2013 07:48PM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&


Thanks for the heads up! Great book, I bought the kindle edition.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: gizmooo ()
Date: December 13, 2013 04:57PM

Good book, good thread.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: mind blown ()
Date: December 13, 2013 09:43PM

zennnnn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember that we must have republicans in this
> world. They complete the frame of reference.
> Without evil there can be no good.
> without ignorance there can be no intelligence.
>
> Next time you encounter a republican you should
> thank him or her for their hate, ignorance and
> selfishness.
> Everything happens for a reason.


You are 100% right!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: quality inn ()
Date: February 08, 2014 07:50AM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&


This book is a waste of time. Republicans are not worth the effort.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Book Review Excerpt ()
Date: February 08, 2014 08:52AM

Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill).

Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs — with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality.

Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence.

But the rejection of science is just the beginning…
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
Attachments:
mission accomplished.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: Yucky24. ()
Date: February 08, 2014 10:44AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: S Flickenger ()
Date: February 17, 2015 07:22AM

I just read the book. It provides some insight as to the reasons behind the actions of right. They are after all victims.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: yu dik ()
Date: February 17, 2015 07:58AM

Climate deniers need to be exterminated for the greater good. Convert or die. We can post cool videos of their executions on the web.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
Posted by: GREAT BOOK!! ()
Date: April 23, 2015 07:35PM

truth be told 2u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A must read for all americans to be released in
> april. The more we understand each other the
> better.
>
> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-republican-bra
> in-chris-mooney/1106038746?ean=9781118094518&cm_mm
> c=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-FYUtulI7nw4-_-10%3a1&


One of the GREATEST books ever written@@

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **    **   *******   **     **        ** 
 **     **  ***   **  **     **   **   **         ** 
 **     **  ****  **         **    ** **          ** 
 **     **  ** ** **   *******      ***           ** 
 **     **  **  ****         **    ** **    **    ** 
 **     **  **   ***  **     **   **   **   **    ** 
  *******   **    **   *******   **     **   ******  
This forum powered by Phorum.