Am I smoking crack?

[spooky]

Originally Posted by cogy

really? where is all the "debate" over the validity of evolution coming from? who approved sex ed materials that say condoms are useless? you cant blame it on religion alone. theres a reason they found a voice in the republican party.

yeah, because the republican party is about tolerence for comminities, not forcing one view on a population. even opposing religions can get together under the same party, because ideally, their beliefs would be protected. if a non state funded school wants to have these things taught in their schools, i strongly support it, i would go to war for it. and i dont believe in any of it. none of this is an arguement that republicans are anti science. so please stay on topic and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion, because a small segment of religious zealots attempting to get their views heard or taught is not proof or even evidence of. try again.

Originally Posted by cogy

well, we all go to very similar schools. since schools are reserve and locally run, what they teach varies from area to area, especially in above topics.

religion is still not taught in public school, show me one example where a public school teaches evolution is not true.

Originally Posted by cogy

sounds great as a generalization. not so great when kids have to learn they need to be abstinent or face stds and hell, or that humans are not only blameless but powerless over global warming.

my republican state that i went to school in didnt teach id go to hell if i had sex, dont spin the facts. all schools, even ones in heavily populated democratic states taught roughly the same shit. when there was a presidential initiative to teach abstinence, they didnt only teach it to the south.

Originally Posted by cogy

conspiracies are secret. cut funding is on cspan. instead of researching the effects of environmental hazards, money gets funneled into "faith-based initiatives." while research shows something like arsenic is dangerous in the water supply, a president can say regulations to control it are so antibusiness that hes willing to risk it.

how is any of that evidence of a conspiracy? one president making a judgement call is proof? is clinton a terrorist, then, because he let osama go and 'funneled' money away from intelligence. cutting funding on CSPAN is not a conspiracy, its cutting funding. instead of spending more money on the human genome project research, clinton spent it on revitalizing inner cities in a ploy to get minority votes, therefore democrats are all part of a conspiracy to hurt science and gain power? see, these arguements are ridiculous. you dont like one particular politician, and are painting all in his party with the same brush.

Originally Posted by cogy

like you said, business will not bend over backwards to be responsible. they need special incentives. i wasnt blaming global warming itself on business or republicans, anyway.

well, we disagree here. the consumer is the problem, more than the producer. you can fine companies like monsanto for breaking the environmental laws, and they simply budget the fines in and pass the cost to the consumer. eventually, when the cost gets to high to produce here, they produce someplace else. but keep on raising taxes and go after the companies, keep plugging the dike with your thumb, its real productive. maybe your war on business will go as well as the war on drugs, and youll succeed only in making things more expensive for everyone.

Originally Posted by cogy

now that so much data has accumulated, now that so much of the world realizes that, like the earth circling the sun, its real, and most of all because companies like gm will go bankrupt in the very near future if they continue to base their products on gasoline-powered engines, they are coming to their senses.

conjecture. if GM goes out of business, it will be because of pension plans, not the cars they make. they will adjust what they produce according to what the market demands. you keep telling me i dont think theres global warming, i keep telling you i know whats happening. why cant you wrap your arguement around that? not included in your talking points? the temperature of the world has varied drastically over the last 50,000 years. you can tell by measuring the CO2 levels in ancient arctic ice core samples. its been alot hotter, its been alot colder, both without humans around. if humans cause one or the other(and global warming, im sure since you know so much about it, leads directly to ice ages) the world will get by just fine.

Originally Posted by cogy

i didnt mention conspiracies or global domination. the groups spouting the data i mentioned at least base their political agenda on empirically obtained facts, not on beliefs and convenience.

sources? how are the republicans responsible and the democrats arent? spell it out for me. and any company you chose to burn an effigy of, please have proof that its a company owned and operated by republicans.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E

Isn't spooky an athiest...

yes i am

[mkl]

Move along, nothing to see here. Just Spooky bitchslapping another one.

[Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E]

Ice ages aren't fun...although I do enjoy the occasional snowball fight but in NYC the snow is all yellow from dog piss and grey from dirt.

[cogy]

i can come back to this when i have more time. i was set to leave until i saw the bitchslap remark.

Originally Posted by spooky

yeah, because the republican party is about tolerence for comminities, not forcing one view on a population. even opposing religions can get together under the same party, because ideally, their beliefs would be protected.

the republican party and tolerance do not go together. saying it doesnt make it so. not for other religions, not for other races, not for gays, not for anyone but themselves. if you want to tout the right, leave the 1st amendment alone, move on to the 2nd.

Originally Posted by spooky

none of this is an arguement that republicans are anti science. so please stay on topic and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion, because a small segment of religious zealots attempting to get their views heard or taught is not proof or even evidence of. try again.

denying evolution and disease prevention based isnt anti science, then? small segment? if that were the case mccain would have won the primary in 2000 instead of a born again with no record but one of lighting up retards. if they were a small segment the candidates wouldnt say exactly what they want them to say year after year, whether its an intraparty primary debate or a national debate. and if you watch, listen, or are aware of the news, you know several states recently [although they were rebuffed more recently] ok'd intelligent design text books to be used as science text books. on pandas and people.

Originally Posted by spooky

religion is still not taught in public school, show me one example where a public school teaches evolution is not true.

when i was in hs, and im only 22, evolution got a mention, not an explanation. and the law at that time said that because evolution was "taught," we had to learn creationism to be fair. so the most i heard about evolution was the mention of the law, and then we got to hear a 3 day lecture on creationism. again, read the news.

Originally Posted by spooky

how is any of that evidence of a conspiracy?

my point was i didnt bring up the topic of conspiracies; you did.

Originally Posted by spooky

one president making a judgement call is proof? is clinton a terrorist, then, because he let osama go and 'funneled' money away from intelligence. cutting funding on CSPAN is not a conspiracy, its cutting funding. instead of spending more money on the human genome project research, clinton spent it on revitalizing inner cities in a ploy to get minority votes, therefore democrats are all part of a conspiracy to hurt science and gain power? see, these arguements are ridiculous. you dont like one particular politician, and are painting all in his party with the same brush.

Originally Posted by spooky

conjecture. if GM goes out of business, it will be because of pension plans, not the cars they make. they will adjust what they produce according to what the market demands. you keep telling me i dont think theres global warming, i keep telling you i know whats happening. why cant you wrap your arguement around that? not included in your talking points? the temperature of the world has varied drastically over the last 50,000 years. you can tell by measuring the CO2 levels in ancient arctic ice core samples. its been alot hotter, its been alot colder, both without humans around. if humans cause one or the other(and global warming, im sure since you know so much about it, leads directly to ice ages) the world will get by just fine.

the point was gm is a smart business that knows they wont make money selling cars that run on fuel that may not exist in significant quantities in 50 years. your version of global warming so far is limited to a hole in antartica and stuff hundreds of years from now that neither of us are arguing over. simply because the earth has varied in temp over 50k years does not mean that its dandy for us to force the same changes over 100, 50, 10 years, or that any of it will bode well for our survival.

who popularized the talking point? posted it on the official party website, sent it out to fox news and all the rest, repeats it verbatim so many times satirical news shows can fill their 22 minutes just showing clips of the usual gang all saying the same 2 or 3 lines on whatever that days topic is? or do the dozen or so they pick on all happen to use the same baseball analogy on the same day, word for word?

Originally Posted by spooky

sources? how are the republicans responsible and the democrats arent? spell it out for me. and any company you chose to burn an effigy of, please have proof that its a company owned and operated by republicans.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...?o=read&id=521
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

everyone is responsible. but republicans get the trophy for denying the problem and refusing evidence that contradicts them and which places a burden on big business to reform their industry. if you want proof that biz owners tend to be republican, pull your head out of your goddamn ass or look at some data, look it up yourself, its out there whether i feed it to you or not.

[Sexy_Potatoe_with_an_E]

I believe it's illegal to teach creationalism, unless you go to a non-public school, teachers aren't allowed to advocate for or against any religion. You went to the one retarded school in America, I got a full fucking, probably 2 week lesson on evolution...

[DanClass]

damn it you bickering little bitches

stop raining on my parade; i could order a fuel cell powered motorcycle off the internet right now

i'll be able to plug in my car and visit the gas pumps like once a quarter in a couple years maybe

there's no reason to start attacking political parties over this news

this is some cool stuff

republicans should like it because it's potential for businesses to develop and prosper
and democrats should like it because it's less polution and eventually cheaper for poor people

ok to be fair republicans like clean air also, just as long as clean air is what the individual communities want

and democrats don't really like poor people

[Josh]

Dr. Dan I was enjoying this mudslinging from both sides! I say keep it going!

[germuhknee]

democrats, republicans, blah blah blah. They're just like two football teams: their uniforms may be different colors, they may have different mascots, but in the end they're all men in tights who enjoy handling balls.

[germuhknee]

BTW, Spooky: what makes you a republican and not a libertarian? Just wondering, because a lot of what you say reminds me of this libertarian I once knew ...