Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
GOP Science - Dinasour Flatulence and Global Warming
First tubes and the Internet and now this:
"During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’"
Full story and C-SPAN video of the congressman's comments: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/dino-flatulence/
"During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’"
Full story and C-SPAN video of the congressman's comments: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/dino-flatulence/
Comments
But I'm a registered Republican. This does not mean I am ignorant, support George W. Bush, am against education, am religious, am bigotted, or a criminal. But those are the GOP myths that are perpetuated here.
I'm a Republican (who wants to be a Libertarian, but that party isn't recognized in Ohio) because I believe in open markets and free economies, small government, limitation of welfare programs, private industry over public industry, strong national defense (but not offense), states rights, individual liberties over the liberties of a group, tax cuts, personal accountability, fiscal responsibility, the right to bear arms, and that the least restrictive environment is the best environment.
The current Republican administration is very bad at many of these things. I'm not going to argue in favor of Bush.
But I am going to argue in favor of some ideals that are unpopular, and ask you to carefully consider them before labelling them as Republican=Evil. I'm so stinkin' tired of the negative splashback from Bush.
But yes, they've all but abandoned fiscal conservancy and have continued to dramatically increase the size of government in the name of security. I think that it's a trend that Rudy might be able to reverse; we'll see how his campaign platform evolves. Otherwise, lacking a true old-school Republican candidate who believes in actual conservative ideals rather than the Bush-ite ones, I'm seriously taking a hard look at Obama in 2008.
Well, here is what I have recently discovered by asking myself "what is the difference between a democrat or a republican? why do american citizens register to vote for one party (well I ask myself because vote is different from where I am from)? , why do we give names to each other. I once heard from a very smart person "I am a citizen of the world" , and you know what I it is how I am gonna roll from now on. My points of view cannot be canned into a tittle, name or something. I think that greats ideas are hard to express with only words, but easy to show with actions. My bureaucrats are big words people but at the end of the day very little is seen. I came to American with a very different point of view of what I have now but my believes from the very core of myself still the same. Do not get me wrong I love American but at the same time I love this world. I cannot say if humanity is leading itself to its own extinction, I know that humanity sometimes learn from its mistakes and that it show signs that it can better itself during the most horrible times. But do we really have to be that way, wait until something terrible happens to change. I would be a hypocrite that I do not show those signs of human nature in myself. I wa reading the great art of work from the God of manga the last weekend, Phoenix future, and it made me start thinking many things. This world is beautiful and the only thing that is true for sure that nothing that is matter is forever. Maybe the only thing to know is humanity is truly causing this global warming is to track the atmospheric history of the planet since the industrial revolution until today but that is impossible, another way is to obtaining that changes of the arctic poles since that time by drilling holes and studying the different layers of ice. I really do not know. But humanity can make a study and now and expand it during the next 50 years. If changes are made the study will show truly is humanity is doing something to the planet. Because if the climatic changes are the same or less then humanity really is changing in order to protect the earth, if climatic changes are worse and humanity has not change its way of leaving then we know the answer either way.
Well that is all, I said my peace.
These people are deranged and don't belong in government. You shouldn't be governing a country if your goal is to see the end of the world before the end of your term. You don't have the right to legislate on issues of science if you ignore the facts and embrace your own backwards ignorance.
If there are actually reasonable Republicans, they need to either take over the party or split off and form a new one. I think they're all just so afraid of losing the power structure of the party itself that they'll do whatever it takes to remain a member and not rock the boat.
Conservative is a political term, not a moral term. There's a certain amount of equivocation going on here. I am conservative about granting new entitlements. I am conservative about the growing power and size of the federal government. I am conservative about how the U.S. should act on the world stage. I am conservative because I want government to stop *doing* so damned much. America was founded with a hands-off attitude. We didn't want a kingdom, we wanted a loose confederation of states to protect each other in the case of war. We didn't want a Constitution that constricted us to the moral views of a religious right, and we didn't make one. Political conservatism moral conservatism.
Posted By: RymHardly a progressive agenda.This is true, and I wish to Bob it would change faster. There are many things that Republicans can learn from crossing the aisle; but there are also things that Democrats can learn. You'll notice, however, that even the Republican Party is becoming socially liberal, albeit slowly and more laboriously than the political left. But you can't blame them for being slow learners, any more than you can blame the slow kids in school for not picking up physics easily. All you can do is be patient and teach them -- and they'll learn so much better if you aren't condescending or prejudicial yourself.
But in the end, the two parties are fairly balanced when it comes to good ideas vs. bad ideas, really. This is why we villanize each other so and galvanize the nation into a 50-50 lock. I, personally, would like to see some third party action resurface. Though many of his ideals were slightly nutty, this is why I so enjoyed seeing Ross Perot surface in the 1980s. Honestly, I think the Libertarian mindset (though it does have some weaknesses) more accurately reflects the majority of Americans' silent opinions about politics.
If there are actually reasonable Democrats, they need to either take over the party or split off and form a new one. I think they're just so afraid of losing the power structure of the party itself that they'll do whatever it takes to remain a member and not rock the boat.
See what I did there? Honestly, Rym, if there were a candidate who did walk down the middle instead of offering lip service to both sides, I would vote for him/her.
And I'm not saying it's not a stupid person's right to hold an office. But it's also supposed to be the right of the people to the most qualified representatives, not this bunch of half-wits, jackasses, and spineless tools that we have now.
So who gets to choose who is deranged and who is not? That's not how it works.
Honestly, the best answer that I can find to the whole dilemma is one that is unconstitutional. I would love to see an amendment stipulating that all voters must be high school graduates, and that they must pass both a high school civics course and a written civil exam to qualify to vote. That raises tampering questions of its own, but I would love to see the populace be held to a higher standard of knowledge and responsibility.
I'm talking about:
1) What does your city council do? What is the council not allowed to do? Give five examples of each.
2) Name and describe the differences between the three branches of government.
3) In 50 to 75 words, describe the role and responsibilities of your representative to the U.S. Congress.
4) List a summary of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
5) List five things that are not protected implicitly by the Constitution.
6) What are the qualifications for becoming president of the United States?
7) Discuss the role of the states vs. the role of the federal government as agreed upon by the framers of the Constitution.
And so on.
Basically, I would force natural citizens to take the same test that others must pass to gain U.S. citizenship. I think you would be suprised.... No, nevermind. None of us here would be surprised at how many Americans would fail the test.
What I am trying to say is that it’s a little….pretentious, to put it heavily, to always assume the worst. Granted our administration is so far and removed from being…amiable, that doesn’t mean that the whole Republican Party is incompetent, and that doesn’t in turn suggest that, as a rule of thumb, the Democrats are in contrast.
To put it in a few words, yes, there are many in-congruencies with the elected officials and their constituents. But more important than complaining about the problems, it really makes more sense to approach solutions. Or rather, at the very least, understand that the system of American politics offers the most accommodating structure to political reverberations, which at the end of the day means so much more than ultimately (in the big picture) insignificant differences.
It's an opinion I agree with, but it's still an opinion. I know it wouldn't work, and I admitted it from the start. But I would still love to see some form of intellectualism injected into the process. I also agree with this wholeheartedly.
If the majority of Republicans support regressive or conservative social policies, then it is perfectly fair to call the Republican party conservative or regressive.
(Being anti gay-marriage is conservative, as it seeks to slow down or prevent coming change. Being anti-abortion is regressive, as it seeks to not only slow but to reverse existing social change).
And have I ever not had equal misgivings regarding the Democrats? While the latter are certainly closer in some minor ways to my own personal ideologies, both major political parties in the United States sicken me. The Democrats just sicken me a little less and over issues I care a little less about.
I ignore political party when I consider a politician. All I consider, in any circumstance, is their policy, their apparent intelligence, and their track record. Currently, Barack Obama is probably the only person in Washington who speaks for me at all.