Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.
Also my Pneumonia booster shot.
Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out! But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.
Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.
Also my Pneumonia booster shot.
Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out! But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.
The left. Are you not aware of the blatantly obvious. There is more of course such as the completely unfounded vitriol against fracking and nuclear (or ANYTHING that is energy based not solar/wind).Fine...I don't care.
Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.Fine...I don't care.
Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.
One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.
Which party has attacked GMOs?
You find attacks against science all over the political spectrum. It is not mired in any particular party more than the other. It is a matter of WHAT is attacked. Any science that does not agree with the narrative is attacked weather or not it is merited.
In all fairness, the ‘anti science’ attack is almost always coming from the left against the right (at least here on this board). It is one of RDeans favorite statements. A characterization that is utterly incorrect. Neither party does not like any facts that disagree with given policies they wish to push.
One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
Which party has attacked GMOs?
So, which party does Bill Maher represent?One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.
Which party has attacked GMOs?
The party that attacked evolution was the democrats. At least in the Scopes trial.
Which party has attacked GMO's - are you kidding?
{
Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.
Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change.}
{the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”}
The Liberals War on Science - Scientific American
So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?
Well, that's going to shake up this board when that information gets out!So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?
In Texas and places where it is windy they are.
So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?
You said that one party was anti-science...there's no point trying to deflect.So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Maher is a radical leftist.
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.
Same house as Rush Limbaugh is in.
And seriously dude, that was pathetically weak.
Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
Bullshit.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?
ROFL
You whine that I prove leftists are anti-science and the best you can do is "well THAT doesn't count."
My argument is that those who support the scientific method are guided by facts rather than voodoo. The anti-nuke, anti-GMO, Pro=AGW nutjobs follow voodoo.
And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
When it started chopping up eagles and hawks.
I'm anti-wind myself, good reason to oppose that one.
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?
Most wind farms are corporate owned.
What it boils down to is that the fringe opposes rationality, real science is based on rational analysis. 50 years ago the right was dominated by their fringe. But today the right is mostly moderate, where the left under Obama is run by the lunatic fringe. This fringe is decidedly anti-science.
I see that the latest Republican revisionist memo has been released.
"Convince voters that we are actually the pro-science party and the opposite is true of the other side".
The truth isn't hard to find however.
Vaccines have been with us for hundreds of years. It is the most successful medical procedure on the planet.With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?
I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.
What are your thoughts?
Believe what you want but vaccines aren't the "save all" that everyone thinks they are. Seems that these days, people just do what they're told, believe what all the doctors say without question, etc. Reminds me of sheep.Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.
People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.
And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.
And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.
So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.
They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.