Do Only 6% Understand Science?

[mamooth]

...and claims that the Right is anti-science and hates education.

Let's check the evidence. Like this.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Only 43% of Republicans accept evolution in 2013, compared to 54% in 2009. Unlike the rest of society, the American right is literally getting more pig-ignorant of science as time goes on.

Why? Probably because since they've practiced being stupid so dilgently, they've gotten very good at it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...and claims that the Right is anti-science and hates education.

Let's check the evidence. Like this.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Only 43% of Republicans accept evolution in 2013, compared to 54% in 2009. Unlike the rest of society, the American right is literally getting more pig-ignorant of science as time goes on.

Why? Probably because since they've practiced being stupid so dilgently, they've gotten very good at it.

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly.
But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.


3. And, let's consider where the Left and the Right fit in as far as what science is, and what it isn't.

Doesn’t is seem that Leftists applying to social justice involves morality?
Science has nothing to do with morality.

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?


And that is where the Left aligns itself....sans morality.

 

[rdean]

As a life-long smoker myself (pipe last few years having quit ciggies,) while I don't like smoking restrictions, I'm sympathetic to non-smoker's rights not to have to smell or breathe in second-hand smoke. While I'm not familar with the science of second-hand smoke, for me it's moot. It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about. I vividly recall how I often felt being around my Mom and Dad both smokers and it wasn't pleasant. So if a park or other locale wants to forbid smoking, long as there's somewhere I can go I'm ok with it.

I was a smoker once but somehow managed to quit. It was extremely hard. Course, back then, they only cost fifty cents to a dollar a pack.

Where the real cost comes in is the high rate of cancer to smokers. Just a few smokers can raise premiums for the entire group because of the expense of treatment. And for those without insurance, they lose everything and the cost to tax payers is humongous. You would think the right would jump on this bandwagon because they always go on about personal responsibility, but instead, they are selfish.
When people my age began smoking, the connection to cancer was completely unknown. It was simply something that was relaxing after meals and sex. And it looked cool. If you reach my age and still don't have it, I suspect the probability of cancer from smoking is small. More likely to get cancer from just being old.

 

[rdean]

...and claims that the Right is anti-science and hates education.

Let's check the evidence. Like this.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Only 43% of Republicans accept evolution in 2013, compared to 54% in 2009. Unlike the rest of society, the American right is literally getting more pig-ignorant of science as time goes on.

Why? Probably because since they've practiced being stupid so dilgently, they've gotten very good at it.

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly.
But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.


3. And, let's consider where the Left and the Right fit in as far as what science is, and what it isn't.

Doesn’t is seem that Leftists applying to social justice involves morality?
Science has nothing to do with morality.

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?


And that is where the Left aligns itself....sans morality.

I'm pro nuclear power. I believe scientists can figure out the waste problem.

Republicans, I suspect, aren't sure exactly the difficulty of nuclear power. The inspectors of nuclear power plants need to be engineers at the very least, because it's critical they understand what they are looking at. Right wingers on this board said that was nuts. That you can inspect a high school cafeteria with proper training and following a form and you don't need to be a cook. What can you say?

I also have no problem with genetically engineered food at this point. Worse is injecting beef with hormones since hormones can be absorbed from just chewing. But genetically altered food, unless it produces some type of toxin, is pretty much digested in the rest of your tract. And if the acid in your stomach can etch metal, it probably does a pretty good job of breaking down any genetic components into amino acids. But I'm no expert. I don't even pretend to be. Unlike you, who thinks science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.

Why would more than 6% of scientists be Republican when they have such disdain for scientists? How many on this board say scientists work for the government, do nothing and the taxpayer money just rolls in? And you have right wingers saying we should get rid of teachers and learn from a book. Yea, because I want to go to a doctor or a dentist that only learned from a book. You can't pretty up GOP truth when it's that ugly. Education is not for snobs and I agree with Rick Santorum, "The GOP will never have the elite smart people". Especially if you are any indication.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My problem with smoking outdoors isn't the smoke itself, provided I'm not standing right next to the person; it's the way being outdoors makes so many smokers think it's all right to treat the world as their ashtray. My daughter and most of her friends smoke, and it's well-known that smoking is absolutely, unequivocally not allowed in my house. I discovered right after she moved in with me last year that to them, this meant that they could smoke all the way up from the complex parking lot to my front door, then knock the cherry off their cigarette on the windowsill or the wall next to my door, and either flick the used butt onto the front balcony or carry it through to the back balcony to finish smoking it there. I had to threaten to impose a "20 feet from the door" rule the way restaurants do, or just start banning her friends from my house, to get them to understand that I had no intention of living with the outside visual damage of a bad habit choice I didn't make.

I have put large ashtrays - painted ceramic flower pots filled with sand on plant stands - at my own expense on my front and back balcony, and I empty them regularly. Despite this, I still periodically find cigarette butts carelessly flicked onto my front balcony as my neighbors walk by on the way to the stairs, and jumped all over one of Sarah's friends for flicking a butt over the back balcony railing onto the sidewalk below, with the ashtray right next to his elbow.

This being said, I don't want any bans on outdoor smoking. I just want the legal right to smack these people crosseyed.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a life-long smoker myself (pipe last few years having quit ciggies,) while I don't like smoking restrictions, I'm sympathetic to non-smoker's rights not to have to smell or breathe in second-hand smoke. While I'm not familar with the science of second-hand smoke, for me it's moot. It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about. I vividly recall how I often felt being around my Mom and Dad both smokers and it wasn't pleasant. So if a park or other locale wants to forbid smoking, long as there's somewhere I can go I'm ok with it.

"It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about."

And there is your conservative side speaking...and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.





But for Liberals......the modus operandi is to outlaw and ban.

And that under the pretension that is is about science.



What could be more anti-liberty, more anti-freedom, more anti-American.

Kind of like banning maryjane, herion, and other harmful habits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As a life-long smoker myself (pipe last few years having quit ciggies,) while I don't like smoking restrictions, I'm sympathetic to non-smoker's rights not to have to smell or breathe in second-hand smoke. While I'm not familar with the science of second-hand smoke, for me it's moot. It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about. I vividly recall how I often felt being around my Mom and Dad both smokers and it wasn't pleasant. So if a park or other locale wants to forbid smoking, long as there's somewhere I can go I'm ok with it.

"It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about."

And there is your conservative side speaking...and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.





But for Liberals......the modus operandi is to outlaw and ban.

And that under the pretension that is is about science.



What could be more anti-liberty, more anti-freedom, more anti-American.

Kind of like banning maryjane, herion, and other harmful habits.

Great!

By that theory the banning of Liberalism can't be far behind!!!

 

[Destroyer2]

...and claims that the Right is anti-science and hates education.

Let's check the evidence. Like this.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Only 43% of Republicans accept evolution in 2013, compared to 54% in 2009. Unlike the rest of society, the American right is literally getting more pig-ignorant of science as time goes on.

Why? Probably because since they've practiced being stupid so dilgently, they've gotten very good at it.

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly.
But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.


3. And, let's consider where the Left and the Right fit in as far as what science is, and what it isn't.

Doesn’t is seem that Leftists applying to social justice involves morality?
Science has nothing to do with morality.

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?


And that is where the Left aligns itself....sans morality.

1. This is considered a moral, animal rights issue by a lot of people, so I disagree that it's anti-science. I also disagree with ending animal research though, it's so effective and important for medical advances and new treatments and shit.

a. There are legitimate concerns with nuclear power, such as how the location will remain radioactive for effectively the rest of its time on Earth, what happens if there's an accident (Hi Japan!), and the safety of living near one. This is an opinion question and therefore does not fit in "comprehension of science". (I favor nuclear power only where it is safe and feasible. For example, here on Long Island, we were going to have a plant, they transported the U-238 here and everything, but they ended up shutting it down because of evacuation concerns in the event of an emergency)

b. 48-42 isn't good enough, sorry. Also, from your own link:

So who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science. However, Berezow is right that scientific “ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.”

Talk about selective quoting.

2. Linking to a rightist blog doesn't prove anything. In fact, almost all of those stats barely even show difference. I admit this one right here scared me though:

The earth revolves around the sun 79.2% 73.9% 81.5%

Why the **** are there people that don't know that the earth revolves around the sun? Seriously?

3. Yes, science has nothing to do with morality (though philosophers have tried to make it so in the past). Considering basically everyone plays the morals game...this is a non-issue.

Can you and I agree on this statement, by chance?:

Americans in general do not understand science.

 

[rdean]

Let's check the evidence. Like this.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Only 43% of Republicans accept evolution in 2013, compared to 54% in 2009. Unlike the rest of society, the American right is literally getting more pig-ignorant of science as time goes on.

Why? Probably because since they've practiced being stupid so dilgently, they've gotten very good at it.

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly.
But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.


3. And, let's consider where the Left and the Right fit in as far as what science is, and what it isn't.

Doesn’t is seem that Leftists applying to social justice involves morality?
Science has nothing to do with morality.

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?


And that is where the Left aligns itself....sans morality.

1. This is considered a moral, animal rights issue by a lot of people, so I disagree that it's anti-science. I also disagree with ending animal research though, it's so effective and important for medical advances and new treatments and shit.

a. There are legitimate concerns with nuclear power, such as how the location will remain radioactive for effectively the rest of its time on Earth, what happens if there's an accident (Hi Japan!), and the safety of living near one. This is an opinion question and therefore does not fit in "comprehension of science". (I favor nuclear power only where it is safe and feasible. For example, here on Long Island, we were going to have a plant, they transported the U-238 here and everything, but they ended up shutting it down because of evacuation concerns in the event of an emergency)

b. 48-42 isn't good enough, sorry. Also, from your own link:

So who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science. However, Berezow is right that scientific “ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.”

Talk about selective quoting.

2. Linking to a rightist blog doesn't prove anything. In fact, almost all of those stats barely even show difference. I admit this one right here scared me though:

The earth revolves around the sun 79.2% 73.9% 81.5%

Why the **** are there people that don't know that the earth revolves around the sun? Seriously?

3. Yes, science has nothing to do with morality (though philosophers have tried to make it so in the past). Considering basically everyone plays the morals game...this is a non-issue.

Can you and I agree on this statement, by chance?:

Americans in general do not understand science.

Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school. So when they go outside, the sun is over there and after a while, it's over there. And it's so tiny. So to their eyes, the sun is going up and over and down. It's like climate change. It's cold at the north pole in the winter so there must not be any climate change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly.
But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.


3. And, let's consider where the Left and the Right fit in as far as what science is, and what it isn't.

Doesn’t is seem that Leftists applying to social justice involves morality?
Science has nothing to do with morality.

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?


And that is where the Left aligns itself....sans morality.

1. This is considered a moral, animal rights issue by a lot of people, so I disagree that it's anti-science. I also disagree with ending animal research though, it's so effective and important for medical advances and new treatments and shit.

a. There are legitimate concerns with nuclear power, such as how the location will remain radioactive for effectively the rest of its time on Earth, what happens if there's an accident (Hi Japan!), and the safety of living near one. This is an opinion question and therefore does not fit in "comprehension of science". (I favor nuclear power only where it is safe and feasible. For example, here on Long Island, we were going to have a plant, they transported the U-238 here and everything, but they ended up shutting it down because of evacuation concerns in the event of an emergency)

b. 48-42 isn't good enough, sorry. Also, from your own link:

So who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science. However, Berezow is right that scientific “ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.”

Talk about selective quoting.

2. Linking to a rightist blog doesn't prove anything. In fact, almost all of those stats barely even show difference. I admit this one right here scared me though:

The earth revolves around the sun 79.2% 73.9% 81.5%

Why the **** are there people that don't know that the earth revolves around the sun? Seriously?

3. Yes, science has nothing to do with morality (though philosophers have tried to make it so in the past). Considering basically everyone plays the morals game...this is a non-issue.

Can you and I agree on this statement, by chance?:

Americans in general do not understand science.

Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school. So when they go outside, the sun is over there and after a while, it's over there. And it's so tiny. So to their eyes, the sun is going up and over and down. It's like climate change. It's cold at the north pole in the winter so there must not be any climate change.

"Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school."


So....does the same explanation apply to all the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Communists who fail to recognize that the imposition of their policies resulted in over one hundred million human beings murdered by same in the century of genocide, the 20th century?

Does it, huh???

 

[rdean]

"It's a matter of politeness and consideration for those around me, especially when kids are about."

And there is your conservative side speaking...and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.





But for Liberals......the modus operandi is to outlaw and ban.

And that under the pretension that is is about science.



What could be more anti-liberty, more anti-freedom, more anti-American.

Kind of like banning maryjane, herion, and other harmful habits.

Great!

By that theory the banning of Liberalism can't be far behind!!!

It's easy for your "kind" to ban what they don't understand. Look at books.

 

[Destroyer2]

1. This is considered a moral, animal rights issue by a lot of people, so I disagree that it's anti-science. I also disagree with ending animal research though, it's so effective and important for medical advances and new treatments and shit.

a. There are legitimate concerns with nuclear power, such as how the location will remain radioactive for effectively the rest of its time on Earth, what happens if there's an accident (Hi Japan!), and the safety of living near one. This is an opinion question and therefore does not fit in "comprehension of science". (I favor nuclear power only where it is safe and feasible. For example, here on Long Island, we were going to have a plant, they transported the U-238 here and everything, but they ended up shutting it down because of evacuation concerns in the event of an emergency)

b. 48-42 isn't good enough, sorry. Also, from your own link:



Talk about selective quoting.

2. Linking to a rightist blog doesn't prove anything. In fact, almost all of those stats barely even show difference. I admit this one right here scared me though:

The earth revolves around the sun 79.2% 73.9% 81.5%

Why the **** are there people that don't know that the earth revolves around the sun? Seriously?

3. Yes, science has nothing to do with morality (though philosophers have tried to make it so in the past). Considering basically everyone plays the morals game...this is a non-issue.

Can you and I agree on this statement, by chance?:

Americans in general do not understand science.

Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school. So when they go outside, the sun is over there and after a while, it's over there. And it's so tiny. So to their eyes, the sun is going up and over and down. It's like climate change. It's cold at the north pole in the winter so there must not be any climate change.

"Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school."


So....does the same explanation apply to all the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Communists who fail to recognize that the imposition of their policies resulted in over one hundred million human beings murdered by same in the century of genocide, the 20th century?

Does it, huh???

That only applies to Communists and arguably Socialists.

The terms are not interchangeable, no matter how much you try to make them so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school. So when they go outside, the sun is over there and after a while, it's over there. And it's so tiny. So to their eyes, the sun is going up and over and down. It's like climate change. It's cold at the north pole in the winter so there must not be any climate change.

"Because they didn't listen for the couple of years they attended school."


So....does the same explanation apply to all the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Communists who fail to recognize that the imposition of their policies resulted in over one hundred million human beings murdered by same in the century of genocide, the 20th century?

Does it, huh???

That only applies to Communists and arguably Socialists.

The terms are not interchangeable, no matter how much you try to make them so.

Yeah, they are.

1. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs.
In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.



2. ... Chambers, former communist was correct, and easily proven so.



Here are some of the aims and designs of Liberals:


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

a. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."





10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal .....agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?


I mean, seriously......


QED?




Oh...wait.....did I say Democrats/Liberals/Progressives????
Silly me....I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

 

[Destroyer2]

^We already went over this and I whooped your ass on it last time.

Forgot already?

 

[PoliticalChic]

^We already went over this and I whooped your ass on it last time.

Forgot already?

Really?

I mean...in the real world, not your fantasies?


So....deny that the list isn't consistent with the aims of both Liberals, and Communists.


That'd pretty much identify you as a liar.

 

[Destroyer2]

^We already went over this and I whooped your ass on it last time.

Forgot already?

Really?

I mean...in the real world, not your fantasies?


So....deny that the list isn't consistent with the aims of both Liberals, and Communists.


That'd pretty much identify you as a liar.

Actually, you identified yourself as a dumbass by claiming such.

Of course the list isn't consistent with the aims of liberals, and the parts where it is are parts where it's consistent among ideologies in general, not just communism and liberalism.

 

[Destroyer2]

If you want to continue believing you know liberalism better than a liberal, feel free.

Anyone with half a brain realizes you're just talking bullshit though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^We already went over this and I whooped your ass on it last time.

Forgot already?

Really?

I mean...in the real world, not your fantasies?


So....deny that the list isn't consistent with the aims of both Liberals, and Communists.


That'd pretty much identify you as a liar.

Actually, you identified yourself as a dumbass by claiming such.

Of course the list isn't consistent with the aims of liberals, and the parts where it is are parts where it's consistent among ideologies in general, not just communism and liberalism.

"....and the parts where it is....."


Busted!!

Wanna curtsy with that retreat?


In your face!!!

 

[Destroyer2]

Really?

I mean...in the real world, not your fantasies?


So....deny that the list isn't consistent with the aims of both Liberals, and Communists.


That'd pretty much identify you as a liar.

Actually, you identified yourself as a dumbass by claiming such.

Of course the list isn't consistent with the aims of liberals, and the parts where it is are parts where it's consistent among ideologies in general, not just communism and liberalism.

"....and the parts where it is....."


Busted!!

Wanna curtsy with that retreat?


In your face!!!

It's cute that you took that part out of context.

I even explained it to you when I responded to you the first time but apparently you don't actually read, just pick and choose what suits you.

Typical partisan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you want to continue believing you know liberalism better than a liberal, feel free.

Anyone with half a brain realizes you're just talking bullshit though.

"Anyone with half a brain...."

Well....in that case, you qualify.



And, yeah....I understand liberals better than a liar who refuses to admit that I posted the aims of liberals- and communists- in that post.
…That's more of a sure thing than freshly fried fox in a forest fire.


I just lit you up brighter than Marie Curie.