Kasich commits political suicide

[bedowin62]

With Tea Party support at a new low. The lowest ever recorded:

great you got a chart leftard!!!


then it should be easy to say what Tea Party members are going to get replaced in congress next year by some really awesome Progressive democrat right????

how about the whole list???

 

[Rustic]

THE ONLY supporting of the Tea Party that mattes is with the ones who elected them dullard.

just what do you want to see done with them since you say they are so unpopular you mindless moron?
AGAIN if you dont like democracy move to North Korea

The tea party does not have a majority in congress.

Duh! Progressives do...

 

[paddymurphy]

Kasich had no chance anyway.

Which doesn't undermine the truth of his statement.

Kasich will still make a great VP candidate

Progressive a$$ kisser?? By a progressive

Since, according to you, the nation is mostly progressive, shouldn't that be the ass to kiss?

 

[Skylar]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...

• Cached
• Similar

Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis

With your study's introduction opening with this statement:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)

With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.

Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.

Man made global warming = pseudoscience

So you say. Scientists who study the climate sciences overwhelmingly disagree with you.

If I want to know about heart surgery, I don't consult an auto-mechanic. I talk to a heart surgeon. If I want to know about carpentry, I don't talk to an IT specialist. I talk to a carpenter.

And if I want to know about the climate, I don't consult some random dude on an internet form. I check with climate scientists.

 

[paddymurphy]

THE ONLY supporting of the Tea Party that mattes is with the ones who elected them dullard.

just what do you want to see done with them since you say they are so unpopular you mindless moron?
AGAIN if you dont like democracy move to North Korea

The tea party does not have a majority in congress.

Duh! Progressives do...

Because most Americans are. What do you hate the most about a representative democracy?

 

[Rustic]

The current GOP is so damn depraved, that even when you somewhat praise one of their own, they want to gang up and call him/her a RINO.

A Rino can't hide, yella shows up too well.
They will be poached

Well, since those you refer to as rinos are in the majority in the Republican Party, wouldn't that mean that they are the real republicans and you are the republican in name only? You clearly don't agree with the majority view among republicans. Maybe you should firm a new party where folks like you can be the majority.

I have one libertarian, free of Rinos.

So you are in the party that has never won a single election? If you are not a republican, why do use the term rino? They are republicans but you support libertarians, an insignificant collection of losers.

Progressives Rinos moderates all the same, the reason why our country is FUBAR

 

[Nosmo King]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...

• Cached
• Similar

Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis

With your study's introduction opening with this statement:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)

With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.

Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.

Man made global warming = pseudoscience

So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?

It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.

 

[Rustic]

With overwhelming support for immigration reform even among repubicans. With a full 4 out of 5 supporting step by step immigration reform.

The survey found that nearly 4 in 5 GOP primary voters (78 percent) support a step-by-step approach to immigration reform that emphasizes several key elements, including: border enforcement, E-verify, and earned legal status with significant conditions including paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and proof of employment.

New AAF GOP Primary Voter Survey Finds Strong Support For House Immigration Reform Efforts | Survey

With the poll released by a republican organization, lead by John McCain's former economic advisor.

But of course, it will be ignored too by the Fringe Right.

Amnesty is never a good thing...

 

[bedowin62]

THE ONLY supporting of the Tea Party that mattes is with the ones who elected them dullard.

just what do you want to see done with them since you say they are so unpopular you mindless moron?
AGAIN if you dont like democracy move to North Korea

The tea party does not have a majority in congress.

Duh! Progressives do...

Because most Americans are. What do you hate the most about a representative democracy?

you losers are the ones crying and obsessed with others and what they are doing.
if your own Party is so popular and the others so out of touch they wouldnt have the House and Senate

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...

• Cached
• Similar

Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis

With your study's introduction opening with this statement:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)

With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.

Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.

Man made global warming = pseudoscience

So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?

It's code for 'Conservatives disagree or fail to understand'. Examples include: the theory of evolution, any environmental hazard (e.g. asbestos, lead based paint), stem cell research, and global warming.

people who arent brainwashed losers acknowledge the lead paint and asbestos issues have become just a pig trough for trial lawyers

 

[Rustic]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...

• Cached
• Similar

Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis

With your study's introduction opening with this statement:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)

With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.

Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.

Man made global warming = pseudoscience

So, don't know what the word "pseudo" means, do you?

Man made global warming = sham

 

[bedowin62]

Lawsuit Lollapalooza - AEI - American Enterprise Institute
www.aei.org/.../lawsuit-lollapalooza/

• Cached

American Enterprise Institute
Loading...
Apr 1, 2005 - Asbestos litigation in Madison County really took off in 2000 when Randall ... judge, stepped down to become the lead counsel in an asbestos case. .... out-of-state asbestos claims, labeling the suits a “cash cow” for the county and ... suits, easy judges, and forum-shopping to match any trial lawyer's dreams.

 

[Rustic]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical
www.forbes.com/.../peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scien...

• Cached
• Similar

Forbes
Loading...
Feb 13, 2013 - It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. ... Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis

With your study's introduction opening with this statement:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003)

With the study being a poll of very, very specific individuals:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

They only cited those who worked in the oil or related industries. The study was to determine how those scientists who work in the oil industry justify their opposition to global warming.

Not only are we interested in the positions [professional experts in petroleum and related industries] take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

The authors of the study were very, very clear that they weren't polling scientists in general and was not a representative sample of the views of scientists on the issue. Nor did they ever claim it was:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And finally, even the characterization of their study for the narrow sample they did examine was incorrectly protrayed by Forbes:

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

When you sample a representative survey of climate scientists in general, the consensus is overwhelming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Between 90% to 97% back human caused climate change.

Man made global warming = pseudoscience

So you say. Scientists who study the climate sciences overwhelmingly disagree with you.

If I want to know about heart surgery, I don't consult an auto-mechanic. I talk to a heart surgeon. If I want to know about carpentry, I don't talk to an IT specialist. I talk to a carpenter.

And if I want to know about the climate, I don't consult some random dude on an internet form. I check with climate scientists.

They do what they are payed to do, hence pseudoscience

 

[bedowin62]

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to ...
www.foxnews.com/.../un-climate-change-plan-would-...

• Cached

Fox News Channel
Loading...
Mar 27, 2009 - A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental ... week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses .... This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[bedowin62]

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's ...
wattsupwiththat.com/.../ipcc-official-“climate-policy...

• Cached
• Similar

Watts Up With That?
Loading...
Nov 18, 2010 - Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change ... I wonder how many times the 'wealth redistribution' meme will go around? ..... 1) Huge amounts of money will flow into Africa which will allow them to ...

 

[Davros]

With Tea Party support at a new low. The lowest ever recorded:

great you got a chart leftard!!!


then it should be easy to say what Tea Party members are going to get replaced in congress next year by some really awesome Progressive democrat right????

how about the whole list???

Even if none are replaced, they still wouldn't have a majority.

 

[Skylar]

With Tea Party support at a new low. The lowest ever recorded:

great you got a chart leftard!!!

I've got half a decade of polling by one of the most respected polling agencies in the nation. It doesn't say what you want to believe. So as your ilk is prone to do, you ignore it if it.

Your standards of credibility are based *solely* on whether or not a source says what you want to believe. Any source taht doesn't is ignored, no matter how credible. Any source that does is lauded, no matter how lacking in credibility.

That's just plan old Confirmation Bias. A fallacy of logic, one of the least reliable methods of viewing the world. And your sole method of addressing any objective evidence.

then it should be easy to say what Tea Party members are going to get replaced in congress next year by some really awesome Progressive democrat right????

how about the whole list???

Tea Party republicans are what? 40 folks in congress? Out of about 550?

Even among republican representatives Tea Party candidates make up less than 1 in 5. With Tea Party support *falling* to record lows. And virtually none of the Tea Party demands being enacted.

Yet you're doubling down on exclusion, on 'purity tests', on ignoring math, on literally purging the majority of the GOP base from the GOP, on ignoring anyone or anything that contradicts or even questions you.

So much the 'big tent' of the GOP. Its now little more than a drink umbrella.

 

[rightwinger]

Your perception is my point. The fringe right perception of 'conservative' is so narrow, so exclusionary, so extreme.....that almost no republicans meet it. No moderates do. And obviously no liberals do.

In all of congress......perhaps 40 folks meet your definition. And among the general public, fewer still.

Actually, most Americans support lower taxes, balanced budgets, and secured borders. It's too bad the Republican Party got hijacked by Neocon/Progressive assholes. It's time to clean house.

So what? Most Americans support Medicare and Medicaid too. Most Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Sane politicians realize tough choices have to be made that will be largely unpopular.

Bigger Government and Open Borders is not what most Republicans want. And they haven't been properly represented. It's time to change that.

We don't have 'open borders'. And on virtually every policy position by your hard right fringe, the American public is on the other side.

They oppose PP funding. The American people support it.
They oppose same sex marriage. The American people support it.
They oppose raising the minimum wage. The American people support it.
They oppose there being a minimum wage. The American people support it.
They oppose any global warming measures. The American people support it.
They denounce the very idea of climate change. The American people support it.
They oppose expanding environmental protections. The American people support it.
They oppose improving ties with Cuba. The American people support improved relations with Cuba.
They want an expanded role for the US military overseas. The American people don't.
They oppose immigration reform. The American people support it.
They support the Tea Party. Americans overwhelminly don't with support at record low.
They support lowering capital gains taxes. Most Americans support raising them.
They oppose net neutrality. The American people support it.
They oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The American people support it.

Our borders are like a screen door on a submarine, stopping nothing.

Why don't you make like a tree....and get out of here

 

[Rustic]

THE ONLY supporting of the Tea Party that mattes is with the ones who elected them dullard.

just what do you want to see done with them since you say they are so unpopular you mindless moron?
AGAIN if you dont like democracy move to North Korea

The tea party does not have a majority in congress.

Bingo!!!
The progressives do...

Because more Americans agree with what you falsely call progressive.

If the shoe fits, yep, progressives control congress. Hence the colossal failure.

 

[Rustic]

With Tea Party support at a new low. The lowest ever recorded:

great you got a chart leftard!!!

I've got half a decade of polling by one of the most respected polling agencies in the nation. It doesn't say what you want to believe. So as your ilk is prone to do, you ignore it if it.

Your standards of credibility are based *solely* on whether or not a source says what you want to believe. Any source taht doesn't is ignored, no matter how credible. Any source that does is lauded, no matter how lacking in credibility.

That's just plan old Confirmation Bias. A fallacy of logic, one of the least reliable methods of viewing the world. And your sole method of addressing any objective evidence.

then it should be easy to say what Tea Party members are going to get replaced in congress next year by some really awesome Progressive democrat right????

how about the whole list???

Tea Party republicans are what? 40 folks in congress? Out of about 550?

Even among republican representatives Tea Party candidates make up less than 1 in 5. With Tea Party support *falling* to record lows. And virtually none of the Tea Party demands being enacted.

Yet you're doubling down on exclusion, on 'purity tests', on ignoring math, on literally purging the majority of the GOP base from the GOP, on ignoring anyone or anything that contradicts or even questions you.

So much the 'big tent' of the GOP. Its now little more than a drink umbrella.

Hence, progressives have run congress for decades now more than ever...