When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?

[Stephanie]

A lot of those devices pay for themselves. For instance, converting from a old HVAC system to a new high efficiency one will save $900.00 a year in utilities.

Hey, I believe in capitalism baby. If the device can save $900 a year, there is a market. People like to save, especially on utilities. And capitalists LOVE to save on utilities because that helps the bottom line, you see.

A friend of mine up north worked out an independent energy system. It totally allows you to live off the grid and cost less than ($5k per 1000sf.) It uses solar, wind and biofuel. Provides air and heat system, hot water system, standard electric box and outlets in every room and interior/exterior lighting. He sold the crap out of these things until the State banned living off the grid.

Wonderful.

BUt you know what, Capitalism isn't a holy system. Sometimes you just do things because they are the right thing to do, even if you don't get a personal gain out of it.

really, you found this out AFTER you made all yours and is now retired? capitalism was good to you then I bet
as if we haven't been doing the right things on OUR OWN. No, we need this government to PUNISH us some more

 

[mudwhistle]

And how? The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?

How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment

Your republican congressman engaging a scientist below. And you wonder why America scores low in math and science, wonder no more.




"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

I believe it was the onset of the Teaparty. I mean these people are scary stupid.

Yup, demanding spending cuts is tantamount to terrorism.

 

[Stephanie]

And how? The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?

How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment

Your republican congressman engaging a scientist below. And you wonder why America scores low in math and science, wonder no more.




"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

I believe it was the onset of the Teaparty. I mean these people are scary stupid.

Yup, demanding spending cuts is tantamount to terrorism.

Just unbelievable the NAMES they are calling "we the people" who are Republicans and don't bow down to "their" way of thinking

I've never seen it this bad

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats have George Soros, so they created a boogeyman known as the Koch Brothers.

The other day Harry Reid actually said on the floor of the Senate that Republicans are high on coke. He blames the Koch Bros. for every evil in the world, regardless how irrational the claim may be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question. Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.

The only folks for whom the debate is not over are the undecideds.
______________

Whether or not Jon Stewart has any credibility as a 'journalist' is moot - the people who voted for the congressmen featured in the clips in the O/P video should be embarrassed. At best, those committee members are playing stupid to advance an agenda, at worse, they really are that stupid.

Whether or not the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor is also moot, ass-u-me-ing one is not stupid enough to believe that pollution in the air is something we should just have to live (and die) with.

Did we learn NOTHING from the successful clean-up imposed on industry in the 1970's?
​

Sorry Joe,

I'm done trying to mollify those who will not accept the science. I am not discussing my beliefs here. I am discussing the science. Those who claim that climate change is not occurring and that it isn't a problem....do not get to claim equal standing with me. They are to be mocked.

The debate is over.

The debate is never over.............You position is a typical leftist position........you either agree with me or your wrong.............even when data goes against you..........even as the GW crowd is proven to falsify data to keep your cult going.........................

It's never over...........I oppose your position because your policies eventually hose the little people in this country by your ideals on this subject.

We are opposed..............I refuse to back down and you do as well...............Grid lock...........and a Lame Duck POTUS in office.

Can we at least agree that unfettered pollution is a bad thing?

Whether or not global warming is real or imagined, choking on the smoke pumped in to the air by an unregulated coal burning plant is NOT good for anyone's economy, sans those who profit from the operation of the plant.

Is there somewhere people are choking on smoke from coal? Didn't we already have 1972? Seems like we did, but I am not sure anymore, it's almost as if we've jumped back into the 1850s. Plants with any kind of emissions, including coal burning, are subject to a litany of EPA regulations, reporting, compliance, inspections, etc. Pursuant to Congressional order under the 1972 Clean Air Act and various other supporting environmental legislation. So all these evil plants spitting out smoke and choking people to make a buck... they don't exist.

I am very much an environmentally conscious person. I don't feel the need to reel off a long list of things I do to help the environment but there are plenty. I'm all for that. I am a conservative and that means conservationist to be perfectly literal. I think everyone should care about the environment, it is our civic duty to protect it. I just don't feel that is government's role. It's certainly not government's role if government is holding court with activist liberal front groups to shake down big business.

So you do agree. Good to know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution or if it's correct. It also has nothing to do with the fact that socialized medicine and gun control do not work. The only pretenders are morons like you, who've bought into the liberal socialist propaganda to allow government to control capitalism some more.

Botanists aren't climatologists. Neither are Geologists.

And, frankly, I don't feel like having our descendants deal with the results of AGW because you don't want the rich people to be denied a Dressage Horsie.

Here's the problem. You are right, if we are going to address this, we need government to control a lot of things. The thing about it is, dumbasses like you have been conditioned to think this is a bad thing.

You are right, if we are going to address this, we need government to control a lot of things. The thing about it is, dumbasses like you have been conditioned to think this is a bad thing.

Dumbasses like you think government can control a lot of things.
Government has proven that they can **** up a lot of things.
Ruin a lot of things, at a very high cost.
That the government "fixes" end up causing bigger, even more expensive problems.
But dumbasses like you think that government failure just requires even more government
spending, even more government control.
No thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question. Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.

The only folks for whom the debate is not over are the undecideds.
______________

Whether or not Jon Stewart has any credibility as a 'journalist' is moot - the people who voted for the congressmen featured in the clips in the O/P video should be embarrassed. At best, those committee members are playing stupid to advance an agenda, at worse, they really are that stupid.

Whether or not the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor is also moot, ass-u-me-ing one is not stupid enough to believe that pollution in the air is something we should just have to live (and die) with.

Did we learn NOTHING from the successful clean-up imposed on industry in the 1970's?
​

That was a great ad campaign.
Great Italian actor!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Class Warfare Card played...............

Who pays for the policies...........The poor when your cult of Enviro Wacks pass the bill on to the consumer when their bills go up in your fight for trying to save the planet................Save the planet......save the planet.

Problem, who is going to save us from your BS policies, that hurt the poor more than anyone else in higher bills. And spend money via the tax payer to study COW BURPS..........

Bunch of dumb asses who did too much dang acid in the 60's and fried their brains.

Actually, the consumer will be far better off if we passed simple laws. If we all drove fuel efficient cars, we'd save thousands per year.

Global Warming is class warfare. The rich are always going to be able to afford air conditioned offices and homes. Meanwhile, we have a major heat wave, and they are stacking poor people in refrigerator trucks because we don't have room for them in the Morgues.

If we all drove fuel efficient cars, we'd save thousands per year.

We should pass a law!
All poor people have to drive a Prius.
Too expensive? Think how much nicer traffic will be when you
force the poor to take the bus.
They'll be better off, right? Asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Spare me the BS...........Enviro policies cause utility prices to increase which hurts the people least able to afford it. You are part of the problem.

Really? Frankly, utility prices have actually FALLEN when adjusted for inflation. Do you even bother to fact check?

Imagine how high rates will be when the enviro-idiots ban fracking and all electricity is wind and solar.
Talk about a hockey stick!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question. Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.

The only folks for whom the debate is not over are the undecideds.
______________

Whether or not Jon Stewart has any credibility as a 'journalist' is moot - the people who voted for the congressmen featured in the clips in the O/P video should be embarrassed. At best, those committee members are playing stupid to advance an agenda, at worse, they really are that stupid.

Whether or not the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor is also moot, ass-u-me-ing one is not stupid enough to believe that pollution in the air is something we should just have to live (and die) with.

Did we learn NOTHING from the successful clean-up imposed on industry in the 1970's?
​

Sorry Joe,

I'm done trying to mollify those who will not accept the science. I am not discussing my beliefs here. I am discussing the science. Those who claim that climate change is not occurring and that it isn't a problem....do not get to claim equal standing with me. They are to be mocked.

The debate is over.

Those who claim that climate change is not occurring and that it isn't a problem....

What's the problem again?
Milder winters? Lower winter gas bills?
Fewer cold related deaths? That would be awful!

 

[Nosmo King]

Science and Conservatives do not mix. Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are. Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth. Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.

Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology? If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country?

If we can damage the environment, the Conservative belief that captains of industry and barons of Wall Street should shoulder the responsibility to clean it up. But that means spending profits for abatement, and where's the profit in abatement? Conservatives lean on business for answers and solutions while Liberals lean on the collective actions of government, where at least we have a say in what goes on.

Conservatives will ALWAYS dismiss facts as "junk science" and they will ALWAYS seek to blame government while seeking shelter beneath the board room table.

 

[mudwhistle]

Science and Conservatives do not mix. Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are. Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth. Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.

Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology? If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country?

If we can damage the environment, the Conservative belief that captains of industry and barons of Wall Street should shoulder the responsibility to clean it up. But that means spending profits for abatement, and where's the profit in abatement? Conservatives lean on business for answers and solutions while Liberals lean on the collective actions of government, where at least we have a say in what goes on.

Conservatives will ALWAYS dismiss facts as "junk science" and they will ALWAYS seek to blame government while seeking shelter beneath the board room table.

You're confusing conservatism with religion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Man can effect the environment, but when it comes to carbon we're like a mouse farting in a hurricane.

 

[Nosmo King]

Science and Conservatives do not mix. Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are. Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth. Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.

Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology? If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country?

If we can damage the environment, the Conservative belief that captains of industry and barons of Wall Street should shoulder the responsibility to clean it up. But that means spending profits for abatement, and where's the profit in abatement? Conservatives lean on business for answers and solutions while Liberals lean on the collective actions of government, where at least we have a say in what goes on.

Conservatives will ALWAYS dismiss facts as "junk science" and they will ALWAYS seek to blame government while seeking shelter beneath the board room table.

You're confusing conservatism with religion.

You're confusing reading with understanding.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The debate is over.

If that's the case why does half the country not believe you?

The debate is over.

If that's the case why does half the country not believe you?

First.....I'm not suggesting that anyone believe ME. I'm not a climatologist nor an expert on the subject in any way. I just have the ability to listen to those who are. The debate is over.

Regarding your ridiculous claim about half the country not "believing".....you ought to seek out some facts. 75% of Americans think "global warming" is a problem and over half think it is largely due to man's activities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/science/global-warming-concerns-grow.html?_r=0

http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Politics_and_Global_Warming.pdf

In general, politically conservative people are the only people who deny that climate change is a problem. One of these days, the reality will hit you. At which time you will fall back on the secondary position that nutters have. You know.....the one where they say they believe it is happening, but not caused by man. Baby steps for you, I suppose.

As your link confirms, half the country doesn't believe you, so tell me again how the debate is over.

 

[Stephanie]

snip:
Massachusetts Electric Rates Shoot Up 37 Percent

all of it here:
Massachusetts electric rates shoot up 37 percent - Massachusetts news - Boston.com

100 Comments

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Both parties are "stupid." That is clear to anyone capable of thinking.

Yet many on the left only identify and condemn stupidity by the R party...now that is really stupid.

This fails as an attempt to deflect.


The thread is about the ignorance and stupidity that is unique to the right:.

When did you move to the right, Clayton?

 

[mudwhistle]

Science and Conservatives do not mix. Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are. Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth. Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.

Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology? If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country?

If we can damage the environment, the Conservative belief that captains of industry and barons of Wall Street should shoulder the responsibility to clean it up. But that means spending profits for abatement, and where's the profit in abatement? Conservatives lean on business for answers and solutions while Liberals lean on the collective actions of government, where at least we have a say in what goes on.

Conservatives will ALWAYS dismiss facts as "junk science" and they will ALWAYS seek to blame government while seeking shelter beneath the board room table.

You're confusing conservatism with religion.

You're confusing reading with understanding.

No I'm not.

 

[Kimura]

Climate has always varied to a certain extent, some understood, some more than others. In the modern context, climate change is very well understood and documented. Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.

For example, scientists know from ice core records in Greenland and Antarctica that the earth phased in and out of glacial time periods in 120,000 year periods. The other important fact is that today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.

This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records. While this isn't completely unprecedented, there is an abundant amount of evidence that such changes are catastrophic for the biosphere.

today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.

This is not true. It appears to be based on the discredited hockey stick graph which was a fraud. The only scientific evidence for global warming is a 1 degree rise in median temperature over the past 100 years. This is not rare in the geological records, it has been much colder and much warmer in the past. In 1816, because of a volcano, median temperature dropped 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F) in one year. It was dubbed Year Without a Summer.

Now, it is very important to note, in 1816, they didn't get into some worldwide panic and launch some monumental effort to do something about it, they let nature take it's course because... well, that's all you can really do. In spite of tons and tons of gasses, ash and smoke, filling our atmosphere to the point of blocking the sun and causing median temperatures to drop so low we didn't have a summer, guess what eventually happened? That's right, Mother Nature cleaned itself up, dusted herself off, and the climate returned to it's normal cycle.

I wonder though... How was Mother Nature able to do that without a Liberal?

First of all, there isn't one hockey-stick data set of historical temperatures. There’s other data sets which demonstrate that over the last few centuries the earth has been getting warmer. This data was extrapolated and assembled from ice core samples, tree rings and other methodologies of direct measurement from around the world. Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.

Hypothetically, let’s play what if. What if the hockey stick was wrong? So what? The data assembled for anthropogenic global warming was originally extrapolated from climate mechanic studies, not reconstructive data models. The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick. Let’s say the plant was warmer 1,000 years ago, it doesn't change the fact that there’s been a sharp and dramatic increase in CO2, which explains the current trend of warming much better than any theory of “natural” warming.

In terms of the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, I would point you to NOAA.

Click Here

 

[Kimura]

Feel free to tell me what year we had the perfect temperature and why.

Climate has always varied to a certain extent, some understood, some more than others. In the modern context, climate change is very well understood and documented. Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.

For example, scientists know from ice core records in Greenland and Antarctica that the earth phased in and out of glacial time periods in 120,000 year periods. The other important fact is that today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.

This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records. While this isn't completely unprecedented, there is an abundant amount of evidence that such changes are catastrophic for the biosphere.

Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.
Sure. So what?

This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records.

I don't believe the evidence backs up your claim.

You never answered, when did we have the perfect temperature?

I'd have to go with the pre-industrial Holocene but that's an open ended question. It's liking asking a physician to define perfect health.

I'd have to go with the pre-industrial Holocene

So the perfect temperature is...............?

I don't know if there's anyway to define the "perfect temperature" for our planet. It's definitely better now than it was 20-30,000 years ago when most of the land was encased under ice sheets. I would say, from the available data, any point from our most recent climate and the extreme we're heading towards, such as tropic forests within the arctic circle, is a good indicator as any other.

The problems are not what the temperature is, or even variations, or even where it may head in a decade. The issue of critical importance is where it's heading at such a rapid pace.