quo vadis, republicans?

Note to Conservatives:

When the former governor of Massa-fuckin’-chusetts, the blow-dried RINO Mitt Romney, is your pick for standard bearer of the conservative cause, you can pretty much count on getting your balls kicked all the way up to your ears in the next mid-term and Presidential elections.

And, Republican base? The fact that you consider hobby exorcist and creationism supporter Bobby Jindal the next best choice just about guarantees the Republican Party will be relegated to a regional party for the next decade or two.  If carrying only Dixie in the next few national elections is acceptable to you, then keep going on your current path.

The Republican party needs a complete reboot.  It needs to shed its anti-science positions, return to conservative, small-government principles in a convincing manner, and stop pissing on the Constitution in the name of terrorism prevention, or they’ll go the way of the Whigs inside of ten years.


61 thoughts on “quo vadis, republicans?

  1. Ted says:


    Only I think that they’ve developed a taste for big government, nanny state rule.

    Mitt’s health care fiasco, for example. No child left behind, for another (I’m still mystified what part of the Constitution authorizes that).

  2. Kristopher says:

    Just because CPAC has the word “Conservative” in it, does not make them conservatives. These folks would only be considered “conservatives” in the B oston-Washington corridor socialist crap holes they live in.

    Hopefully Palin and Co will siomply blow their sorry asses out of the water in 2012.

  3. Sam Hill says:

    Concur completely. My House Rep is a shiny new junior democrat. He does not reply to emails from constituents (too busy getting the office decorated?).
    So, being of Independent mindset, I wrote to the County Republican Chairman to make inquiry about November 2010’s potential candidates.
    That was over two weeks ago and it is all quiet on that front. Not the best of indicators when one feels that some more change is truly needed.

  4. Jay G. says:

    Preparing disagreement in 3… 2… 1..

    Oh, wait. I don’t disagree.

  5. Shootin' Buddy says:


    What is “anti-science” (aka, anti-agenda) about the RNC platform?

    Are we still freaking out about Bush’s refusal to make lampshades from babies?

  6. Tam says:

    Actually, I believe that the ex-Pres just didn’t authorize the use of federal funds for pre-natal lampshades. (Although, given the press coverage of the topic, it’s an easy error to make.)

    Still, he picked the oddest of hills on which to die.

  7. Reese says:

    Let the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. At this point simply correcting or fixing the party won’t be effective. Unfortunately, this country lacks necessary political diversity. Factions within the two major parties have been rooted out and members are being told to “toe the party line,” whether they fully agree with it or not. This of course leads to extreme division and polarization.

    America is being turned into a European Nation State and our States are being reduced to Provinces that have little power. No politician has the balls to put this country back on course because actually addressing the issues would be political suicide.

  8. Peter says:

    I’m with Reese. It’s no longer a matter of the Republican and/or Democratic parties – both are so like the other that they’re both despicable. Those who are genuinely conservative, from either/and/or a moral or financial or Constitutional perspective, must look for new options. I don’t think we’ll find any answers (or any hope) within either major party.

    Where’s Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party when we need them? Yes, I know he was a Liberal, but in the classic sense, not what it means today – and I daresay most of us could get on rather well with his brand of Liberalism. What price a San Juan Hill charge up Capitol Hill?


  9. Tam says:

    Yes, I know he was a Liberal, but in the classic sense…

    He was a lot closer to FDR than he was to Thomas Jefferson…

  10. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Tam, right, Bush did not follow the German model for lampshades where governmental money is used to make lampshades. “Science” proponents support spending Reichspfennig for lampshades; they now have their wish.

    Is the federal dollar freeze for lampshade making what we are claiming to be “anti-science”?

    Is Obama’s throwing money away on the phony “science”, er, I mean agenda of “Global Warming” anti-science? Or, since we are throwing money at Socialists in white lab coats is this allowed as valid science?

  11. Wild Deuce says:


    Perhaps you should begin by defining Science?

  12. Tam says:

    Theodore Roosevelt was probably the third most “classically liberal” President of the XXth Century.

    This is more by way of damning Twentieth Century Presidents than praising Teddy “Hepburn Act” Roosevelt.

  13. lenf says:

    Who is John Galt?

  14. MarkHB says:

    Yeah, it would be seven shades of Great if there was a valid opposition party. Whilst America didn’t invent the automobile (gahhhh… dumbass!) it did put men on the Moon. Nor did it invent the Jet Engine, but Boeing did sell it to the world. Didn’t invent penicillin either, but it did make it cheap enough to heal half the ills on the planet – and keep coming up with modifications of it to keep ahead of bacteria’s *cough* evolution.

    America deserves more than “The party that thinks Science is Satan spelled backwards” and “The Tax and Spend Gun-Grabbers”. It would be great to see more from politics than two sets of options that make either less or more nauseous.

  15. Tam says:

    “The party that thinks Science is Satan spelled backwards”

    To which party does this refer? The one that eats granola and thinks the sky is falling and that atomic reactors, like, blow up and stuff? Or the one with the flat-earthers who want the Theory of Gravity taught alongside Intelligent Falling in Physical Science 101?

  16. MarkHB says:

    To be honest, that’s pretty much both of ’em. Hell, they both think Solar power is some kind of viable alternative, which is a basic mathematics failure any way you slice it.

    To be absolutely clear, I want to see two viably competative parties, not merely “sickening” and “really, really sickening”

  17. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Science is Satan spelled backwards??? Which party is that? Where in the platform is this?

    I asked again, what are we referencing?

    Is this a lingering vestige of BDS? A freeze in the spending of taxpayer funds for lampshades of human skin is anti-science? Lampshades of human skin, how chic, how hip, how very European. If only we were cool enough to use public funds for it!

    Where is the anti-science in the Republican platform? Are we saying this because all the cool, good-looking Media kids at the hip lunch table tell us this?

    Please show me, I await enlightening by all the Agendaists, er, Scientists out there:


  18. MarkHB says:

    Well, parading a bunch of kids as “Jesus’ Own” or something in defence of blocking all stem-cell research funding would be part of it. Denying anything to do with global climate change and shutting down any research to do with it would be part of it – personally, I think we lack sufficient data, but that doesn’t mean we should stop gathering data, quite the opposite. I could go on, and I would, but if you can’t see how the Republican party’s opposed scientific progress over the last eight years, then I’m too tired and too strung out to push you in the right direction.

    I’ve got science to do.

  19. MarkHB says:

    Oh, yeah. One phrase.

    “Creation Science”.

    Two lies for the price of one.

  20. Kaerius says:

    Incidentally, some scientists have now came up with a way of turning skincells into stemcells.

    Way to get left behind in the dust.

  21. MarkHB says:

    It’s nearly six years since we learned how to turn liver cells into stem cells. It’s nearly a year since doctors in Brazil grew some woman a new trachea using stem cells. But noooooo…. stem cells murdered babies, so no funding for YOU to paedocidal bastards…

    Yeah. Science is Satan spelled backwards as far as Bush’s bunch went. Sorry. Live with it.

  22. Reese says:

    Right, everyone knows that Bush’s second term was a joke, most presidential 2nd’s are. So stop whining like Nancy “The Harpy” Pelosi and move on. The problem with our current two party system started when Party Primaries became the main way of choosing a presidential candidate. The parties lost control of their platform and the Cult of Personality was formed.

    Did Obama win because he was the torch bearer for the Democratic Party platform? Hell no!, that was Hilary. Obama won because he was the smoothest talking candidate and conservatives (not Republicans) couldn’t get behind McCain. I doubt that anyone here could tell us what the two major party platforms are. Bueller? Bueller? That’s right, they don’t exist beyond what the supposed mouth piece for that party says for that day.

    Eventually, moderates on both sides will form a viable third party, I believe. Leave the partisan bickering to the GOP and the Jackasses.

  23. MarkHB says:

    Yo, Reese. I have. I’m more worried about what happens next than what’s happenning now (barring that minor hopey-wish that America doesn’t become so completely backrupt that the Saudi and Chinese controlling interests don’t foreclose and move in claiming control quite, quite legally).

    I realise I’m in the tidgy minority in actually looking to windward here, but I’m used to being unfashionable. It’s never bothered me before.

  24. Tam says:

    Well, parading a bunch of kids as “Jesus’ Own” or something in defence of blocking all stem-cell research funding would be part of it.

    Premise Check:

    Was there “blocking of all stem cell research”?

    Or was federal funding of stem cell research blocked?

    Lightning Round:

    Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does the Federal Goobermint derive the right to collect taxes and use them for any kind of scientific research?

    Bonus Question:

    Spaceship One, Government Zero” refers to what heavily federally funded achievement?

    If you still own a copy of Kings Of The High Frontier, please go throw it in the fireplace, as it will serve you better keeping your body warm…

  25. MarkHB says:

    *pinches the bridge of his nose*

    Which of us is a family friend of the Rutans?

    That would be me, unless I missed a fucktonne of emails.

    Your point?

  26. MarkHB says:

    Rank-pulling aside, Bush used his powers to shut down stem cell research to the point where mediterranean countries are ahead of America when it comes to medical therapy.

    That’s fucked up. Totally fucked up.

    Argue me that point, somehow.

  27. MarkHB says:

    Oh and one last thing.

    Tam, the more you damn me as something you seem to have decided I am, the more it seems you have me categorised as anything other than who I am as a man… hon, the more friction there will be. I’m in a very transitional phase, so how about you let my gimbals settle for a while before you go telling me what I am and how I’ve disappointed you, hmm? Some very laudable capitalists still trust me, and whilst I completely acknowledge having lost my marbles a couple of times this week (mainly due to a prolonged illness in the wake of a horrible year), if you keep trying to shove me into boxes, it’s just going to be nasty for both of us. Let’s spare ourselves that.

  28. MarkHB says:

    And no, Pawnbroker, the person who wages a blogpost war on a one-footed librarian for daring to levy a death-stare at a man in a bar, I am not threatening Tamara with any physical violence. Shove it already.

  29. MarkHB says:

    Quickfire round, in the spirit of fun:

    Who’se video spawned a quarter million views of the SpaceShipTwo launch on YouTube?

    1) Tamara’s

    2) MarkHB’s

  30. MarkHB says:

    come to that, whose video was ripped off shot for shot by Branson’s Virgin Galactic?

    1) MarkHB
    2) Anyone else.

    To the second, kiddies.

  31. Tam says:

    Tam, the more you damn me as something you seem to have decided I am, the more it seems you have me categorised as anything other than who I am…

    You and me both, and I hope it saddens you as much as me.

    I will refrain from saying “I’m rubber, you’re glue. What bounces off me sticks to you,” and instead say that you have my phone number, but I don’t have yours.

  32. Wild Deuce says:

    I’m seeing a lot of straw men here. Nothing like twisting the facts about those “wacky religious” people and then ridiculing them based on what YOU just said about them.

    I’ll ask again. Can someone define “Science” for me?

    It seems that before you can paint something with the “anti-science” brush you must know the definition of science.

    For the record, there is no Constitutional authority for the government to be funding ANY research that doesn’t help it fulfill its Constitutional duties (this includes stem cells or spaceships).

    I believe the Bush administration blocked federal funding for “embryonic” stem cell research … not all stem cell research. If you are going to argue, at least argue the correct facts.

  33. MarkHB says:

    But me, I’m a red pink commie bastard, hate private industry, want Gubment everywhere. You can tell. I want Obama’s recovery package to work. Obviously I’m a UK-style socialist. I love security cameras. And seven cops per 260,000 people. I love walking past that car with the four inch dent my head made in it’s fender when a dozen feral youths smashed my precious skull into it. I Just loves me some socialism. Let’s have the least common denomenator, because my fifteen years learning one of the hardest, most wierd-ass trades in the world totally supports “democratizing” that so EVERYONE can be a 3D animator.

    Hoo yeah, let’s have us loads of that. And let’s get rid of guns, too, ’cause I love being helpless.

    Hey, while we’re about it, I’m going to be anti-abortion because I don’t have ovaries and can only be raped in my body, not in my future. Yeah.

    Oh I’m so behind all of this, somone take a fucking photo.

  34. MarkHB says:


    I don’t actually have your number. Databases crash, and I’ve had to do a low-level. My email addy’s mark h b at gmail dot com, and if there’s any way to save our friendship I’d like to find it. I don’t have enough friends to lose them to misunderstandings, so if you’d email me your number I’ll call you in the next few days and we’ll see if we can’t talk it out. I’d like it if we could. Despite our recent bitter arguments, you do really matter to me.

  35. MarkHB says:

    *chuckles* If it makes you feel any better, any Rayndian solipsist can see the necessity of trimming sails and surviving when the wind is unfavourable. What else am I doing bar that?

  36. TCK says:

    The fact that you call the Rpub. ‘antiscience’ disqualifies you for any comment on the matter. How, exactly, is the Left’s mantra that we should spend billions killing embryos despite the fact that adult stem-cell research has led to dozens of working human treatments while embryonic stem-cell research has, despite having a head start, failed to advance beyond the “we can give lab animals cancer and tumors” phase?

    As for the first part, a man with *GASP* actual religious convictions, WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN! Damn sky fairy worshipping rednecks.

  37. Alan says:

    Here in Minnie-sew-tah, the news folk were all excited because Gov Pawlenty came in ninth in the straw poll. No one seemed to notice that #8 was Giuliani. Should we really be getting that worked up that Tim P. came in *after* the guy who ran one of the more disastrous ’08 campaigns?

    These straw polls are only good as an indicator of today’s political winds. (Palin was something like #5; where do you think she would have placed three months ago?) 2012 is a long ways off.

  38. Marko says:


    to tell you the honest truth, I don’t really care what you think of my qualifications to make any sort of comment on whatever subject on my own blog.

    Also, you can have religious convictions without sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring or denying observed reality. I know lots of very religious people who manage to be religious without refusing to acknowledge a hundred and fifty years of reliable, verified evidence in the fields of biology, paleontology, geology, climatology, and a dozen other scientific disciplines.

    You show me a roster of Presidential candidates out of the (R) party where the majority of them don’t “believe” in evolution, and I’ll just go ahead and call that party anti-science–especially when both rising stars in that party actively support teaching ID in high school science classes. (That’s before we even go through the laundry list of science-hostile acts and policies enacted by the last Republican administration.)

  39. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Ah zo, jetzt sehe ich! If it wasn’t lampshades, it is the Holy Writ of Tautauoution.

    So what if one refuses to “believe” in evolution. The discoverers of DNA do not believe in evolution. They think we are interstellar money shots. Are the discoverers of the double helix anti-science?

    Agendaists are upset that someone may prevent them from sucking on the public money pipeline, like leeches in the primordial ooze. Everytime someone suggests “umm, I don’t think taxpayers should be paying your freight”, we get self-righteous lectures on “science”.

    Just monkeys fighting over the fruit. They way it has always been. 🙂

  40. Marko says:

    “So what if one refuses to ‘believe’ in evolution”?

    Evolution is observed reality. It’s a fact, not a theory. The Theory of Evolution is our best description of how the process works, but the existence of the process is not in dispute.

    If you think that you can discard a mountain of observed, recorded, verifiable evidence by not “believing” in it, then we really have no basis for a discussion on the subject of science, you and I.

  41. Wild Deuce says:

    “Evolution is observed reality. It’s a fact not a theory.” Some (on your own side) would disagree:


  42. Marko says:

    Yes, some people disagree. These people are either:

    a.) scientifically illiterate (no shame in that, but one shouldn’t run around and contribute to adult discussions on the very subject),

    b.) opposed to evolution for religious reasons–perceived conflicts with their favored theology (no shame in that, either, as long as one stays honest with oneself and others about it), or

    c.) they are what we call “crackpots”.

    Regarding your link (“Hitler believed in evolution!!!1!!!ONe!!!”):

    Not that it’ll serve to change your mind, but your quote dump list is a bit flawed:


    When you resort to making an Argument from Authority, make sure you include some credible authority.

  43. Reese says:

    Two little things. I think most of the religious “believers” do not baulk at the thought of evolution taking place within a species (adaptation for survival). The hair starts standing up when the talk of evolving from apes comes up.

    That leads me to point #2. If I remember my biology correctly, Darwin theorized that man evolved along the same lines as apes, not from apes. A small but significant difference.

  44. Wild Deuce says:

    Did you click on the link? If you did, I have to assume that you are labeling committed evolutionists as “scientifically illiterate”, “religious” and “crackpots.”

    Most of the people quoted on that page are not in agreement with creationists. The quotes merely shed light on the fact that evolutionary theory is not an established fact, even among scientists. These scientists just happened to be caught in a moment of intellectual honesty. These quotes were just a few that I found interesting:

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.” ~ Charles Darwin

    “It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.” ~ Dr. I.L. Cohen

    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” ~ Stephen Jay Gould

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” ~ Dr. Stephan J Gould

    “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins

  45. Wild Deuce says:

    “Not that it’ll serve to change your mind, but your quote dump list is a bit flawed:


    When you resort to making an Argument from Authority, make sure you include some credible authority.”

    Was that for ALL the quotes?

  46. Marko says:

    What the hell is a “committed evolutionist”? (What the hell is an “evolutionist”, for that matter?)

    Your list is a mix of quotes that are either taken out of context, fabricated outright, or ancient. In addition, there’s not a single evolutionary biologist on the list–those would be the people who are actually experts in that field.

    A geologist or a paleontologist are scientists, to be sure, but their Ph.D. doesn’t make them experts in biology, evolutionary or otherwise, and claiming that “these scientists oppose evolution” is about as relevant to the validity of evolution as your family practitioner opposing gun ownership is to the gun control debate.

    Look, believe what you want. Just be honest why you believe as you do. You don’t reject evolution because you got a biology degree and then decided that the evidence was lacking. You reject evolution because it conflicts with your personal belief system. That’s your right, of course, but it doesn’t make evolution less a reality, nor does it elevate ID/Creationism to the same credibility as legitimate scientific theories.

    Now, if you don’t mind, give the evolution debate a rest. I’m not likely to change your mind, and you won’t be able to change mine. I have better things to do with my time, and I’m sure you do, too.

  47. Wild Deuce says:


    I don’t think any amount of quotations (certainly not flawed quotations) will change your mind on evolution. They were not meant to change your mind and I wouldn’t even want to try. I just wanted to dispute the notion that evolutionary theory is a settled fact among scientists. The debate rages underneath the surface and it does break out into the open from time to time. It is intellectually dishonest to say, “This is the way it is. We will no longer discuss the matter.” Every so often, an evolutionist questions the premise and speaks up.

    There is a book out there that has observations from Evolutionists themselves regarding the topic. I use the term “observations” because it does go beyond the mere quotation and gives the entire context of the observation so that accusations of “misquotation” can be avoided. It is fully annotated. Unfortunately I can not locate it since it is still buried in a box in the garage from my last move.

    I apologize for the link with the flawed quotations (I will cede that point without reviewing all the rebuttals). I was doing a quick search. Hopefully, you would be able to review all of the tenets of evolution with equal tenacity and discover the severe problems within the scientific community regarding the theory. A good place to start would be with the book, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils. If nothing else, it would give you something else to ridicule.

    I will repeat what I have said in the past … I will not fly into a seething, frothy rage if you refuse to accept my beliefs. That would be stupid and an utter failure to realize that his is the internet. I do thank you for allowing those that disagree to post freely.


    You are correct. Creationists believe in micro-evolution (a repeatable and observable process) and reject macro-evolution (non-repeatable and non-observable process).

  48. Wild Deuce says:

    Yes … agreed. Let’s give it a rest. I will read your next response and let it be.

    Thanks for the chat.

    Now go finish that book of yours.

  49. Shootin' Buddy says:

    “Look, believe what you want. Just be honest why you believe as you do. You don’t reject evolution because you got a biology degree and then decided that the evidence was lacking.”

    No, people with biology degrees, heck, people who wrote biological history reject it. I cited only one example of a person who discovered the double helix and rejected evolution because the evidence was lacking and an alien cum shot was much more likely.

    People who “believe” in evolution have agendas too, as you certainly are aware. Agendaists are merely beggars and politicians in white lab coats.

  50. Tam says:

    I believe you are confusing the “Theory of Natural Selection” with “The Origins of Life”. I can assure you that Crick and Watson are (well, “were“, in the case of Crick,) both down with Natural Selection.

    As far as theories on the Origin of Life (as distinct from “Natural Selection”) Crick did flirt with Panspermia in the ’70s, but seemed to veer back towards abiogenesis later.

    I especially enjoy the reader above, Wild Deuce, who posted the Stephen Jay Gould quote regarding “a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” They can probably be forgiven for not realizing that Gould was discussing “gradualism” vs. “punctuated equilibrium” and not saying what they think he was saying. Also, a Charles Darwin quote? Really? I mean, Darwin was a bright and observant guy and quite the trailblazer, but I’m sure we can find quotes from Bill Gates saying all we’d ever need was 640k or from Orville Wright stating that these movable ailerons would never catch on and wing-warping was the wave of the future…

  51. Phoronus says:

    The Darwin quote is absurd.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html breaks it down, but the synopsis is that it’s a rhetorical devise, his full quote is:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

    and then goes on to provide examples of varying ‘levels’ of sophistication of the eye.

    The whole thing is, not surprisingly, an arguement for why Evolution, as much as it may go against the ‘gut feeling’, is correct.

    And someone above said that Darwin said something about us not coming from apes. No modern evolutionary theory holds that we came from apes. Apes (and monkeys, chimps, etc) and us evolved from a common ancestor. There’s a difference.

    Anyway, I agree with the statement that the R party is anti-science and believe that it is almost certainly going to collapse into a regional party for the short-term future, at least. I mean, Palin? Joe the Plumber? Seriously? Maybe in 15 years or so, there’ll be a reasonable, non-dominated by the religious, ‘conservative’ party.

  52. mhb: “And no, Pawnbroker, the person who wages a blogpost war on a one-footed librarian for daring to levy a death-stare at a man in a bar, I am not threatening Tamara with any physical violence. Shove it already.”

    don’t know how the hell i got sucked into your little hissy fit here, h-b…but for what it’s worth i quite doubt your ability to physically carry out violence on tam anyway (even if she wasn’t the best-armed justagirl in the midwest).

    as for your crass description of breda and your unprovoked taunt of me, per your typical m.o. you choose to ignore the inconvenient fact of the true original gist of that exchange. but your allusion to “shoving it” may be uncomfortably close to some closet desire, and i don’t swing thataway…not that there’s anything wrong with that for you, of course.

    and by now, even marko must be weary of your sycophantic (if often wildly tangential) agreement with his manifests of rejection of his forcefed “religious” upbringing and his confusion of that with the unfettered belief in a supernatural plan.



  53. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Biologists who believe in Galactic Jism aside, I ask again: where is the “anti-science” in the Republican platform?

    Are Republicans advocating gluing moths to trees in their platform? Faking drawings of embryos? Or other anti-science actions? Where is the anti-science § of the platform?

    As always happens in politics, “anti-science” means “not giving me a check”. Brave Libertarians chowing down at the Chinese buffet of political philosophy allow beggars in white coats to suck on the public pipeline as they: 1. know that their Star Trek fantasies are just around the corner and soon they will be able to teleport out of mom’s basement, 2. want to be considered one of the cool kids by teachers, the media, or their fellow Papa John’s employees, 3. or, hate mom and dad for what they did to them, and, by their Spock ears, they will show them.

  54. Shootin' Buddy says:

    *chirping of crickets*

    Ahhh, the crickets!

    So, no one is pointing out the anti-science provisions of the Republican platform. You mean there’s not an anti-science section in the platform. Maybe only the cool, smart kids (or those who want to be seen as cool and smart) in the lunchroom can see the anti-science section in the platform?

    I’ll just enjoy the crickets.

  55. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Maybe all the science fan boys are doing their laundry? Or gluing moths to trees? Or faking studies on vaccines and autism? Or faking data on bullet composition? Or any of the regular stuff that scientists do, like dripping their hand into my pocket and screaming “science”.

  56. Marko says:


    maybe some of us have better things to do with their lives than play Google monkey for you. There’s nothing I could bring up that would serve to convince you, anyway.

    You, too, are cordially invited to give it a rest.

  57. Tam says:

    Now, to be fair, I’d say SB already did the Google work by providing a link to the Official GOP Platform.

    While I see plenty in there I disagree with for one reason or another (can you believe they’re still trying to re-arrange the flag-burning deck chair?), I cannot find the “anti-science” plank at the linked site. This makes the initial quote:

    The Republican party needs a complete reboot. It needs to shed its anti-science positions…

    somewhat specious.

    The GOP may be crammed to the gills with Flat-Earthers (and big.gov RINOS, too) but to say that the party qua the party has an anti-science plank isn’t borne out by the facts.

  58. Wild Deuce says:

    Marko, did you have as nice a day in your neck of the woods today as we did here in NW Indiana?

  59. Marko says:

    All right, so maybe that statement was worded incorrectly. The platform has no explicit anti-science positions per se, so what I should have said was that the party needs to stop pandering to–and nominating–people with anti-science attitudes.


    yes, thank you. I took the kids out to go shopping and have lunch at the burger farm. It’s in the mid-40s here right now, so spring is just around the corner.

  60. Tam says:

    so what I should have said was that the party needs to stop pandering to–and nominating–people with anti-science attitudes.

    I’ll give a big +1000 on that.

    (…although I always remain skeptical as to what I read in the newspapers regarding candidates: The GOP could put up a Gould/Kamin ticket and the MSM would excoriate them as “anti-science” because they weren’t in the Gradualism camp. I don;t believe CNN: For all I trust them, Obama may have an “I Heart Milton Friedman” tramp stamp and Sarah Palin’s been caught on camera slipping Dawkins some tongue…)

  61. Shootin' Buddy says:

    What are we counting as “pandering”? What is “anti-Science”?

    Having a disagreement with the Holy Writ of Science? Burning people at the stake for daring to question the Beggars in White Lab Coats?

    You do know that Holy Science is nothing but politics, right? If only I had a source that you would not question. Something that the Wookie Suiters would use. If only, if only . . . . Wait a tick! I’ll run like the clappers to GoogleMonkey.com.

    Google Monkey Powers Activate!!!=>http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132183.html

    As well, look what teleported into my hands through random mutation yesterday, or maybe it was ejaculated over from another universe. It’s the latest copy of anti-Science poison from those mouth-breathers at Reason magazine. Go, Google Monkey=>http://www.reason.com/issues/show/712.html

    Good monkey!

    Yes, those mouth-breathers at Reason have attacked Holy Science and a Beggar in a White Coat. This cannot stand!

    So, we’ll see a blog post thingy on how Reason has committed heresy, right? Any day now? Anyone? Bueller?

Comments are closed.