GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[billc]

This is about time...I am tired of republican candidates being sand bagged by left wing, democrat supporting journalists who the GOP brings in to moderate their debates. Rush, Hannity and Levin would do a fair and honest job and would actually allow republicans a chance to get their message out...with out being set up for the next campaign strategy of the democrats (like stephanopalous and the birth control question) or have the moderator side with the democrat in a falsehood (candy crawley)...

And this is for Steve, a criticism of the GOP...establisment...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/15/Mark-Levin-I-ll-Moderate-2016-Debate-if-RNC-Asks

Levin, in comments picked up by The Right Scoop, said he was of two minds after reading the Breitbart News report about Spicer's comments. He said he believed the RNC was either "sucking up" to him so he does not criticize them or actually serious.
"I accept," Levin said. "Yes, I'll do it."
He said he would like to ask Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, if he were to run, why he refused to sign a brief opposing Obamacare. Levin said he would also like to ask Christie why he was weak on border security, soft on the Ground Zero Mosque, favored gun control, and supported environmentalists.
Levin said he would like to ask former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, if he were to run, if he felt there should be a "two Bush limit on the presidency" and why he "supports anarchy on the border" by promoting comprehensive immigration reform so fervently.

The talk radio host said he still did not fully believe the RNC would actually extend an offer to him because the Republican establishment "buffoons" who are "destroying the Republican Party from within" loathe him.

"You know how much they despise me," Levin said. "I think I am hated more [at the Republican National Convention] than at the Democrat convention."

 

[Steve]

I hope Chris Christie runs. I'd vote for him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[granfire]

Rush and moderate in one line... :lfao:

 

[billc]

I myself will, for the first time, donate money to any democrat opponent of Chris Christie...how's that for bipartisanship...

 

[Steve]

Really? I guess I didn't realize he had fallen out of favor with the new GOP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[arnisador]

This will only serve to make the GOP even more extreme. But, that's OK by me--I support Biden and/or H. Clinton too.

 

[Tgace]

Oh my LORD! Biden?!?! Seriously?!?

 

[arnisador]

Oh my LORD! Biden?!?! Seriously?!?

What's the alternative? A Republican? Anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-healthcare...I'll take sanity instead, thanks. It looks like he means to run and if he gets the nomination, what reasonable choice will there be? Do you expect the GOP to field a sane candidate? Christie is possibly acceptable, but we know he isn't extreme enough to get by Rush et al.

 

[billc]

Yes, keep believing the democrats when they say republicans are anti science...

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de

The Pew survey next asked about federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, which Democrats favored by 71 percent compared to only 38 percent for Republicans. But the GOP response is likely tied to two issues: (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral status as adult people; and (2) the general belief that spending taxpayer dollars on research is suboptimal. These are policy differences rather than scientific differences.

But what about Berezow’s examples of left-wing bias? Mooney’s basic assertion is that Democratic anti-science is a fringe with no power, unlike the know-nothing Tea Party activists who influence Republican politics. For example, Mooney argues that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “is not a liberal group commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesn’t drive mainstream Democratic policy, etc.” Fair enough. But the Pew survey does report that 48 percent of Democrats oppose using animals in scientific research, whereas only 33 percent of Republicans do. Like stem cells, using animals in research is often framed as a moral issue.

What about partisan attitudes toward genetically enhanced crops and animals? A 2006 survey by the Pew Trusts found that 48 percent of Republicans believe that biotech foods are safe compared to 42 percent of Democrats. Are they right to be leery? A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report noted: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” That is still the case today.

What about vaccines? Berezow mentions data showing that vaccine refusals are highest in notoriously Blue states like Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. In fact, the vaccine/autism scare was fueled in part by prominent lefties like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in popular publications such as Rolling Stone and Salon. In addition, such non-fringy characters as then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have declared things like, “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made similar statements.

(Page 2 of 2)
In addition, law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project have shown that the strong urge to avoid scientific and technological risk is far more characteristic of people who have egalitarian and communitarian values, that is to say, left-leaning folks.

Anti-health care? Really? thinking that trusting the federal government with control of the healthcare system is a dumb idea is anti healthcare? Yes, trusting the government with something as important as healthcare is a great idea considering the track record of the federal government with anything put under its control...just ask military vets how much fun V.A. Healthcare is to access, or go to the local post office, or try the compassion and understanding of the I.R.S. The democrats love the central government...bigger is better...for democrat politicians...

 

[billc]

The anti science meme is one of those false memes that the democrats spew, and their allies in journalism, entertainment, and education promote...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rats_really_the_pro-science_party_115367.html

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.

Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37’s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.

The second person is President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said , “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”


Wrong. The science was settled in 2002, if not earlier. In truth, the biomedical community never accepted this link, even as the myth gained wider acceptance among the general public. Obama was either severely uninformed about basic medical science or he was playing politics with people’s fears.


Once he got into office, his performance on the issue didn’t improve. In 2009, under the auspices of his newly elected administration, the FDA ordered a change from multi-dose to single-dose influenza vaccines because they contained less thimerosal -- the preservative that anti-vaccine activists wrongly believed causes autism. According to Scott Gottlieb, a former deputy commissioner of the FDA, this last minute switch was partially to blame for the vaccine shortages which occurred later that year.

Strangely, these anti-science decisions made by prominent Democrats were largely unreported by the news media. Yet, whenever a Republican makes an ignorant, unscientific remark or denies evolution or global warming, that is front-page news -- often for multiple days at a time.

And then there is this...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-liberals-war-on-science

The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.


There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil&#8221 or an 11 (“f—ing evil&#8221? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

 

[billc]

http://www.realclearscience.com/art...urnalists_ever_confront_democrats_106526.html

For instance, Plait criticizes Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana for signing into law a policy that could undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. Absent from Plait’s analysis is the fact that, when the bill was passed in 2008, the Louisiana legislature was controlled by Democrats.

Also AWOL from Plait’s list is Tom Harkin, the quack-loving, homeopathy-pushing Senator from Iowa who is responsible for helping legitimize alternative medicine. Such pseudoscientific voodoo has done more to harm average Americans than any misguided teachings on evolution or climate change.


Plait goes on to lament how scientific reports were censored in the “Bad Old Days” of the George W. Bush administration. He conveniently leaves out that the Obama Administration purposefully withheld information from scientists during the BP oil spill and doctored documents to make it appear as if scientists agreed with the drilling moratorium they implemented. And he did not mention that the Obama administration interfered with the FDA’s approval of genetically modified salmon.

And before the false meme of anti science gets to stem cell research...

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...9/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.


A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

Even though there are science based problems with embryonic stem cells, mainly with their strong tendency to turn into cancer and no real medical break throughout with them because of this tendency, anti science democrats push embryonic stem cell research because they see it as away to support abortion...rather than supporting the actual useful adult stem cells...which don't require human embryos and the ethical problems they entail...

Hmmmmm...Clinton, the anti science democratPresident...

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, keep believing the democrats when they say republicans are anti science...

Global warming, evolution, age of the earth, how one can get pregnant...Republicans are much less likely to go with science on these issues.

 

[arnisador]

The anti science meme is one of those false memes that the democrats spew, and their allies in journalism, entertainment, and education promote...
[...]

The second person is President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said , “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

Selective memory as usual on your part. The whole story:

Barack Obama, who has criticized the politicization of science under George W. Bush, is doing some politicizing of his own. Yesterday, he joined John McCain in pandering to the vocal and well-organized lobby of parents who believe the increase in autism diagnoses is caused by vaccines:

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
--John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.
​

So, Obama says it's inconclusive whether vaccines cause autism and McCain flat-out says there's "strong evidence" that they do cause it. Who is more wrong here?

But that's not the whole whole story. Read this all the way to the end:

video which suggests that Obama may not have been referring to himself when he said that "some people" were suspicious about a connection between autism and childhood vaccinations. The video shows the candidate pointing to someone in the audience when he adds the words, "This person included."

So, the person about whom he was speaking was not himself. In fact, in the full context provided by a reporter who was there, the previous paragraph was Obama talking about funding basic research into what causes autism and if you don't take it out of context and do understand he wasn't referring to his own doubts then it is plausible that when he said "The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it" that he meant the science regarding the etiology of autism, not the science of a supposed vaccine-autism link:

Then Obama turned to autism, saying, "That's s an area where our basic investment, our basic research has to increase. There are huge opportunities for us to figure out" how diseases occur, calling for more funding for research into the causes and potential cures for autism and other disease.

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening.

It isn't fully clear, but he may well have meant that rather than junk the vaccines on unfounded claims we should research and find the actual cause. McCain's comments, however, leave no room for doubt--he's in with Jenny McCarthy on this issue.

This is why it's impossible to take you seriously--you're continually and solely using highly biased sources with cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes and only one end result allowed: Obama is evil. This is great for reinforcing your bizarre conspiracy theories but not for you being seen as having something to contribute to a discussion on a political matter. That it isn't feasible to bust you on it every time seems to make you think that some of it is legitimate--but it's not the case that when there are two sides to the story that they're both equally valid. Sometimes one side is just a Tea Party fantasy.

 

[ballen0351]

Global warming, evolution, age of the earth, how one can get pregnant...Republicans are much less likely to go with science on these issues.

Republicans or religious fanatics? Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party

 

[granfire]

Republicans or religious fanatics? Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party

I would not put a certain prolific member in the religious group...but he certainly does not agree with academia on a couple of these topics....just sayin.

 

[ballen0351]

I would not put a certain prolific member in the religious group...but he certainly does not agree with academia on a couple of these topics....just sayin.

Except he's not talking about a person he said republicans meaning the 100 million or so republicans out there.

 

[arnisador]

Republicans or religious fanatics? Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party

For specificity, let's just look at creationism:

70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism: PPP Poll

When that question was transferred over to party lines, Republicans had a staggering split -- 70 percent for creationism, 17 percent for evolution and 13 percent not sure. Democrats split along closer lines -- 43 percent for creationism, 33 percent for evolution and 24 percent not sure. Independents held an even narrower divide -- 46 percent for creationism, 40 percent for evolution and 14 percent not sure.

46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll

Americans who believe in creationism are more likely to be Republican than Democrat or Independent, whereas those who believe in evolution are more likely to be Democrat or Independent, than Republican. Interestingly, nearly an equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe in theistic evolution.

These results are for all Republicans, not just politicians. You'll find similar results for global warming:

In the United States, support for environmental protection was relatively non-partisan in the past. Republican Theodore Roosevelt established national parks whereas Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Soil Conservation Service. This non-partisanship began to erode during the 1980s when the Reagan administration described environmental protection as an economic burden. Views over global warming began to seriously diverge between Democrats and Republicans during the negotiations that led up to the creation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. In a 2008 Gallup poll of the American public, 76% of Democrats and only 41% of Republicans said that they believed global warming was already happening. The gap between the opinions of the political elites, such as members of Congress, tends to be even more polarized.

Incidentally, according to Rush Limbaugh:
Limbaugh: ‘If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming’


Similarly for the young earth theory and probably even the germ theory of disease. And if you want outre opinions on whether or not rape can lead to pregnancy, there's only one place you can go: The GOP, where every Congressman is a self-certified OB/GYN. Yes, the Republican party is anti-science.

 

[billc]

Except for the 15 years of non-global warming...the Climate gate scandal where "scientists" destroyed data, smeared people who asked for their data, tried to get skeptics from getting their work in peer reviewed journals, tried to get the editors of peer reviewed journals fired if they allowed skeptics to publish their findings, and have changed data at NASA...yeah, that's not anti-science at all...

creation of the Kyoto Protocol

Which penalized the western nations...and India and China refused to comply...yeah...

Of course these scientists must be anti-science as well...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/most-geoscientists-reject-global-warming-theory.php

The argument from authority is the only argument climate alarmists are willing to make these days–when is the last time you saw one of them sharing a podium with a climate realist?–so this survey, reported by James Taylor of Forbes represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here andhere) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

…

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

​

Of course...they must be anti-science if they don't believe in global warming...

What I refer to as the “global warming theory” is properly denominated “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Alarmists constantly pull a bait and switch by claiming that nearly all climate scientists “believe in global warming.” But what does that mean? The only proposition on which there is anything like unanimity is that it is warmer now than during the depths of the Little Ice Age–an utterly trivial proposition.

Of course the same guy who cleared the child molestor at Penn State...cleared the guys involved in the Climate Gate Scandal...

 

[billc]

And from your own post...

Interestingly, nearly an equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe in theistic evolution.

I believe some would say that is anti-science...

 

[billc]

A review of the Anti-science involved in the man made global warming issue...

http://www.conservapedia.com/ClimateGate

The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection ofemail messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealingscientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.[SUP][1][/SUP]

The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate scienceover the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists.[SUP][2][/SUP] The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU's apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg.[SUP][3][/SUP]

Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientifichoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5]

[/SUP]

The Climategate emails and climate data became the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The legitimacy of climate science, and the charges leveled by the CRU and theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claim humans causeclimate change, was severely shaken by Climategate. Evidence revealed told the truth about man-made global warming: it's a fraud.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]

But the democrats embrace man made global warming because it gives them what they want "power," money and control over how other people live their lives. It will also keep developing nations, in particular Africa, from climbing out of the horrible poverty they have...because the democrats need global warming to push their agenda...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.
But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

So, Republicans...conservatives in particular are skeptical of man made global warming claims in light of the attempt of the global warming scientists lying about their data...yeah...I guess that makes them anti-science all right...

And which is more destructive, the belief that God made the world...or embracing bad science that will impact people around the world and actually effect their lives, limiting their chances of improving their lives...because of scientists and politicians using that bad science for their own personal gain...