I Miss Republicans

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Global Warming? Well here there is a scientific debate ongoing here and the Republicans are going slow while it is the Democrats who want to speed headlong forward without further adieu with all the negative economic consequences that such actions will entail.

If by "going slow" you mean "doing nothing at all".

Yes, I think global warming is blown slightly out of proportion. Does this mean we should stick our heads in the sand like the ostriches current Republicans are doing?

Q Cubed, you must be joking. Bush ordered reduction in greenhouse gases by various means and Schwarzennegger is taking the lead on this issue in Kalifornia. Bush just wants to go slow and is unwilling to sign a very flawed Kyoto protocol.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Now that's an article I identify with. The Republican party has left many republicans behind. I'm still looking aroudn trying to figure out what happened here.

And the current regime of folks running the Republican Party crashes down on the good republicans like McCain, Lugar, et al. I find that intolerable.

The Religous Right has forced the current leaders of the Republican Party to engage is science policies on the same level of the Catholic Popes in the Middle Ages. (Read: hocus pocus)

Read: Stem cell debate.

Answer, we have enough stem cells for now. Note that Bush did not order a halt to government support. Bush also mentioned a new law on this topic in his SOTU speech. I just don't recall the details now.

I would suggest that Bush's policies are splitting the difference and taking the middle road.

[Q Classic]

Q Cubed, you must be joking. Bush ordered reduction in greenhouse gases by various means and Schwarzennegger is taking the lead on this issue in Kalifornia. Bush just wants to go slow and is unwilling to sign a very flawed Kyoto protocol.

I don't mind ignoring the Kyoto protocol. But y'know, he could have been a bit more, i dunno, diplomatic about it.

Answer, we have enough stem cells for now. Note that Bush did not order a halt to government support.

Except we don't. In any case, this doesn't bother me at all. If we lose this tech lead to say, the Asians, which looks quite likely... :shrugs: I, quite frankly, don't care who has tech leadership, as long as someone's going ahead with it. Stifling research has always been a bad idea, and if America's going to do it, pity for them.

I would suggest that Bush's policies are splitting the difference and taking the middle road.

The embryos are being thrown away. Not researching with them looks to me like "If I can't have it, nobody can!"

[Q Classic]

True Belief

Asher/In Microsoft
MNG/In Macs?
Ned/In Neo-Republicanism
Ted/In Hitting It
Me/In Technofundamentalism ( but at least I'm right... )

[Cruddy]

I Miss Republicans

Well, you should learn to shoot straight, shouldn't you.

[Odin]

Minnesota is one of the last states with some good Republicans, like former governers Arnie Carlson and the late Elmer Andersen, Republicans of the Teddy Roosevelt tradition. Unfortunately even here, a bulwark of progressivism, wackos like Senator Coleman are infecting my state.

The fools one the right complain that Acedamia is full of liberals, it is full of liberals because the new Right purged the Republican party of anyone with brains.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Ned


Read: Stem cell debate.

Answer, we have enough stem cells for now. Note that Bush did not order a halt to government support. Bush also mentioned a new law on this topic in his SOTU speech. I just don't recall the details now.

I would suggest that Bush's policies are splitting the difference and taking the middle road.

There are many scientists who don't agree with this. As with many things, more samples, more experiments -- better scientific results and reliablity in hypothesis, etc.

Just because Bush says there is enough stems cell lines, doesn't mean it's true.

At the company I work at, biological research is one of our business areas. All the scientists, [b]both Republican and Democratic supporters[/n], complain bitterly about the Bush regulations regarding stem cell research, the artificial limits imposed, and they decry the cutting edge research in this area leaving America and going to Europe and Japan.

Not so "pro-business" like Republicans are historically known for. Sounds to me the middle of the road of the religious right perhaps...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


There are many scientists who don't agree with this. As with many things, more samples, more experiments -- better scientific results and reliablity in hypothesis, etc.

Just because Bush says there is enough stems cell lines, doesn't mean it's true.

At the company I work at, biological research is one of our business areas. All the scientists, [b]both Republican and Democratic supporters[/n], complain bitterly about the Bush regulations regarding stem cell research, the artificial limits imposed, and they decry the cutting edge research in this area leaving America and going to Europe and Japan.

Not so "pro-business" like Republicans are historically known for. Sounds to me the middle of the road of the religious right perhaps...

It is a compromise position that is bound to displease everyone. This is typical, though, of cautious Republicanism.

In Kalifornia, we had a ballot prop to fund stem cell research with 3 billion of Kalifornia money. I voted yes. I understand it passed.

[Odin]

The Right has become anti-science because science is a threat to the traditional social order.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
The Right has become anti-science because science is a threat to the traditional social order.

The Right is not anti-science. It is skeptical, especially when the likes of the Marxist Green Party urge deindustrialization post haste, but only in America, based on pseudo-science that is subject to criticism by noted scientists with worthy credentials.

[Agathon]

The Missile Defence program isn't about defence. It is an attempt to give the United States the ability to wage nuclear war against moderately armed nuke states without suffering any reprisals.

Of course the reality is that none of these states really wants to go to war with the US, missile defence or no, so the only logical conclusion is that it is designed to enable the US make them do what it wants.

Perhaps not the only conclusion. It seems as likely that it is just another example of corporate welfare.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


The Right is not anti-science. It is skeptical, especially when the likes of the Marxist Green Party urge deindustrialization post haste, but only in America, based on pseudo-science that is subject to criticism by noted scientists with worthy credentials.

Being a biology major, I think BOTH sides are f*cked up. The reason I hate the Eco-nuts is that they are so vocal they make the right think all scientists are eco-nuts, so the right gets in the way, causing the eco-nuts to whine even more, and both of you get in the way of real science.

[Shogun Gunner]

The Religious Right uses religious arguments to justify their position on scientific issues. Their opinion, quite frankly, is not relevant to the facts. It is relevant, unfortunately, in politics as it is a HUGE supporter of Bush.

I really disagree with the "middle of the road" way you describe it, Ned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
The Religious Right uses religious arguments to justify their position on scientific issues. Their opinion, quite frankly, is not relevant to the facts. It is relevant, unfortunately, in politics as it is a HUGE supporter of Bush.

I really disagree with the "middle of the road" way you describe it, Ned.

No doubt that some of the positions of some of the "right" are based on religious grounds. But you make a mistake to suggest that the religious right is the Republican Party. It is not. The core of the Republican Party is made up of private enterprised types that believe in a strong defense. There are social liberals who are prominent Republicans, including Schwarzennegger and Giuliani.

[Agathon]

It used to be that you could reason with a Republican. That is less and less the case.