×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the pi-is-exactly-three dept.

Republicans 1237

ndogg writes with news that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has counterattacked those critical of conservative views on science, saying that they're 'anti-science' themselves. From a CBS report: "In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on 'phony studies,' and that climate change science is little more than 'political science.' His views are not 'anti-science' as Democrats claim, Santorum said. 'When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,' he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So says the religious guy. (4, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117919)

Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.

Re:So says the religious guy. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117951)

Yea, republicans are definitly the dumbest.

Re:So says the religious guy. (5, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118049)

Careful with your spelling. Pot, kettle, all that.

Re:So says the religious guy. (2, Insightful)

neonv (803374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118079)

Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.

Intelligent design was brought to you by cavemen thousands of years ago, long before the existence of the republican party. Do I really need to say that?

Neither party is against science, it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Both parties want the US to be the center of learning and scientific breakthroughs.

I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism (that's correct, they're not mutually exclusive, bible says why and evolution says how). In addition, most I know believe the world is warming. So let's please stop stereotyping people by political party. There's intelligent people and stupid people in both parties.

Re:So says the religious guy. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118189)

> Intelligent design was brought to you by cavemen thousands of years ago

So what are you saying: that republicans and creationists are still at the intellectual level of cavemen ?

Re:So says the religious guy. (1, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118231)

FWIW, I'm a Christian who believes in both creation and evolution.

The Bible says that one day God created x, and on one day God created y. It doesn't say how much time elapsed between those events, or how he did it. God could have created the cosmos with a "big bang".

And I believe that evolution occurs, but evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.

Re:So says the religious guy. (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118317)

The Bible says...

...nothing relevant to any discussion of science. Who cares what the bible has to say? It is a bunch of ancient semitic stories, laws, government records, prayers, and poetry, that for some unknown reason was all cobbled together and which excludes a large number of other stories from that period. Maybe the bible is your inspiration to lead a good life, maybe it is your excuse to attack people who do not share your beliefs, or maybe you just like the message it conveys -- none of that has anything to do with science or scientific discovery.

evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.

Your point being what? The theory of evolution concerns the diversity of and relationship between life forms on this planet, nothing else.

Re:So says the religious guy. (1, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118425)

I was clearing up a common misconception that religion and science have to be at odds. The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.

Re:So says the religious guy. (1)

sidthegeek (626567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118463)

His argument isn't concerned with science. He's just saying that he is an example of a Christian who believes in both science and creationism.

Re:So says the religious guy. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118313)

I believe you when you say:

I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism

And therein is part of the problem. They might believe in evolution, but they are willing to get up on a stage, in front of a camera and Objectify opponents and Lie saying science is bad. Science if false, its only a theory....... Yes there are intelligent and stupid people in each party. But there is NO parity between the parties. Its a lie I will not listen too anymore.

Re:So says the religious guy. (5, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118351)

I've known many republicans in my time, having lived in conservative states, and just about all of them believed in evolution AND creationism (that's correct, they're not mutually exclusive, bible says why and evolution says how).

No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib - this all about 10000 years ago. *That* is creationism, and a terrifying 40% of the US population still believes that story. Yes, that is "strict creationism", and yes, it really is 40%. Before you think about debating that fact, go look up the statistics yourself.

True evolutionary theory starts with the idea that all life evolved over billions of years, starting with simple inorganic compounds that combined into some of the basic organic building blocks (amino acids, nucleotides, etc).

These theories are so far from compatible with each other a 4 year old can instinctively comprehend the contradiction. Unfortunately, society then spends the next 10 years teaching the child the obvious conclusion is wrong...

Re:So says the religious guy. (2, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118111)

Doesn't this whole situation seem childish?

Unnamed Democrat: Rick, you are anti-science.
Rick: You're anti-science!

Re:So says the religious guy. (4, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118221)

Only in this particular debate, the actual scientists agree with Unnamed Democrat. That doesn't quite have the symmetry you were going for, though, right?

Re:So says the religious guy. (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118441)

Hey, no, you're the one that's childish! I'm rubber and you're glue!

Re:So says the religious guy. (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118305)

Many politicians don't understand and tend to be against science, especially when it's inconvenient for them. They foolishly think that opinions can change reality. Though it is true that lately the Republicans have brought the anti-science rhetoric to a new achievement in ignorance and stupidity.

Santorum himself is one of the biggest of the ignorant loudmouths on the Republican side at this time. The only place he is not anti-science is some alternate fantasy land, and I really wish he'd either go back there, or at least honestly pass a grade school science class and leave his religious beliefs both out of politics and science as it has no place in either.

Let's hope this fool goes back to whatever toilet he crawled out of, and soon.

Re:So says the religious guy. (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118427)

We're talking about a party whose latest gimmick is "sonogram bills", a new method of "slut shaming" that involves forcing a woman to go through a completely unnecessary procedure in which a dildo-like object is wrapped in a condom, covered in cold nasty goop, and forcefully shoved into her vagina before they'll let her have a completely different, unrelated, completely legal medical procedure.

"Science" doesn't enter into their discussions on any level.

Santorum also got into "I'm more christian than you" bullshit when he insisted that Obama "follows a different theology" the other day... from where I come Republicans are the nonchristian ones. They certainly don't love their neighbors, they don't give a crap about the poor and needy, they're not remotely interested in creating fair legal systems (something the OT is pretty damn big on, Deuteronomy 27:19, Leviticus 19:15 as starters) and as near as I can tell, their religious ceremonies involve the worship of wealthy old white men and the pursuit of money...

Re:So says the religious guy. (5, Interesting)

vuke69 (450194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118385)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk [youtube.com]

Science funding goes up under republicans, and down under Democrats.

Re:So says the religious guy. (4, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118459)

you can't build bombs without science.

Re:So says the religious guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118413)

Sorry buster, but there are a lot of Republicans who are scientists and engineers and whom are on the side of evolution. You'd be surprised how many of your fellow Democrats are into intelligent design.

Stop being so anti-intellectual and argue the facts -- don't make ad hominem attacks.

If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117925)

... how stupid America really is ...

too late... Sarah Palin and 2nd Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118021)

nt

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (5, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118027)

America deserves him at this point.

I won't enjoy being in the blast radius, but my country has so many idiots and superstitionists in it we deserve to suffer horribly for letting it get this bad.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (2)

zoloto (586738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118309)

hooray for Harper politics! wait...

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (1, Insightful)

JosephTX (2521572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118383)

the only problem is that America is large enough and dumb enough that its rejection of such basic science has an effect on the GLOBAL climate; not just their electric bill.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118407)

I don't know who deserves what, but y'all Americans have responsibility to not let idiots take over your government. You being the only world superpower brings responsibility and the possibility for a lot of damage. Is it really necessary to have santorum flowing out of yer Whitehouse after what your neocon Leninist ideologues did to the Middle East in 2003-2010?

So, wrap up your shit and make your voice heard if you don't want to let it get even worse. You, unlike the poor folks in Syria and Iran, have an opportunity to do so.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118455)

America deserves him at this point.

I won't enjoy being in the blast radius, but my country has so many idiots and superstitionists in it we deserve to suffer horribly for letting it get this bad.

I hate to say it, but we're past that point. We passed it nearly 30 years ago and it's been a downhill slope since. All I can say is, keep up appearances, punch your clock on time, and tend your social functions. With what time you have left, get your shit and your gear in order. You'lre gonna need it sooner than you think, and even then, bugging out might be non-feasible becasue the time to do so was years ago. Good luck to you.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118125)

... how stupid America really is ...

"Half of me sees Rick Santorum and says, bring it on, he could never win! Other half says, Fuck, I don't put anything past this stupid country."
- Bill Maher

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118195)

Weren't you around back in '04? We reelected Bush for fuck's sake.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118323)

No we didn't, a corrupt electoral system in Florida elected Bush.

Re:If this guy ever got in it would truly show ... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118349)

how stupid America really is

Have you looked at who's in now (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial)?

Arguing about which party is more stupid is like arguing which is smarter, an idiot or an imbecile - you may win debating points, but still lose the argument.

BTW, an imbecile is smarter than an idiot, by the obsolete definitions. Finally, I think Obama is intellectually much smarter than Bush, but the roles are reversed in political terms.

Frist! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117935)

A republican calling someone anti-science ... how quaint.

No. (3, Insightful)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117937)

Please don't feed the troll.

Re:No. (1)

dwn (2467052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118023)

Always has to be a politician with a serious infection of pebcak. That's how I'd describe it in very few but honest words.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118139)

I can't even tell if he's trolling or if he's really this ridiculous.

Re:No. (1)

dwn (2467052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118201)

I can't even tell if he's trolling or if he's really this ridiculous.

I honestly have to make some popcorn now, because debates like this are frikkin entertaining. PS 10 thumbs for OP.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118193)

Santorum is a fucking idiot supported by dumber idiots, case closed, there is no way he can beat Obama.. next news item please??

Anti-wha?! (1, Insightful)

Scott Swezey (678347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117965)

I'm not sure if I should say that Santorum is anti-truth, or go with the less harsh, anti-reality.

Maybe next he can explain to us about how all of the studies regarding contraception are clearly wrong. Or was contraception an "Obama conspiracy?" I forget...

Anti-science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117973)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Republican==Ignorant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117979)

Nuff said!

Re:Republican==Ignorant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118149)

Not quite. What you REALLY just said was "I constantly strive to be as much like Rick Santorum as I possibly can"

Santorum claiming that.... (5, Insightful)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117981)

Santorum claiming that environmentalists are "anti-science" is like saying anti-rape activists are against sex. What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118091)

There are some who speculate that is the case, that the good candidates don't want to run against an incumbent, so it's just the dross who can't wait till 2016.

Me, it's just a facepalm moment with this guy, he reminds me of the episode of Futurama where the intelligent ape is debating Professor Farnsworth. Dozens and dozens of examples of proto-humans are shown, and yet it's not a missing link, so the ape declares that science proves nothing.

I swear, it's like debating with somebody who thinks Zeno's Paradoxes represent that height of wisdom.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (4, Insightful)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118109)

Are they sitting this one out or something?

No, It's all they have left after twenty some odd years of trying to 'out do' one another on being the 'most conservative' as determined by a combination of scores given by various corporate funded 'think tanks' and random radio hosts. Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (4, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118163)

Actually they are sitting this one out. The RNC doesn't want to win this election any more than they did the last one. Look, the economy isn't going to "recover" in the next four years. Oil prices are going to continue to increase whether Iran is in the picture or not. Formerly prosperous Americans will continue to have their wealth harvested by the global elite that cares about no country. Would you want to be the party in power while all this was happening? Much better to be the loyal opposition and keep those lobbyist checks rolling into those offshore bank accounts.

Absent of a Palin to poison the well, the best the RNC and SuperPACS can do this time is to promote a useful idiot like Santorum. Barely credible enough to be a candidate, but certain to lose to Obama. Keep him in the news. Leak (or create) enough bad press about Romney and it's a shoe-in.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (1)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118289)

Of course, the risk they run if the candidate is too bad is damage to the down-ballot offices: US Senate, US House, state legislatures, governors. Lots more right-wingish laws got passed at the state level in the last two years than in the two years before that because of the large gains the Republicans made at the state level in 2010.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118291)

The Big Lie works.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (1, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118293)

I honestly have to admit, I have no idea who to vote for. Romney was the most likely person, but I don't even really like him either, he just seemed like he was more moderate. If Santorum wins the primary, and there is no guarantee he will, but if he does, I will probably take this opportunity to find some third party candidate to vote for. I can't vote for the Democratic platform, not to mention that I find Obama to be a rather uninspiring figure, but I have to admit, they've also managed to come up with a pool of jerks and retards on the GOP side. Ron Paul would be possible, if his ideas weren't otherwise interesting ones turned all the way up to Eleven.

Anyone know a nice pro-science, individual rights, fiscally responsible, small government oriented party out there? It would also be nice if they could also ignore gay marriage, contraception, abortion both pro or con, and also just about every other distracting hot button issue out there. It would be nice if they simply had a government that worried about balancing a budget for a change. We can always wait until 2020 to elect some more culture warriors, if we get bored with prosperity.

Anyway, Obama will win because he's uninspiring, but he's the incumbent and he's bland enough that no one is scared of what he'll do. And it's too bad really, there has to be better Presidential material out there than Obama and the Republican candidates.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118325)

What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?

Yes. Statistically, the incumbent wins something like 75% of the time. It's not like that means it's an automatic Obama win... but if you're a Republican and want to gain the White House and want the best chance to do so, then assuming Obama will win and basing your strategy around running in 2016 against a new Democrat maximizes your chances.

That's why we have the crowd we do, including the stunt-candidacies like Terrible Toupe and Godfather's Pizza Man.

Re:Santorum claiming that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118335)

Are they sitting this one out or something?

Yes... they are sitting this one out.

Any Republican candidate who has a legitimate chance at winning the presidency is sitting this election out so as not to go against an incumbent Democrat. In the last century there have only been four incumbent presidents who lost re-election: Taft, Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr.. Because of this incredible disadvantage, any legitimate Republican candidate has likely chosen to wait for the 2016 elections; this way they have a better chance at winning the presidency and meanwhile can spend more time in their current political office padding their resume.

Since any rational politician would sit this one out, that leaves only the craziest and most desperate politicians to run this election cycle. The notable exception here is Romney; unlike the other candidates he can actually afford to gamble millions on a long-shot presidency.

Pots and Kettles (5, Insightful)

roeguard (1113267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118009)

Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.

By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.

Re:Pots and Kettles (4, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118071)

Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.

By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.

This.

It takes a remarkable human being to trust science over his or her own beliefs when the two are in conflict. It's one thing when we haven't decided what the right answer is--but when we've decided, God help Science if it's not on our side. We are more likely to question methodology, etc... if the result is not one that we like.

This is troubling among people conducting experiments as much as it is among politicians. Clinical trials where someone has made up their mind beforehand and so doesn't even bother to write down a patient symptom that the person conducting the trial believes is easily explained, for example.

Re:Pots and Kettles (1)

Petron (1771156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118117)

I truly wish I had mod points...

Science is about having an open mind. But in many cases, if you question some theory you are branded as a nut. Science is always in flux as we learn more. Once upon a time there was the law of conservation of matter... until this nut named Albert Einstein said "O'rly?"

Re:Pots and Kettles (5, Insightful)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118207)

people are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

Fixed that for you.

The fact of the matter is that most people who discuss science don't know jack shit about the science. Sure, they'll repeat what they hear. They will embrace the science if their party of choice embraces the science. They may even be right doing that but they care little about the science itself. Sadly, this will probably never change.

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." -Carl Sagan

Re:Pots and Kettles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118247)

Can I get some examples of main stream science denialism by democrats? Seems like this is another "oh both sites are just as bad" BS bullshit political pundit rhetoric. Corruption exist in the US but that fact doesn't mean it's the same as Zimbabwe when it comes to corruption.

Re:Pots and Kettles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118333)

Name a single Democrat who is as far on the insane left scale as Santorum is on the insane right scale. You can't. Democrats are, in fact, farther to the right on most issues than most people who are called "leftists" anywhere else in the world.

Re:Pots and Kettles (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118419)

Is it ideology, or is it just about saying what it takes to get the votes? To be an ideology there has to be some thought behind it, maybe not to the level of a manifesto but enough thought to integrate this view with the other political positions you have and be able to defend it, extrapolate, etc. However much of the voting public doesn't do this, their "ideology" is "the other side is evil, so anything they're for we're against, and anything they're against we're for." So clearly if Democrats are trying to do something about climate change is _must_ be some sort of liberal plot designed to make us pay more taxes and take away freedoms. You're not going to get these voters on your side by cogently discussing the issues but instead you need to take a strong binary position on every issue, it's either good or evil and there's no room for nuance.

If I wanted to get the presidential nomination for the Republican party you can be that I'd take these same tactics. Enough bozo quotes to keep the far loon base happy (I hate to say far right or hard conservative because they're not really on any sort of political spectrum), demonize the other side, promise tax cuts, criticize the other side's tax cuts as misguided pandering, denounce all regulations (to get Wall Street funding on my side), claim to do all sorts of things on the first day of office that would be impossible without dictatorial powers, and so on. Then when nominated I switch tactics and take a more moderate approach. Ie, I'd be Santorum or Gingrich during primaries and Romney during the general election.

Actually, he's right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118015)

Just kidding!

econ FAIL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118035)

[quote]In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the [b]importance of increasing domestic energy production[/b] to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists.[/quote]

Increasing US domestic energy production won't do squat where it matters: prices at the pump. I can't say Santorum's views on this issue are anti science, but they sure are anti economics.

This guy is a joke (3, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118037)

Santorum's claim to have come "from the coal fields" is a stretch - by two generations. He has never worked in a coal mine. His parents' professions were psychologist and nurse, and Santorum is a lawyer who has spent all of his adult life in politics.

By that measure, I come "from the shipyards of Baltimore." I'll have to remember that if I ever go into politics.

I find this new definition of political science funny. Politicized science is what he meant, I guess. All these fools should just admit that they like science and regulation when it supports their preconceived notions about how the world should work, and when science and regulation contradict those notions, science and regulation are evil.

Re:This guy is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118105)

Problem is too many political jokes get elected.

Re:This guy is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118213)

And I survived a Nazi invasion of my homeland!

By the same logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118265)

...he is also from the primordial ooze.

"I know you are but what am I?" (1)

Izaak (31329) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118057)

... It's a debate classic!

Re:"I know you are but what am I?" (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118421)

I'd vote for Peewee.

Hollllllld on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118069)

Let me go get my popcorn this should be a good fight....

I think you guys just got trollled...

Santorum "Truth" (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118081)

I like Santorum. He says what modern Republicans are thinking, as wrong as that may be. He does not hide the crazy behind a manufactured persona like Romney. Ron Paul has too many heart felt beliefs that are antithetical to the GOP. Gingrich is a dishonest retread from a previous era, pushing the same failed policies.

But Ricky is a true reflection what Republicans are all about, and proud of it. If there is any justice, Rick will win the nomination where he faithfully campaign for what the GOP believes in.

Re:Santorum "Truth" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118259)

and Ron Paul will save America!

Anti-Science Indeed... (1)

laughing rabbit (216615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118093)

Though this comment comes from someone who would have been on the front-line torching heretical thinkers and scientists during the Inquisition, it will soon enough be a meme accepted by the masses due to the steady drum beat of the Fox echo chamber. The more they trash and dismantle education, the easier it will be for the church to subvert individual freedom, speech and self determination.

We have seen the end of the enlightenment with the rise of the church state in the United States. I, for one, will fight our new overlords.

And he knows this because..... (2)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118097)

The bible says that man has dominion over the earth, and it is ours to do with as we please. And it is immutable, so nothing we do can affect God's work:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

What a crock of shit. Santorum's "science" is nothing but avarice and ignorance.

Re:And he knows this because..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118241)

The bible says that man has dominion over the earth, and it is ours to do with as we please.

This statement is true, regardless of who might have said it... As opposed to animals, Humans survive by adapting their environment to their needs.

He knows more about the science than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118099)

Sen. Santorum can see the sun from his house.

Just Google Santorum! (2)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118121)

Nothing more will need to be said!

He has a degree in Political Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118129)

The irony....

Why do people choose this clown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118143)

Dust pollution is a health risk, not an environmental one.

This is not surprising at all... (5, Insightful)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118151)

...considering it's coming from someone whose view of science is something that you believe on faith, ignore inconvenient research, and consider even the slightest doubt or margin of error that an opposing viewpoint has to completely debunk it. It's not science to believe that since you have 100% confidence in your faith-based theory that has no evidence, but you can imagine a miniscule source of error in an opposing theory, that the person with the fewest doubts "wins". But just try telling a "Creation Scientist" that...or someone who believes on faith that there is not any possibility that there is human-caused global climate changed. They hold their views on faith, their minds will not be changed no matter how much evidence they're presented with.

Re:This is not surprising at all... (0)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118355)

If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.

There have been several problems with climate science (both sides) presented here on Slashdot. Even so, many people continue to be ardent supporters that our every gallon of gas speeds us toward oblivion, and likewise others believe that there is no climate change whatsoever, especially none caused by man. The truth is quite obviously in the middle somewhere, but because people prefer to choose sides rather than to seek the truth, we won't be able to find a compromise that 1. addresses some of the problems and 2. everyone can live with.

Hypocrits abound (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118153)

and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."

A deregulationist citing the protection from local environmental regulations. That's rich.
The hypocrisy is double because Pittsburg is currently undergoing a massive battle over fracking regulations.

Pittsburg has banned fracking outright and PA Republicans were trying to pass a State law to nullify local regulations.
When that was deemed a politically untenable idea, they switched to a straight-jacket of State level regulations.
Read about it here: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142948831/a-debate-over-who-regulates-gas-fracking-in-penn [npr.org]

Re:Hypocrits abound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118267)

Reminds me of how Obama is trying to overrule Arizona.

Re:Hypocrits abound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118391)

But THEY do it too

We need people who are going to man up and stand up against the bullshit. Look us up when your balls drop, sonny. Til then leave the fighting to us men. Maybe the choir is more your speed, I hear they're looking for a soprano.

It takes one to know one... (1, Interesting)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118197)

I'd give my left arm for for a pro-science, rationalist candidate. I'm pretty sure Santorum is right and the Dems are anti-science....I will however return to that play ground gem...."it takes one to know one".

Politics and political leadership has become a swarming mass of vipers all pandering to biases and cultural predispositions and have very little to do with rational decision making and leadership (if it ever did). Both parties are just interested in the science that supports their predefined ideologies and ignore or discount that which doesn't. It is sad but that's what we have for "leaders" these days on both sides.

Phony studies? How would he know? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118209)

Santorum couldn't recognize a phony study if you handed one to him and went over the methodology in detail. His understanding of science, and the scientific method makes most 5th graders look like Einstein. I'm pretty sure his definition of "phony study" means "a report that I don't understand, but the results disagree with my beliefs."

and slashdot ... (1, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118219)

... endorses his comment. Fits well with all the other right-wing rhetoric that dominates the front page here. I'm not sure if this is part of their mission to bring the site back to relevance or not, but I'm not sold it is a good idea regardless. Some of us remember when slashdot was, for the most part, apolitical. Now they are slightly less political than Glenn Beck, and spending most of their time in his same philosophical camp.

Re:and slashdot ... (2)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118337)

Eh? A popular GOP politician, possibly the party's presidential candidate, make an absurd comment about science. Hence, it belongs on slashdot. You know, news for nerds and stuff that matters?

I'm sure many here would dread Santorum getting in to the whitehouse based on his science cred alone. That makes it somewhat relevant.

( beck is a nut, btw. If you can't see the distinction between slashdot and beck...well, you might be standing too close to that particular fire )

it fits the pattern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118225)

Control the definitions, control the conversations.
Santorum is pro-science.
Liberal is anything bad.
War is peace, freedom is slavery.

And I call Santorum 'Frothy Mix' (0)

glwtta (532858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118235)

Anyone can call anyone else anything they please, doesn't really mean anything, though.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118251)

In other news, the irony meter was destroyed in a freak explosion earlier today.

Both parties will ignore things they don't like. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118273)

Democrats on economics for example... little things like the Laffer curve that they swear doesn't exist in one breath... and then in the next suggest we have an international minimum tax. Why? To keep other countries from offering a low tax and thus creating a situation remarkably like the Laffer curve.

So both parties do this... which one is more anti science is debatable and likely an accidential result of which ever one happens to have run randomly into more problems with their ideology.

Ideologies are always wrong just as any scientific theory is always incomplete. Perfection isn't something human beings create. And so far as I've seen every ideology is intolerant of changing core principles.

I'm about to get all sorts of flame messages now. So I'll just say this... Imagine if science proved that whatever you believed caused terrible damage... do you honestly think most of the people in your party would switch away from it? Do you think your party leaders would admit it?

Of course not. They'd try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. That's what ideologies do...

So... I'm mostly anti ideology. My core principle is the survival and continuing evolution of humanity. Everything else I believe is derived from that. If anyone can show me a value or principle I hold that harms that goal... then I'll change it.

That's still an ideology. But it's very general and vague one that should be very adaptable when I discover the mistakes we all make.

Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118403)

"Democrats on economics for example... little things like the Laffer curve that they swear doesn't exist in one breath"

Which Democrat has sworn the Laffer curve doesn't exist? And honestly 99% of the people who base low-tax arguments on the Laffer curve don't really understand what it is (and what it's not). Most of them tend to forget it's a curve.

Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (3, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118409)

The Laffer curve is a theoretical idea. The data does not back it (or at least a very weak correlation). I looked at multiple Keynes-like stimuluses by inspecting the unemployment numbers with my own eyes, and stimuluses appear to help more often than not. There is usually a bulge of improvement within about 4 months after the stimulus starts to flow that lasts until about a year after the stimulus ends. If Laffer works, show us the data.

Re:Both parties will ignore things they don't like (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118429)

Note that the most recent stimulus is generally considered too small given the size of the recession (which was not known when it was proposed) by most economists.

However, if you look at a graph of the change of UE rate, you see what appears to be an upward trend matching what is expected from an under-powered stimulus. And it trailed off when the stimulus ran out, giving us the "flat summer".

WTF Just Not Enough (4, Interesting)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118299)

It is rumored that if Santorum actually gets the nomination, the GOP will draft Gov. Christie of NJ for the Republican candidate. But he's one cannoli short of a heart attack, so not many will vote for him. Nobody wants Romney, either, because of Romneycare and the whole Mormon thing. And Paul, as much as he may appeal to some people, is one fall away from a hip replacement.

So here's an interesting fact? Jeb Bush and his father showed up at the Whitehouse back on the 27th of January [usatoday.com] for a long talk. (Oh, to have been a fly on THAT wall.) The other interesting thing is that Jeb's wife, Columba, has made it neuteringly clear that he's not available until 2016.

So! 3 completely unelectable candidates so far as the GOP is concerned. The party favorite-which is why they're sometimes known as the "Waiting For Jeb" party-isn't available either.

I'm going to guess that the "fix" is in, and Obama is going to be president for another term. Then after that, we'll have another Bush in the Whitehouse. So everything that's happening in this "election" is just a dog & pony show, just as it's always been.

Color Me Shocked... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118303)

Another troll/hit-piece against a Conservative on Slashdot.

It's gotten to be simply hilarious. Your boy Obama has failed miserably, so it's time to roll out the attack machine...again.

How do you spell Progressiveism?

F-A-I-L

A Breath of Fresh Air (5, Funny)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118343)

It's good to see a heavyweight intellectual like Rick Santorum weighing in on a complex environmental question. I think we can call "problem solved" on this one.

Somebody ought to ask Rick about global overpopulation. I bet he could solve that problem too! He'll just say "It's God's will. There's no overpopulation." Another problem solved.

Maybe Rick can solve all our complicated problems for us--so we don't have to think at all!!

This can be a good thing (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118345)

I hope he's the nominee just for the drama and entertainingly twisted logic. Think of it as 7 months of new Monty Python episodes.

The amphibian dude is generally smart enough to stay away from science details because he knows better (although does drop hit-and-run statements on occasion to make the base happy), and Dog-Roof Willard hedges and haws such that he never commits, taking on the same view as the interviewer via vague language.

However, this Santa Sweater Claws actually tries to explain his view and perceptions with details from the model in his mind without fear and self-censorship so that we get to see how the cartoon world in his head all works together.......and then laugh our cabooses off.

Consistent and honest boloney is the tastiest boloney of them all.

Bring it on....

Obvious (0, Troll)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118353)

Democrats talk a lot about science when it comes to climate change (to justify government control of the economy), embryonic stem cells (to give abortion an upside), or evolution (out of a dislike of creationism). But where are they when it comes to science for the sake of human knowledge instead of some blatant political agenda? Obama gutted the space program. Democrats killed the Superconducting Super Collider. Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision like Newt Gingrich's moon base proposal.

What is Santorum's definition of science? (3, Insightful)

chmilar (211243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118369)

To begin: I would like to hear Santorum's definition of "science". How would he describe science, its methods, and its purpose? That should be good for a few yuks.

His opinion might fit perfectly with his understanding of science.

Science and Religion are not at Odds! (0)

SirAstral (1349985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118447)

Science and Religion are not at odds with each other and they should never be, however religious institutions and scientific institutions are commonly at odds with each other. It is very important to distinguish the difference and while generalizations are usually the case, it needs to be understood that exceptions will always exist.

Science is humans best attempt at understanding/explaining the world we observe around us.

Religion is humans best attempt at understanding/explaining the world we sense but cannot directly scientifically observe around us.

Science and Religious institutions are usually at odds with each other and this is a normal occurrence due to the natural behavior of humans using their knowledge, abilities, and experience to ridicule, harrass, or oppress others. I have seen evil conducted in the name of science and religion. We have waged wars for even less and getting rid of science or religion are not he answers.

The persecution and degradation is readily available from the religious and non-religious alike and proves that institutions and the heart of man are the core of what is wrong with everything in society and government.

Science and Religion can both be trusted when the pursuit is of the truth, however the human element will continually persist in polluting that truth to their own ends casting doubt everywhere.

Calling someone "anti-science..." (5, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118465)

Calling someone "anti-science" because they advise restraint when using up natural resources and changing the environment, is like calling someone "anti-capitalist" if they refuse to spend all their money and go into debt.

Huh...I think I just figured out Republican fiscal policy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?