If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Chuck Grassley wants to take our beer ingredients to clean the oil spill. Shiat just got real   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 85
    More: Sad, Senator Charles E. Grassley, mash ingredients, poisonous gas, commercial fishermen, positions of power, yeast, air pollution, lobbying groups  
•       •       •

6145 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2010 at 12:23 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-06-10 11:24:39 PM
Waddya want, my piss or the runs?
 
2010-06-10 11:33:19 PM
TFA: "I think that there's alternatives to soaking up oil that have not been used yet," Grassley said. "There's a process for making beer -- I don't know if it's the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you've got is some methane gas left."

Wat
 
2010-06-10 11:39:59 PM
All we need is a bunch of trucks to deliver the yeast, and some tubes to apply it with.
 
2010-06-10 11:46:26 PM
Umm... yeast doesn't eat oil, Chucky boy. There are certain microbes that will, but I'm not thinking brewer's yeast is one of 'em.
 
2010-06-10 11:46:33 PM
www.thedisciplinedinvestor.com
NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
 
2010-06-10 11:48:00 PM
furiousxgeorge

All we need is a bunch of trucks to deliver the yeast, and some tubes to apply it with. drivers.

FTFY.
 
2010-06-10 11:48:18 PM
I am a homebrewer, and AFAIK, there is nothing in beer that will "soak up" or "eat" oil.

Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?
 
2010-06-11 12:04:20 AM
Can't they just freeze the gulf of mexico and just shovel the oil off like they do with ice beer?
 
2010-06-11 12:26:49 AM
An Outrage
 
2010-06-11 12:28:32 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: Umm... yeast doesn't eat oil, Chucky boy. There are certain microbes that will, but I'm not thinking brewer's yeast is one of 'em.

this
 
2010-06-11 12:29:29 AM
Let BP sponsor a bunch of college kids to spend the summer on the oilsoaked beaches working cleanup in exchange for minimum wage and all the beer they can drink. On second thought, fark the college kids, where do I sign up?
 
2010-06-11 12:30:19 AM
FTA: "I think that there's alternatives to soaking up oil that have not been used yet," Grassley said. "There's a process for making beer -- I don't know if it's the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you've got is some methane gas left."

WTF is he talking about?

Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair notes there's some underlying science underpinning Grassley's idea:

Anna Louise Corke, a research scientist who studies cell biology, points out that while the beer-making process has nothing to do with oil, and yeast produce carbon dioxide, not methane, there is new research that suggests that "adding nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to the beaches can speed up the ability of natural bacteria to break down oil," according to the blog ScienceInsider. Corke hypothesizes: "It might be that someone tried to explain this to him and used the yeast/beer thing as a metaphor and that's what he was able to remember."


So the senator doesn't know what he's talking about and is just spewing something off-the-cuff.
 
2010-06-11 12:31:17 AM
Apparently the "sad" tag is due to Alzheimer's...
 
2010-06-11 12:31:56 AM
Offer a case of beer for every 55 gallon drum of oil scooped out of the gulf. We will have it cleaned up withen a week.

/I should be in charge of BP
 
2010-06-11 12:35:58 AM
New headline:

"Retarded Republican spews BS about BP spill."
 
2010-06-11 12:40:34 AM
Chuck Grassley times 535 equals the US Congress. If you're looking for hope from this group, you are SOL.
 
2010-06-11 12:40:43 AM
robbiex0r: I am a homebrewer, and AFAIK, there is nothing in beer that will "soak up" or "eat" oil.

Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?


It was on the Daily Show tonight.

This guy is a huge embarrassment to the under 70 crowd in Iowa. Not sure if he's gone senile or what.
 
2010-06-11 12:41:31 AM
musashi1600: FTA: "I think that there's alternatives to soaking up oil that have not been used yet," Grassley said. "There's a process for making beer -- I don't know if it's the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you've got is some methane gas left."

WTF is he talking about?

Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair notes there's some underlying science underpinning Grassley's idea:

Anna Louise Corke, a research scientist who studies cell biology, points out that while the beer-making process has nothing to do with oil, and yeast produce carbon dioxide, not methane, there is new research that suggests that "adding nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to the beaches can speed up the ability of natural bacteria to break down oil," according to the blog ScienceInsider. Corke hypothesizes: "It might be that someone tried to explain this to him and used the yeast/beer thing as a metaphor and that's what he was able to remember."

So the senator doesn't know what he's talking about and is just spewing something off-the-cuff.


Anna Louise Corke sounds slightly dumber than the senator. Given that there have been several news stories about the company that makes hydrocarbon eating bacteria offering the US goernment their entire production run for cleanup efforts.
 
2010-06-11 12:42:43 AM
Chuck Grassley is actually trying to spew up some excuse to turn this into a pork barrel project for farmers in Iowa. Swear to God, that's what he's actually thinking about in his black neolithic heart.
 
2010-06-11 12:44:35 AM
Maybe China still has some of that algae glop left over from their pre-Olympics clean up. Or cat litter.
 
2010-06-11 12:45:47 AM
New research? Bio remediation has been around for at least 20 years if not more. They use it to clean up old underground storage tank contamination, oil pits, old fuel spills, on and on. Adding fertilizer speeds it along even more.

Yes, bacteria are going to be much more effective cleaning this mess up than all of the politicians and oil execs combined.
 
2010-06-11 12:51:48 AM
Ab oil spill isn't a big keg, it's a series of tallboys.
 
2010-06-11 12:53:11 AM
robbiex0r: Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?

For the same reason HuffPo articles are frequently seen here, and for the same reason a majority of articles are greenlit: it's making fun of conservatives.

You don't see the same done for liberals because they just don't do or say dumb or bad things.
 
2010-06-11 12:55:02 AM
Corke hypothesizes: "It might be that someone tried to explain this to him and used the yeast/beer thing as a metaphor and that's what he was able to remember."

It'd be simpler to give the truth: he's old.

tabright.com

I'm gonna say this equalizes out "Could Guam Tip Over?" bringing the parties back into balance.
 
2010-06-11 12:57:01 AM
"Ab oil spill ..."

Fark.

"Ab erl spiel ..." is what I meant, obviously.
 
2010-06-11 12:57:56 AM
Ego edo infantia cattus: New headline:

"Retarded Republican spews BS about BP spill."


And at the same time causes mass hysteria for many beer lovers worried about their supply.

Because they'll only get as far as the headline. Hell of a diversion.
 
2010-06-11 01:00:17 AM
Grassley's consultant:
orangejuiceblog.com
 
2010-06-11 01:01:06 AM
I don;'t understand this process. the USa is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A crisis of this proportion on the homefront must be solved quickly. this is worse economic devastation than any attack on the USA ever inflicted. Given that the nation must spend so much effort and so many resources on the wars, shouldn't they "shut down everything" and turn their civilian population toward the slick? If this were the second world war, every scientist and engineer with even a passing familiarity with the technology and problems would be told to drop what they are doing and direct civilians in a massive response. Even if the response was horribly inefficient (like if, being silly, they used really fine mesh pool skimmers from civilian canoes), it still might be effective with that many people working on it. What is preventing that scale of response now? Are the wars just not considered serious enough to warrant a full-blown effort? Or are the wars so bad that the USA is just this weakened that they don't have the resources to mobilize anymore?
 
2010-06-11 01:05:04 AM
Yeast? They reproduce like hotcakes. Give 'em all the yeast they want (not like that'll do anything to the leaking oil). Just keep your hands off of the hops. Hops are the rare commodity.

/home-brewer
//this guy is nuts
 
2010-06-11 01:11:19 AM
musashi1600: FTA: "I think that there's alternatives to soaking up oil that have not been used yet," Grassley said. "There's a process for making beer -- I don't know if it's the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you've got is some methane gas left."

WTF is he talking about?

Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair notes there's some underlying science underpinning Grassley's idea:


Anna Louise Corke, a research scientist who studies cell biology, points out that while the beer-making process has nothing to do with oil, and yeast produce carbon dioxide, not methane, there is new research that suggests that "adding nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to the beaches can speed up the ability of natural bacteria to break down oil," according to the blog ScienceInsider. Corke hypothesizes: "It might be that someone tried to explain this to him and used the yeast/beer thing as a metaphor and that's what he was able to remember."


So the senator doesn't know what he's talking about and is just spewing something off-the-cuff.


Unfortunately, we're governed by people who, for the most part, are dumb as a sack of hammers but have been able to convince enough citizens, who are even dumber, to vote for them.

It's official: WE'RE FARKED!
 
2010-06-11 01:12:10 AM
These people run our country? What the f*ck, guys?

Seriously?

Can we hire some Mexicans?
 
2010-06-11 01:15:28 AM
im.in.com
 
2010-06-11 01:36:42 AM
BuckTurgidson: Ab oil spill isn't a big keg, it's a series of tallboys.

We have a winrar. I bestow upon the an internet.
 
2010-06-11 01:43:21 AM
Bennie Crabtree: I don;'t BLARR

I can't find the hidden theme in this one.
Will you poop on my chest for a buck-o-five?
 
2010-06-11 01:56:36 AM
gas giant: Bennie Crabtree: I don;'t BLARR

I can't find the hidden theme in this one.
Will you poop on my chest for a buck-o-five?


Sorry, isn't the US at war? I heard there were lots of troops and stuff deployed overseas. Wartime economies respond to the fact that a nation is at war. In the last century, that meant nations would mobilize for a stable economy and to protect citizens with a little more speed and purpose than the USA is now.

Let's look at it differently, maybe you'll understand my confusion beyond me just being an idiot. The US lists Plum Pox (new window), a plant disease that is harmless to humans, as a bioterror agent. While Plum Pox can be transmitted by importing wood from other countries, the USA has Plum Pox infections from aphids on its own soil. The reason the disease is considered a terror threat is the amount of economic damage it does to an agricultural region over the course of years. So if a person is caught moving Plum pox over the border in a peach tree twig, they get in serious trouble, immediately. the US has invested a lot into stopping that disease from spreading. The BP spill is doing more damage every week than Plum Pox could in half a decade, but the US is not treating the company with anything near the same severity as it does an officially listed threat.

So we know that in this war that the US is fighting today, some threats are considered threats just on the money they cost the nation, let alone damage done to the wildlife and humans. the response to BP is completely irrational during a) wartime and b) a war on terror.

So I am pointing out that I am confused. Can't there be a much bigger mobilization, that is more effective, just as a natural part of wartime policy? if not, does that - here I guess I am being all political science-y - does that reflect poorly on the US's ability to mobilize the homefront?
 
2010-06-11 02:06:26 AM
Please dear god let it be the hops. Please. Please.

/Old Hoppy McHopperson's Quadruple Hopped Hop Squeezins
 
2010-06-11 02:19:10 AM
omg. that was about the funniest thing I've read in days. we VOTE for these people? lol!
 
2010-06-11 02:21:06 AM
i61.photobucket.com
replace "bucket" with "beer."
 
2010-06-11 02:21:48 AM
Oh, Chuck. Are you ever right about anything?
 
2010-06-11 02:27:21 AM
and all you've got is some methane gas left

SOME? does he know how much oil is out there?
 
2010-06-11 02:32:53 AM
I clicked on the article expecting the magic ingredient would be spent barley malt mash, which might soak up oil, and they feed that to cows, so maybe his idea is to use it to soak up the oil with mash, feed it to cows, which of course make lots of methane, and thus his idea is not so crazy. Is hydrocarbon oil better for you than trans-fat? I can see the spin now: eat a burger, save the oceans!
 
2010-06-11 02:39:13 AM
Dammit, Chuck.

You just disproved the "Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" axiom.

We... we can't fix this with beer.

Yet.

I have faith in you, engineers. You will find a way!
 
2010-06-11 02:59:57 AM
Guy REALLY sounds drunk as hell.. or maybe stoned. "We're gonna take this stuff from here and put it in with this crap to make it do this because I think so after coming up with an idea during half a brain aneurysm while straining to take a dump."

Maybe they should try flying some B1 bombers over the area first and drop cops into the middle of it, dressed in full riot gear and pockets full of rocks. Sounds to me like it would work a lot better. And, if it didn't work, nothing would be wasted other than some rocks.

/seriously, where the hell did this guy come up with such an idea?!
 
2010-06-11 03:29:39 AM
Here is another beer solution to deal with the oil spill, listen to the guy he definitely sounds like an expert who knows what he's talking about. I mean at this point we should listen to any available solutions.
 
2010-06-11 04:09:41 AM
...From my crisp, refreshing, ice-cold dead hands, Mr. Grassley!
 
2010-06-11 05:43:56 AM
The gulf is warm water. Take the Brits beer ingredients.
 
2010-06-11 07:04:06 AM
oldpickupguy: Chuck Grassley times 535 equals the US Congress. If you're looking for hope from this group, you are SOL.

Reminds me of this exchange from Yes, Minister:

Jim Hacker: "Ministers are not experts. They are chosen expressly because they know nothing."
Sir Wally McFarlane: "You admit that?"
 
2010-06-11 08:12:26 AM
Great! Why didn't someone tell me this earlier? I just dumped a big-ass yeast cake from a Rye IPA last week. Next time I'll pack & ship it down to Nawlins & they can just pretend the Gulf is a big vat of wort, pitch it, and.....problem solved!

"Anything that can go wrong, will." - Murphy

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."

-H.L. Mencken
 
2010-06-11 08:29:04 AM
SunsFanInLA: Here is another beer solution to deal with the oil spill, listen to the guy he definitely sounds like an expert who knows what he's talking about. I mean at this point we should listen to any available solutions.

Loved the video. Needs more Boomhauer.
 
2010-06-11 09:11:47 AM
i45.tinypic.com
 
2010-06-11 09:18:52 AM
HellFace: Can't they just freeze the gulf of mexico and just shovel the oil off like they do with ice beer?

It would be easier with a zamboni.
 
2010-06-11 09:25:43 AM
We need to ask ourselves. Do we really need Louisiana that badly?

/no
 
2010-06-11 09:27:31 AM
sandreckoner: robbiex0r: Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?

For the same reason HuffPo articles are frequently seen here, and for the same reason a majority of articles are greenlit: it's making fun of conservatives.

You don't see the same done for liberals because they just don't do or say dumb or bad things.


It could have something to do with the mention of beer (and the well-crafted headline)

/subby
 
2010-06-11 09:30:20 AM
GeeksAreMyPeeps: It could have something to do with the mention of beer (and the well-crafted craft-brewed headline)
 
2010-06-11 09:34:19 AM
Keep electing those doddering old morons, America.
 
2010-06-11 09:44:22 AM
sandreckoner: robbiex0r: Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?

For the same reason HuffPo articles are frequently seen here, and for the same reason a majority of articles are greenlit: it's making fun of conservatives.

You don't see the same done for liberals because they just don't do or say dumb or bad things.


Libs have a different kind of dumb. Look at Australia for examples of it (or reruns of Married With Children). It's over protective and just as racist and even more sexist and is better at cloaking itself as legitimate science because so many scientists are lonely, mommy coddled, emotional basket cases they can easily be led around by militant females (who hate men and sex unfortunately or I would not complain about it) (see New Scientist Magazine). They seem to want a sort of living death. What is safer and more politically correct than a corpse after all.

Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.
 
2010-06-11 09:45:18 AM
Dear Old Fart:
Kindly leave the science to the scienticians who understand all that fancy-talk, and you stick to doing...uhhh...whatever it is you do.
 
2010-06-11 09:51:40 AM
robbiex0r: I am a homebrewer, and AFAIK, there is nothing in beer that will "soak up" or "eat" oil.

Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?


Because it referenced the oil spill and beer and it's a Friday.
 
2010-06-11 09:53:07 AM
hitlersbrain: Libs have a different kind of dumb. Look at Australia for examples of it (or reruns of Married With Children). It's over protective and just as racist and even more sexist and is better at cloaking itself as legitimate science because so many scientists are lonely, mommy coddled, emotional basket cases they can easily be led around by militant females (who hate men and sex unfortunately or I would not complain about it) (see New Scientist Magazine). They seem to want a sort of living death. What is safer and more politically correct than a corpse after all.

Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.


I can only hope that's the dumbest thing I have to read all day.
 
2010-06-11 09:54:28 AM
Goddamned idiot.

Happy now GOP? These science ignorant yokels are going to embarrass the hell out of all of you.

Oh wait, I forgot, the GOP has no shame.

I can't wait to see how they'll spin this. Jesus... Trr-rrsts...Secrit Muzlims takin' our freedum with oil spills... yadda yadda.
 
2010-06-11 09:58:24 AM
hitlersbrain: sandreckoner: robbiex0r: Which the article goes on to explain. Why was this greenlit?

For the same reason HuffPo articles are frequently seen here, and for the same reason a majority of articles are greenlit: it's making fun of conservatives.

You don't see the same done for liberals because they just don't do or say dumb or bad things.

Libs have a different kind of dumb. Look at Australia for examples of it (or reruns of Married With Children). It's over protective and just as racist and even more sexist and is better at cloaking itself as legitimate science because so many scientists are lonely, mommy coddled, emotional basket cases they can easily be led around by militant females (who hate men and sex unfortunately or I would not complain about it) (see New Scientist Magazine). They seem to want a sort of living death. What is safer and more politically correct than a corpse after all.

Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.


Wait... whut?
 
2010-06-11 10:00:26 AM
hitlersbrain: militant females (who hate men and sex unfortunately or I would not complain about it)

Sounds like you have some deep personal issues.
 
2010-06-11 10:12:50 AM
mofomisfit: Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.

I can only hope that's the dumbest thing I have to read all day.


It's Friday and I'm bored so I'll bite, what point is dumb?

1. Extreme liberals are hyper-protective (nanny state).

2. Extreme liberals use bogus science to backup their idiotic agenda (porn causes rape, computer games cause violence, etc).

3. Scientists are usually mommy coddled types and easier for women to control and so less likely to argue the bogus 'studies'.
 
2010-06-11 10:21:52 AM
hitlersbrain: mofomisfit: Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.

I can only hope that's the dumbest thing I have to read all day.

It's Friday and I'm bored so I'll bite, what point is dumb?

1. Extreme liberals are hyper-protective (nanny state).

2. Extreme liberals use bogus science to backup their idiotic agenda (porn causes rape, computer games cause violence, etc).

3. Scientists are usually mommy coddled types and easier for women to control and so less likely to argue the bogus 'studies'.


You know, I wasn't even going to respond, but I've gotta say that your It's Friday and I'm bored so I'll bite is incredibly well played, acting like I'm the troll and then reposting exactly the same dumb thing.
 
2010-06-11 10:35:05 AM
mofomisfit: You know, I wasn't even going to respond, but I've gotta say that your It's Friday and I'm bored so I'll bite is incredibly well played, acting like I'm the troll and then reposting exactly the same dumb thing.

I was just wondering what it was I said that seemed so ridiculous. Both extremes, left and right are bad.

The points I made are what I see as the reason so many people today are willing to discount science. During the liberal years many scientists played the biatch to the crazy left and none of the others said anything about it.

So now we have Sarah Palins and George Bushs and the the friggen Tea Party morons.
 
2010-06-11 10:38:36 AM
hitlersbrain: The points I made are what I see as the reason so many people today are willing to discount science.

People are willing to discount science because the population is trained in general to believe that every opinion is important and there are at least two sides to everything.
 
2010-06-11 10:40:30 AM
Oh, and hitlersbrain you should really use the word "libtard" more, it would add some class to your posts.
 
2010-06-11 10:46:13 AM
Epicedion: Oh, and hitlersbrain you should really use the word "libtard" more, it would add some class to your posts.

So you are a butt hurt scientist or researcher or someone else who wants an unquestioned techno-elite rather than an unquestioned corporate elite.

Oh well, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion... libtard.
 
2010-06-11 10:49:07 AM
hitlersbrain: Epicedion: Oh, and hitlersbrain you should really use the word "libtard" more, it would add some class to your posts.

Oh well, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion... libtard.


Don't lie.
 
2010-06-11 10:52:03 AM
hitlersbrain: Oh well, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion

No you didn't.
 
2010-06-11 10:53:52 AM
Ego edo infantia cattus: New headline:

"Retarded Republican spews BS about BP spill."


MO GOP VIP BS RE BP SNAFU. STFU & GBTW or
GOP FLK BS RE BP GOM CF.
 
2010-06-11 10:57:09 AM
wejash: Chuck Grassley is actually trying to spew up some excuse to turn this into a pork barrel project for farmers in Iowa. Swear to God, that's what he's actually thinking about in his black neolithic heart.

In that case, He's doing his job, or at least the part of it that will benefit him and his constituents. Except for the fact that he has entirely misapprehended the possibility of using microorganisms on the spill, he's OK here.

/ No he's not. He's a waste of air, but at least he's trying to help his folks.
 
2010-06-11 11:01:24 AM
Bennie Crabtree: I don;'t understand this process. the USa is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A crisis of this proportion on the homefront must be solved quickly. this is worse economic devastation than any attack on the USA ever inflicted. Given that the nation must spend so much effort and so many resources on the wars, shouldn't they "shut down everything" and turn their civilian population toward the slick? If this were the second world war, every scientist and engineer with even a passing familiarity with the technology and problems would be told to drop what they are doing and direct civilians in a massive response. Even if the response was horribly inefficient (like if, being silly, they used really fine mesh pool skimmers from civilian canoes), it still might be effective with that many people working on it. What is preventing that scale of response now? Are the wars just not considered serious enough to warrant a full-blown effort? Or are the wars so bad that the USA is just this weakened that they don't have the resources to mobilize anymore?

But that would be SOCIALISM!!!!!!

/ I agree with you, but there's no way it would work.
 
2010-06-11 11:10:31 AM
Ah republicans and science, they're like oil and water.
 
2010-06-11 11:18:20 AM
NOOOOO
 
2010-06-11 11:20:18 AM
TheShavingofOccam123: Please dear god let it be the hops. Please. Please.

/Old Hoppy McHopperson's Quadruple Hopped Hop Squeezins


Man, next time you're in the greater DC metro area, look me up, and I'll buy you something nice and Malty (I actually have a really nice Saison I just brewed that has only enough hops to just barely balance the low amount of sweetness in it). The Hoppy stuff is good too, though. Takes all sorts, right? You need both extremes to get a middle.
 
2010-06-11 11:31:28 AM
mofomisfit: hitlersbrain: Libs have a different kind of dumb. Look at Australia for examples of it (or reruns of Married With Children). It's over protective and just as racist and even more sexist and is better at cloaking itself as legitimate science because so many scientists are lonely, mommy coddled, emotional basket cases they can easily be led around by militant females (who hate men and sex unfortunately or I would not complain about it) (see New Scientist Magazine). They seem to want a sort of living death. What is safer and more politically correct than a corpse after all.

Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.

I can only hope that's the dumbest thing I have to read all day.


That's actually sort of shocking, because his broad premise: Liberals have a different kind of stupid, is actually legitimate. He doesn't actually descend into real blather until halfway through his post. Amazing the sheer density of stupid after that point, though.
 
2010-06-11 11:43:28 AM
TypoFlyspray: That's actually sort of shocking, because his broad premise: Liberals have a different kind of stupid, is actually legitimate. He doesn't actually descend into real blather until halfway through his post. Amazing the sheer density of stupid after that point, though.

What I'm able to gather is that he hates women because they won't sleep with him, and he hates his mother for not loving him enough as a child.
 
2010-06-11 11:44:06 AM
hitlersbrain: mofomisfit: Their stupid is just not at the forefront at the moment.

I can only hope that's the dumbest thing I have to read all day.

It's Friday and I'm bored so I'll bite, what point is dumb?

1. Extreme liberals are hyper-protective (nanny state).

2. Extreme liberals use bogus science to backup their idiotic agenda (porn causes rape, computer games cause violence, etc).

3. Scientists are usually mommy coddled types and easier for women to control and so less likely to argue the bogus 'studies'.


Point 3 is pure foolishness - If anything, scientists tend to be intellectually fixated and without parentally rooted psychological issues of either sort (what you describe is a mommy issue.) Course, like any occupation, there are all sorts, but if you wanted to pull a tendency, if you had to point to a defect, it's more likely that the defect for a scientist would be detatchment rather than codependence or aggression. [citation needed, true, but your assertion is unsupported as well]

Point 1 is spot on. This, more than anything, is what is wrong with liberalism.

Point 2 is well taken, but shows only half the picture, with is that liberals are far more likely than conservatives to use real science too (as well as pseudoscientific foolishness as you point out.) It is the result of holding an open mind - sometimes crap gets in. In the main, though, the tendency that leaves liberals vulnerable to this is a net benefit as it allows for more approaches to problem solving and the possibility that an unprofitable or nonsensical course will be avoided, or if not avoided then abandoned early, hopefully before too much damage is done.
 
2010-06-11 11:50:13 AM
Epicedion: TypoFlyspray: That's actually sort of shocking, because his broad premise: Liberals have a different kind of stupid, is actually legitimate. He doesn't actually descend into real blather until halfway through his post. Amazing the sheer density of stupid after that point, though.

What I'm able to gather is that he hates women because they won't sleep with him, and he hates his mother for not loving him enough as a child.


That's part of what it suggests. I would say he probably has daddy issues as well. The aggression against science bespeaks the Oedipal, nu?

He started out pretty well, though, and when he breaks it down into points, his first point is absolutely correct - liberalism tends to be stiflingly maternalistic if not carefully checked. His second point is almost valid, though half truth by omission and put in an inflammatory way. His third point is so densely stupid it has a sort of event horizon for rational thought, though.
 
2010-06-11 12:38:18 PM
Bennie Crabtree: I don;'t understand this process. the USa is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A crisis of this proportion on the homefront must be solved quickly. this is worse economic devastation than any attack on the USA ever inflicted. Given that the nation must spend so much effort and so many resources on the wars, shouldn't they "shut down everything" and turn their civilian population toward the slick? If this were the second world war, every scientist and engineer with even a passing familiarity with the technology and problems would be told to drop what they are doing and direct civilians in a massive response. Even if the response was horribly inefficient (like if, being silly, they used really fine mesh pool skimmers from civilian canoes), it still might be effective with that many people working on it. What is preventing that scale of response now? Are the wars just not considered serious enough to warrant a full-blown effort? Or are the wars so bad that the USA is just this weakened that they don't have the resources to mobilize anymore?

Forget to fill that Prozac prescription? I heard the same stuff when the Exxon Valdez went aground. In more recent epochs, Hurricanes Andrew, Katrina, etc. Perspective, man.....
 
2010-06-11 01:49:07 PM
krelborne: TFA: "I think that there's alternatives to soaking up oil that have not been used yet," Grassley said. "There's a process for making beer -- I don't know if it's the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you've got is some methane gas left."

Wat

That's what I said (more or less). Either Mr Grassley just knows "beer has something to do with microbiology" and assumes therefore that microbial remediation of oil has something to do with beer, or he's aware of some amazing cutting-edge fermentation science that I'd love to see the publications for.


(I've not heard of archaea of any kind being involved in beer production before, let alone specifically methanogens. I keep wondering if archaea play a useful role in any major food fermentations, so if someone has any links to research on that I'd be interested. That goes for you, too, Mr Grassley...)

 
2010-06-11 03:18:02 PM
That's what I said (more or less). Either Mr Grassley just knows "beer has something to do with microbiology" and assumes therefore that microbial remediation of oil has something to do with beer, or he's aware of some amazing cutting-edge fermentation science that I'd love to see the publications for.

He's just spearheading a new UN Oil for Beer program and got some details wrong.
 
2010-06-11 05:59:43 PM
LOL WUT
 
2010-06-11 09:43:38 PM
OK, look... I know we'll never agree on Term Limits. How about an age limit?
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report