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.

(RealClearPolitics)   The Party of Science(tm)? In my vaccine/autism links and GM Foods conspiracies? It's more likely than you think   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 155
    More: Obvious, Democrats Really, California Democrats, California Democratic Party, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., autism, alternative medicines, conspiracy, genetically modified food  
•       •       •

2052 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 6:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-10 05:55:16 PM
Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?

Not necessarily, but they're cerainly less anti-science and more aware of the basic laws and functions of the natural world, as opposed to the Republicans who tend to make the Insane Clown Posse look like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
 
2012-09-10 05:58:31 PM
Therefore evolution is false and God controls when two atoms form a new molecule.
 
2012-09-10 06:04:17 PM
FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.
 
2012-09-10 06:13:57 PM
It just goes to show that there is leftwing DERP.
 
2012-09-10 06:17:49 PM
Let's just ask that well-known leftist Jon Huntsman what he thinks of the GOP's stance on science.
 
2012-09-10 06:17:52 PM
Thimerosal hasn't been used in vaccines since '99.

Because mercury.
 
2012-09-10 06:41:20 PM
I wouldn't call the Democrats pro-science, but the Republicans are staunchly anti-science.
 
2012-09-10 06:46:55 PM

Dinki: Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.


Also FTFA: Yet, the California Democratic Party has officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of America's finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus.

The scientific consensus is that GM foods shouldn't be labeled?

Both sides are bad...
 
2012-09-10 06:56:44 PM
Ah, you're missing the point, Subby; when those guys do it, it's science-hating, but when our guys do it, it's legitimate skepticism.
 
2012-09-10 07:00:40 PM
Yay! We found something we can use to make the Democrats look fringy! Yay!
 
2012-09-10 07:03:01 PM
DjangoStonereaver: It just goes to show that there is leftwing DERP.

Yeah, but they don't legislate on it.

Plus a lot of "left-wing" derp, is actually bipartisan derp. A lot of the "nanny state issues" are also bipartisan, and big problems in affluent red and blue places. know nothing NIMBYism doesn't hold along party lines.

1 out of 10 people will tell you the sun revolves around the earth.
 
2012-09-10 07:03:33 PM
Um, the fringe that gravitates towards Democrat is not in charge of the party.

And those conspiracies, in my experience, cut across all political stripes.

It's more of a result of a very science education starved public that listens to celebrities more than scientists on stuff, and a news cycle that goes "eggs good, eggs bad, eggs good, eggs bad" over and over and over.
 
2012-09-10 07:05:41 PM

TyrantII: Yeah, but they don't legislate on it.


Vaccine opt-outs beg to differ.
 
2012-09-10 07:06:14 PM
Democratic Party. Not science, but #1 with scientists.
 
2012-09-10 07:06:41 PM
I DO know a lot of very "liberal" people that don't believe in public school or vaccines. But just because we both agree Bush II was absolutely terrible doesn't mean I listen to a goddamn word they have to say on any other subject ever.
 
2012-09-10 07:08:11 PM
FTFA: Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.

FTFA: 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.

A-ha! So we can judge people by the company we keep! I guess this means the Tea Party really are in league with the white supremacist groups.
 
2012-09-10 07:09:21 PM
I've got some friends that fear the vaccines and the genetic food. None of them drone on about a 6,000 year old planet, ark fables, or fixing 'queers' by eating fast-food fried chicken.

Point at them and laugh.
www.arthurmag.com

Tacosaurus Rex
 
2012-09-10 07:13:10 PM
So vote Republican.
 
2012-09-10 07:16:01 PM

HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.


It adds no useful information. Why not add the skin color of the business that made it, or what day of the week the fruit was picked?
 
2012-09-10 07:17:49 PM
Consumers having more information so that they may make an informed decision on whether or not they wish to spend their money on the product.

I believe that's called "capitalism"
 
2012-09-10 07:19:59 PM

HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.


I put it in the same classification as the "No Hormones Added" label on poultry and pork products, that has a little tiny text that says "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones."

The best thing would be a public information campaign that lets people know that we do not allow added hormones in pork and poultry products, and discourage the use of a label that adds no real information in the big bold print and has the valuable information in the small print.
 
2012-09-10 07:21:14 PM

Satanic_Hamster: HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.

It adds no useful information. Why not add the skin color of the business that made it, or what day of the week the fruit was picked?


Most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on that.
 
2012-09-10 07:21:48 PM
And as an aside, here is the USDA list of what labels are allowed on meat and poultry

Link
 
2012-09-10 07:23:01 PM

Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.


All food has been genetically modified at some point.
 
2012-09-10 07:23:24 PM

Satanic_Hamster: HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.

It adds no useful information. Why not add the skin color of the business that made it, or what day of the week the fruit was picked?


You don't think it's useful, but I'd rather not buy it in some cases. I'm not worried about it making me grow blueberries on my back or anything, but there are plenty of other reasons to not like them. The fact that these genes can make their way into other plants, that a corporation can patent a plant and then sue neighboring farmers whose crops are inadvertently fertilized by GMO crops, and the fact that their use promotes genetic monocultures are enough for me to at least want to know.

I'm not strictly against them, but why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves?
 
2012-09-10 07:23:38 PM
For those of you unfamiliar with the world outside of America, there's this link and this link.

Enjoy.
 
2012-09-10 07:25:52 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I DO know a lot of very "liberal" people that don't believe in public school or vaccines. But just because we both agree Bush II was absolutely terrible doesn't mean I listen to a goddamn word they have to say on any other subject ever.


THIS.

I know a multitude of vegans, environmentalists, and other granola crunching treehugger types. And some of the shiat they believe makes my eyes roll. But the thing is, those of them that vote Democrat do so only grudgingly, feel the party offers them nothing, and generally only vote for Dems out of fear of Republican. The vast majority of them think Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Socialist/Green/Mickey Mouse.
 
2012-09-10 07:27:22 PM

MyRandomName: Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.

All food has been genetically modified at some point.


But only recently have we patented and monocultured it. And if it's good for you and the country, then Monsanto has nothing to hide, do they?
 
2012-09-10 07:28:29 PM

MyRandomName: Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.

All food has been genetically modified at some point.


I don't feel super strongly about this either way, but that's a stupid way to put it. From that perspective, it's also true that all human lineages have been genetically modified at some point. Sure, it was mostly sexual selection and mate choice, but hey, what's the difference, right?
 
2012-09-10 07:28:45 PM

HeartBurnKid: FTFA: Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Ummm... no. It just requires them to be labeled as containing GMO foods. I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with this; I understand the science that shows that GMOs don't have ill effects, and I wouldn't stop buying them, but anything that gives a consumer more information is a good thing.


This should be, in fact, supported by conservatives. One of the fundamental tenets of the free market is COMPLETE INFORMATION. It's a basic proposition that in order for market activities to work, you need symmetry of information. Everything should be labeled to the extent possible.
 
2012-09-10 07:30:38 PM
Anti-vaxxers are transpartisan while anti-GMO foodsters are typically left-wing. There are valid concerns about GMO crops (usually overblown) so at least a good number of anti-GMO types have a kernel of truth at the core of their beliefs.
 
2012-09-10 07:31:10 PM
I understand their are genetic modifications to corn for example which allows it to generate it's own anti-insecticidal properties. What could possibly be wrong with eating that Maybe it is harmless, maybe not but I think we all can agree that the consumer shouldn't know about it.
 
2012-09-10 07:33:10 PM
I thought anti-vaxxers were Republican. You know, standing up to the big, bad government by refusing to let their children live happy, healthy lives.
 
2012-09-10 07:35:42 PM
Big Pharma, Big Ag, they're people too - farking libtarded hairlibs.
 
2012-09-10 07:36:21 PM
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.

1. Whenever you say that "the media" isn't reporting the right things what you're really saying is "why aren't people interested in the things I'm interested in?" It doesn't matter if you're this guy or someone who wants to talk about the moon hoax or reptillians in the Senate.

2. No, it is not front-page news when a Republican makes an ignorant, unscientific remark. It's called "man bites dog". John Huntsman made headlines for NOT denying global warming or evolution.

Summary: bullshiat.
 
2012-09-10 07:37:08 PM
I personally like the "science" blog that the article references. I'm always suspicious of a blog that references another blog for "proof" or "news". I do love, though, a self-purported science blog that uses unscientific language to talk about "science issues". It makes me giggle in my no-no place.

Or maybe that's the PMS.
 
2012-09-10 07:41:10 PM
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.

1: I have never heard of Obama refering to himself in the third person as 'this person'.
2: The reason I never heard of him doing that is probably because in this instance he was pointing at someone in the crowd.

The quote-mining ghost of Brietbard is going to release more posthumous hits than Elvis.
 
2012-09-10 07:43:39 PM
I can't decide if the authors are careless or just stupid. I mean, sure, the basic Conservative(tm) strategy these days is to lie. The authors lying isn't unusual. What IS unusual is the authors linking to sources that directly and clearly contradict their assertions. I can only assume A) they didn't read them fully, or B) they can't actually read.
 
2012-09-10 07:44:02 PM

mrshowrules: I understand their are genetic modifications to corn for example which allows it to generate it's own anti-insecticidal properties. What could possibly be wrong with eating that Maybe it is harmless, maybe not but I think we all can agree that the consumer shouldn't know about it.


One of the biggest risks so far is the insects developing a resistance when farmers plant the BT corn in the same field 5 years running. Not only does it go against good land management, but really makes the developers upset because they have a pretty good idea how long it will take resistance to build up in a population and more importantly hard science on how to mitigate it in the first place. Namely, don't plant BT corn or even regular old open pollinated corn in the same goddamn field year after year after year.

Now here is where conspiracy guys make me twitchy. They've come back with "That's the genius of it. They make the pests resistant to BT, which is organic approved pest control, and then the organic guys can't control the pests anymore."

//Not a fan of monoculture at all, but as with most things, we can balance it with some procedural and practical tweaks here or there.
 
2012-09-10 07:45:23 PM
Yes, there are some serious science ignorant liberals. They will talk like stoners about good vibes and positive energy, use healing crystals, wear magic bracelets, and other such nonsense. But they are not shaping the Democratic party platform and do not have a major voice in shaping policies. Unlike the religiously anti science wing of the Republican party.
 
2012-09-10 07:45:55 PM
I'd support the labeling of GMO food for no other reason than it would give me the ability to not fund the business practices of Monsanto.
 
2012-09-10 07:46:23 PM

mrshowrules: I understand their are genetic modifications to corn for example which allows it to generate it's own anti-insecticidal properties. What could possibly be wrong with eating that Maybe it is harmless, maybe not but I think we all can agree that the consumer shouldn't know about it.


Um, if the change involves adding genes from a completely different species it might warrant more research than normal breeding... Just saying
 
2012-09-10 07:46:26 PM

Emposter: I can't decide if the authors are careless or just stupid. I mean, sure, the basic Conservative(tm) strategy these days is to lie. The authors lying isn't unusual. What IS unusual is the authors linking to sources that directly and clearly contradict their assertions. I can only assume A) they didn't read them fully, or B) they can't actually read.


or C) assume their readers will assume their sources back them up without actually checking for themselves.
 
2012-09-10 07:48:11 PM

Marcus Aurelius: For those of you unfamiliar with the world outside of America, there's this link and this link.

Enjoy.


So we decide science by sampling world opinion now?

Nah, we decide science by experimentation and consensus...of scientists.
 
2012-09-10 07:50:36 PM

Karac: I'd support the labeling of GMO food for no other reason than it would give me the ability to not fund the business practices of Monsanto.


What about university research that uses GMO techniques to improve nutrition or survival rates of plants using just that species of plant. I.E. taking the flood resistance from one rice variety and adding it to one that is more nutritious, but cannot stand extended flooding.

Can the label give the end consumer enough information to make such a decision on what is acceptable and non acceptable GMO use?

//But I do agree fark Monsanto. BioCassava and university research, not so much.
 
2012-09-10 07:51:47 PM

Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.


I'll just leave this quote here.

"I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter," Bachmann said.
 
2012-09-10 07:52:22 PM
Wow, it's been 1542 days since the last left-wing DERP article was greenlit on here.
 
2012-09-10 07:54:10 PM
The theory of relativity is a liberal plot

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1] Here is a list of 24 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
 
2012-09-10 07:55:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: MyRandomName: Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.

All food has been genetically modified at some point.

But only recently have we patented and monocultured it. And if it's good for you and the country, then Monsanto has nothing to hide, do they?


Patent law has nothing to with the genetic mods from a scientific standpoint. I never stated I was for the patentability.
 
2012-09-10 07:58:06 PM

Erix: MyRandomName: Dinki: FTFA- Consider California's Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label.

Just a hint- if you want to hide your bias, don't use inflammatory and incorrect terminology such as 'warning label'. A label marking something as genetically modified is no different than one marking it as organic.

Oh and trying to pass off Obama's comment about a person in his audiences concerns about vaccines as the presidents personal opinion is pretty pathetic.

All food has been genetically modified at some point.

I don't feel super strongly about this either way, but that's a stupid way to put it. From that perspective, it's also true that all human lineages have been genetically modified at some point. Sure, it was mostly sexual selection and mate choice, but hey, what's the difference, right?


Oh noes. Humans have gotten better at a ten thousand year old practice. The horror. How much more food now makes it to market due to science? How many more poor can afford cheaper food? The horror.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report