Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Science 2.0)   "For example, Democrats hate business and are anti-science, while Republicans hate minorities and are anti-science"   ( science20.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Republican, Democrats, embryonic stem cell research, confidence intervals, social sciences, minorities, gmos, big tent  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2013 at 9:54 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-01 08:20:19 AM  
People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.
 
2013-05-01 08:25:29 AM  
There are only two choices in American politics, and they're both bad.

I think we already know that, thanks.
 
2013-05-01 08:27:10 AM  

cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is


If I could change one thing about the human race, it would be the ability for people to see when they're wrong.
 
2013-05-01 08:27:34 AM  
I don't need your fancy science when I have an invisible sky fairy to guide me mister science man
 
2013-05-01 08:35:34 AM  
norway.usembassy.gov

Aniti Climate Change Gore
 
2013-05-01 08:40:13 AM  

cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.


http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  - Rethinking Nuclear Power
Are modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309 - The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Global warming is the poster boy for failed science communication. What went wrong?
 
2013-05-01 09:28:53 AM  

Raharu: cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  - Rethinking Nuclear Power
Are modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309 - The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Global warming is the poster boy for failed science communication. What went wrong?


New religions aren't accepted by people who don't drink koolaid?
 
2013-05-01 09:38:28 AM  
Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."
 
2013-05-01 09:49:02 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Raharu: cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  - Rethinking Nuclear Power
Are modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309 - The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Global warming is the poster boy for failed science communication. What went wrong?

New religions aren't accepted by people who don't drink koolaid?


It's rare to see an issue demonstrate itself so clearly.
 
2013-05-01 09:56:15 AM  
But I love business.  That's where all my money comes from.
 
2013-05-01 10:00:18 AM  
 I wrote last year with Dr. Alex Berezow, I tried to get rid of left-right thinking, and even the famous quadrant (liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian) and replace it with a triangle.

So you replaced those cartoonishly simplistic political philosophy charts that morans put in their profile with an even dumber system.

Assume that business is this monolithic, universally agreed upon thing and choose one:
1.  Business is always bad.
2.  Business is always good.
 
2013-05-01 10:03:06 AM  

cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.


It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.
 
2013-05-01 10:03:56 AM  

Wendy's Chili: cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.

It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.


A series of well supported arguments from all.
 
2013-05-01 10:06:07 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-01 10:06:40 AM  

Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."


In case society collapses, they can let future generations know that there is radio-active waste inside just in case they decide to start popping containers.  And the longer it takes to decay, the less radio active it is.  It's basically overkill.

I will give you some perspective - last year, based on three unnamed nuclear facilities consisting of seven total reactors, each site having their own waste treatment and storage facilities - ~108000 entry/exit transactions were performed in and out of the waste facilities by ~4400 individuals who spent a sum total of ~309000 *hours* (~12800 *days*) in this "lethal" rad-zone and received a grand total (all people combined for all entries for all summed time) of ~22000 mRem (twenty two *thousand*).  The NRC year limit for a single individual is 5000 mRem.  You get around 300 mRem just walking around or sitting on your couch at home.

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.
 
2013-05-01 10:10:11 AM  

LasersHurt: Wendy's Chili: cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.

It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.

A series of well supported arguments from all.


Sorry, I forgot the politics tab was only for comprehensive peer-reviewed studies.
 
2013-05-01 10:10:38 AM  
That whole website looks a lot like the politically bent real clear science -- and its focus on controversies, not science.
 
2013-05-01 10:15:40 AM  

Wendy's Chili: cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.

It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.


Use solar power.

As in, shoot the nuclear waste into the sun.
 
2013-05-01 10:19:21 AM  

UberDave: Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.


Regardless the byproduct of the energy production is something that's hazardous waste. That's hardly what I'd call "perfectly safe". Even coal's byproducts can be made safer than that, and I'm not a huge fan of coal, but at the moment it's what runs most of our power plants. When you can run a nuclear power plant without radioactive waste, come talk to me about how safe it is. In the meantime, I think the position of saying "no thanks" to nuclear power is hardly anti-science. And before anyone pulls the "more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island", talk to me about Fukushima. That wasn't the result of the Soviets running the power up and doing stupid shiat, we're talking the Japanese, modern safety regulations and protective enclosures.

Again, not nearly as safe as coal. I'll take the coal plants over a nuke any day of the week.
 
2013-05-01 10:21:19 AM  
"I'm Hank Campbell, the creator of Science 2.0 and co-author of 'Science Left Behind - Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left'"

Just what we need, more objective analysis like this.

Note: Mr. Campbell is mentally retarded and is not actually a scientist.
 
2013-05-01 10:21:57 AM  

Irving Maimway: UberDave: Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.

Regardless the byproduct of the energy production is something that's hazardous waste. That's hardly what I'd call "perfectly safe". Even coal's byproducts can be made safer than that, and I'm not a huge fan of coal, but at the moment it's what runs most of our power plants. When you can run a nuclear power plant without radioactive waste, come talk to me about how safe it is. In the meantime, I think the position of saying "no thanks" to nuclear power is hardly anti-science. And before anyone pulls the "more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island", talk to me about Fukushima. That wasn't the result of the Soviets running the power up and doing stupid shiat, we're talking the Japanese, modern safety regulations and protective enclosures.

Again, not nearly as safe as coal. I'll take the coal plants over a nuke any day of the week.


For your edification, the Japanese plant was not exactly a modern installation. It was commissioned in 1971, and was known to be below modern safety guidelines.

Also, coal burning produces an enormous amount of radiation and releases it into the air.

So, you know, byproducts are byproducts, but at least one is put into barrels and can be processed in the future. The other floats up in your schnizzy.
 
2013-05-01 10:23:33 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Raharu: cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  - Rethinking Nuclear Power
Are modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309 - The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Global warming is the poster boy for failed science communication. What went wrong?

New religions aren't accepted by people who don't drink koolaid?


Your suggestion is interesting, but I would prefer to read the opinion of someone who has not demonstrated themself to be a habitual, compulsive and unrepentant liar.
 
2013-05-01 10:24:50 AM  
Democrats don't hate business, they just hate  small business.  But that's not really a way to distinguish them; Republicans do, too.
 
2013-05-01 10:26:53 AM  

Irving Maimway: UberDave: Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.

Regardless the byproduct of the energy production is something that's hazardous waste. That's hardly what I'd call "perfectly safe". Even coal's byproducts can be made safer than that, and I'm not a huge fan of coal, but at the moment it's what runs most of our power plants. When you can run a nuclear power plant without radioactive waste, come talk to me about how safe it is. In the meantime, I think the position of saying "no thanks" to nuclear power is hardly anti-science. And before anyone pulls the "more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island", talk to me about Fukushima. That wasn't the result of the Soviets running the power up and doing stupid shiat, we're talking the Japanese, modern safety regulations and protective enclosures.

Again, not nearly as safe as coal. I'll take the coal plants over a nuke any day of the week.



You shouldn't; coal plant release far more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear causing all kinds of deaths that just aren't as sensational as Fukashima.  Burning rocks is incredibly bad for the environment.  Not only because of radioactive trace elements, but heavy metals like mercury that pollute ground water.

The reason nuclear isn't more widespread, despite what lying conservatives say, is economic.  It's just a banal fact, burning rocks is far cheaper than building safe nuclear power.  It's not some environmentalist plot or widespread public fear, it's just economics.  You can make more money with coal as an electric producer -- if nuclear was more affordable, nothing would stop capitalists from exploiting its potential.
 
2013-05-01 10:27:31 AM  
It is true, there are a lot of anti-science moonbats on the left.

But there are a lot fewer anti-science moonbat elected officials on the left than anti-science moonbat elected officials on the right.
And the ones on the left tend to be stuck in the 20th century. The ones on the right are stuck in the 19th century...if they're lucky.

So, while both sides might be bad, it still isn't justification to vote Republican.
 
2013-05-01 10:27:44 AM  

Wooly Bully: "I'm Hank Campbell, the creator of Science 2.0 and co-author of 'Science Left Behind - Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left'"

Just what we need, more objective analysis like this.

Note: Mr. Campbell is mentally retarded and is not actually a scientist.



How much you wanna bet this website and his career are a Koch welfare program?
 
2013-05-01 10:32:19 AM  

cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.


safe nuclear power is safe.  Alternately, nuclear power can be safe.    Let's not overstate it.
 
2013-05-01 10:37:26 AM  

LasersHurt: Irving Maimway: UberDave: Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.

Regardless the byproduct of the energy production is something that's hazardous waste. That's hardly what I'd call "perfectly safe". Even coal's byproducts can be made safer than that, and I'm not a huge fan of coal, but at the moment it's what runs most of our power plants. When you can run a nuclear power plant without radioactive waste, come talk to me about how safe it is. In the meantime, I think the position of saying "no thanks" to nuclear power is hardly anti-science. And before anyone pulls the "more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island", talk to me about Fukushima. That wasn't the result of the Soviets running the power up and doing stupid shiat, we're talking the Japanese, modern safety regulations and protective enclosures.

Again, not nearly as safe as coal. I'll take the coal plants over a nuke any day of the week.

For your edification, the Japanese plant was not exactly a modern installation. It was commissioned in 1971, and was known to be below modern safety guidelines.

Also, coal burning produces an enormous amount of radiation and releases it into the air.



To be more specific, it's about 100 times more than nuclear plants (U.S.).  You could take a lump of coal in a nuclear plant and wouldn't be able to get past the body frisker to walk about out with it.  Nuclear facilities (power generation or not) closely monitor *every* single thing they release into the environment.  The very air that leaves the building is run through filters and the vent stacks are monitored with redundancy and sampled *at least* every 24 hours.  Then there's the random environmental sampling that is done around site.  You don't have anything near that scale at a coal plant.
 
2013-05-01 10:38:15 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Wooly Bully: "I'm Hank Campbell, the creator of Science 2.0 and co-author of 'Science Left Behind - Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left'"

Just what we need, more objective analysis like this.

Note: Mr. Campbell is mentally retarded and is not actually a scientist.

How much you wanna bet this website and his career are a Koch welfare program?


Well, someone's paying him to write crap articles like this one, that's for sure; he's not doing science and never has.

A quick search turned up this little gem - I imagine it's just the tip of a derp iceberg:

"Energy activists also dislike fusion, to go with their dislike of natural gas, hydroelectric power, wind power, current nuclear power and anything else more advanced than the 13th century. Why? Because fusion is not perfect today and, in their fundraising brochures, it adds to their arsenal of claims that scientists are out to kill us all."
 
2013-05-01 10:39:00 AM  
I'm pro-business, just anti-greed.  It's one thing when you're establishing a business; it's another when you start cutting corners to maximize your profit margins and your fat bonus and just ignore both safety standards and ethical/moral values.

Otherwise, I could easily sell you swampland labeled as "prime Florida real estate" and you couldn't do a thing about it except whine.
 
2013-05-01 10:44:06 AM  
There are certainly Dems who are ignorant on matters of science, no doubt.  But they don't even come close to being in the same vicinity as a party choc-full of creationists.

And now a meaningless anecdote: every Dem I know is pro-nuclear power.  And as far as I know, none are anti-fossil fuel, just pro-use less of it and develop alternatives.
 
2013-05-01 10:47:45 AM  

Raharu: cman: People base their perceptions around what they believe to be true and not what really is

Global warming exists and nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem. This is the scientific consensus.

Yet we Americans are happy letting our political views dictate how we see science.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  - Rethinking Nuclear Power
Are modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309 - The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Global warming is the poster boy for failed science communication. What went wrong?


Brian Dunning for the win!

As much as this guy claims to be politically agnostic, his right leaning is exposed FTFA:

Now, CO2 in America needs curbed by the government less and less each day - we have migrated from coal for energy to natural gas and energy sector CO2 emissions have plummeted, while the government's $72 billion in green energy corporation subsidies helped us very little. But it's still good to know that people will support more government restrictions should they ever be needed.

While this is true, international scientific consensus is of the opinion that America and other countries haven't done nearly enough and the problems go beyond just CO2.  So the need may be less, it is in the same sense that a 777 weighs less than a 747.  They are both huge and consequential.

AND most importantly, Democrats put people with a scientific background on science committees while republicans put anti-science partisan hacks in science committees.  While there are some WAY lefties who think GMO's are toxic, everyone pretty much agrees that these people are nuts.  The GOP embraces their creationists, giving them tax breaks for their museum and such.

No, Republican PARTY, the people who are the most happy with economic growth through technology, are much more anti-science than Democratic PARTY.  Individuals may vary, but what the parties DO MATTERS and the GOP is aggressively anti-science as a matter of POLICY.
 
2013-05-01 10:49:39 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: There are certainly Dems who are ignorant on matters of science, no doubt.  But they don't even come close to being in the same vicinity as a party choc-full of creationists.

And now a meaningless anecdote: every Dem I know is pro-nuclear power.  And as far as I know, none are anti-fossil fuel, just pro-use less of it and develop alternatives.



More anecdotes, the people I know who  are full bore into homeopathic medicine,  message therapy, and anti GMO are all conservative republicans.  I honestly don't know where the hell people are getting their stereotypes on this stuff.
 
2013-05-01 10:50:32 AM  

Irving Maimway: UberDave: Irving Maimway: Nuclear power and fossil fuels are perfectly safe. Okey dokey then, explain to me why the storage facility for nuclear waste has to have a sculpture on top of it that will convey in any language spoken 10,000 years from now "stay the hell away from this place, there's nasty shiat in here."

So yeah, I would call the storage pretty safe.  But if you cracked open a container and started eating the stuff, it probably wouldn't do you any good (and the toxicity of the substance would have an effect on your before the radiation...and we're talking processed waste here).  But neither would drinking the draino you have stored under your sink.

Regardless the byproduct of the energy production is something that's hazardous waste. That's hardly what I'd call "perfectly safe". Even coal's byproducts can be made safer than that, and I'm not a huge fan of coal, but at the moment it's what runs most of our power plants. When you can run a nuclear power plant without radioactive waste, come talk to me about how safe it is. In the meantime, I think the position of saying "no thanks" to nuclear power is hardly anti-science. And before anyone pulls the "more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island", talk to me about Fukushima. That wasn't the result of the Soviets running the power up and doing stupid shiat, we're talking the Japanese, modern safety regulations and protective enclosures.

Again, not nearly as safe as coal. I'll take the coal plants over a nuke any day of the week.


Interesting how you simple toss out a "regardless" and snip the raw data off my message.  I guess it is easier to disregard that way.

Again, 4400+ individuals spent a total of several man-years inside a waste facility during a single year and received a combined whopping 22K mRem of dose.  That isn't even half of what would show symptoms in a *single* individual.  These are the "unsafe" storage facilities of which you speak.  I would feel safer walking around such a facility over any coal plant or oil refinery.
 
2013-05-01 10:51:48 AM  
Democrats more than Republicans distrust validated medicine and embrace the alternative kind. But that does not mean we can call Democrats anti-science due to that any more than we can call all Republicans anti-science because slightly more of them don't accept evolution.

Is there a push from the left to squash new medicines in favor of alternative treatments through legislative action?  To hard-wire school curriculum to distort and inflate the supposed "controversy" in the scientific community about the relative merits of real vs. alternative medicine?  Because if there isn't, this whole thing is just a giant apples-to-oranges comparison.
 
2013-05-01 10:55:52 AM  
In all fairness, there is a distinction between being  bad at understanding science, and actually being against science itself.

Being bad at science knows no party lines, for every Republican that thinks women can prevent pregnancy by thinking really hard about how bad the sex was or that the global average temperature isn't changing, there's a Democrat that buys into the idea that vaccines cause autism or that nuclear power is more dangerous statistically than coal plants.  All of these things are factually, demonstrably untrue and believing them makes you stupid.  But it doesn't make you anti-science as such, it just makes you stupid.

Being anti-science is denying that the scientific process itself is a valid way to interpret the world.  Commissioning studies and then rejecting the results, reviewing relevant literature and then publicly rejecting the overwhelming consensus of experts even after you've read the work, "discrediting" hard scientific data and even direct observations based on the researcher's political leanings... this is actual anti-science behavior.  And while it's not unknown among the Dems, it's overwhelmingly the provenance of the GOP.

So to review: Stupidity and incompetence regarding scientific issues?  Universal.  (Even Obama is... pretty bad with science facts.)  Actually opposing science itself as a way of investigating the world?  Pretty much a GOP thing.
 
2013-05-01 11:06:23 AM  
Reading this article actually worsened my hangover. Thanks.
 
2013-05-01 11:07:15 AM  

Wendy's Chili: cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.

It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.


And fossil fuel based energy is unsafe (to the environment) even when nothing goes wrong.
 
2013-05-01 11:09:28 AM  
"Democrats" hate business? Why are people compelled to just straight up lie like that?
 
2013-05-01 11:13:36 AM  

IrateShadow: Democrats don't hate business, they just hate  small business.  But that's not really a way to distinguish them; Republicans do, too.


I'd also add that a lot of urban Democrats rely on political support from police unions, so they support a lot of policies that get minorities arrested.
 
2013-05-01 11:15:25 AM  
Oh yeah, and both sides want to appear "tough on crime".
 
2013-05-01 11:23:13 AM  
UberDave:

In case society collapses, they can let future generations know that there is radio-active waste inside just in case they decide to start popping containers.  And the longer it takes to decay, the less radio active it is.


I agree with the main point that you made, that nuclear power (and the resulting nuclear waste) is generally safer than and preferable to many fossil fuels, but I am skeptical of the bolded part.  How would we be able to mark the site of a waste dump in a way that people of several thousand years in the future will be able to read?  Think about the text of Beowulf, for example - that's only around 1000 years old or so, and very few people can read it.  What would a warning have to look like if we want it to be easily decipherable in 10,000 years?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I can't think of anything that would work.
 
2013-05-01 11:24:19 AM  

Jackson Herring: "Democrats" hate business? Why are people compelled to just straight up lie like that?


Because it's easier than thinking.
 
2013-05-01 11:28:53 AM  

Arkanaut: IrateShadow: Democrats don't hate business, they just hate  small business.  But that's not really a way to distinguish them; Republicans do, too.

I'd also add that a lot of urban Democrats rely on political support from police unions, so they support a lot of policies that get minorities arrested.


For example?
 
2013-05-01 11:29:19 AM  
What if global warming is just a hoax and we create a better planet to live on for nothing!
 
2013-05-01 11:36:50 AM  

Jackson Herring: "Democrats" hate business? Why are people compelled to just straight up lie like that?


Ah, but that's where many conservatives shine - hammering home bumper sticker canards that eventually become accepted as truth.
 
2013-05-01 11:36:56 AM  
 
2013-05-01 11:38:32 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Arkanaut: IrateShadow: Democrats don't hate business, they just hate  small business.  But that's not really a way to distinguish them; Republicans do, too.

I'd also add that a lot of urban Democrats rely on political support from police unions, so they support a lot of policies that get minorities arrested.

For example?


There's the stop-and-frisk stuff in NYC, for example.  They were begun in a Republican administration, to be sure, but all the Democratic mayoral candidates except one have supported it.  Some of them say there should be more oversight or something to that effect, but their proposals have little to no actual teeth.

To clarify though, I'm speaking of Democratic politicians, not necessarily Democratic voters.
 
2013-05-01 11:46:31 AM  

sendtodave: Wendy's Chili: cman: nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is not a problem.

It's only safe if nothing goes wrong.

And nuclear waste is most definitely a problem.

Use solar power.

As in, shoot the nuclear waste into the sun.


Or we could just begin to put it on the Moon.  I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
 
2013-05-01 11:46:53 AM  

FloydA: I agree with the main point that you made, that nuclear power (and the resulting nuclear waste) is generally safer than and preferable to many fossil fuels, but I am skeptical of the bolded part. How would we be able to mark the site of a waste dump in a way that people of several thousand years in the future will be able to read? Think about the text of Beowulf, for example - that's only around 1000 years old or so, and very few people can read it. What would a warning have to look like if we want it to be easily decipherable in 10,000 years?


large.stanford.edu

This seems to be the best we have.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report