I was reading an article, and it stated that polls indicate that of all Scientists, only 6% are Republican.....
I found this intriguing and surprisingly unsurprising at what it seems to affirm in my mind.
Whay do you think of this
Started by
unbroken_chain
, Jan 24 2013 05:51 AM
94 replies to this topic
#2
-
- VibeTribe
- 3,684 posts
- LocationBoston MA
Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:41 AM
I'm thinking the republican answer will be something like: Because the democrat party supplies gobs of money to the pork barrel buffet of research grants and useless studies that is what passes for "science" in this country.
Interesting. Went looking for the article and found this...
A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation. (http://www.slate.com...b_politics.html)
Also found this: Gut feeling & intuition do have a place in science. “Decisions made very quickly can be every bit as good as decisions made cautiously and deliberately.” http://tinyurl.com/ambqsoz
#8
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,274 posts
Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:44 PM
The things some people come up with in order to make themselves feel superior to the other half of the country.
The whole "my party rocks, your party sucks" mentality seems to show there are still plenty of dumb fucks on BOTH sides of the aisle. 
#12
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,798 posts
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:25 PM
To most people, Joker, it is less about party and more about I.Q.
Half this country are complete morons who will believe anything Glenn Beck tells them. Is it anyone's fault they also happen to vote Republican?
To most people, it is less about IQ and more about concensus or "majority".
3/4 of this country (if not more) are complete morons who will believe anything the government tells them. Is it anyone's fault they happen to vote Democrat or Republican?
#26
-
- VibeTribe
- 802 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:35 AM
Many people who voted for Obama didnt do so necessarily because they believed what he says. They just knew a snob-based regime under Thurston Howell III was a death sentence for any social progress made in the last 20 years.
And I based my 1/2 number on the approximate number of people who voted for him despite backing those of his own party who were shitting on his head until he was nominated.
Also, I have functioning eyes, ears and brain and the ability to observe the ignorant actions of the chimps around me. If you have any doubt, just link to the facebook pages of any PA television station and read the horror.
And I based my 1/2 number on the approximate number of people who voted for him despite backing those of his own party who were shitting on his head until he was nominated.
Also, I have functioning eyes, ears and brain and the ability to observe the ignorant actions of the chimps around me. If you have any doubt, just link to the facebook pages of any PA television station and read the horror.
#27
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,274 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:27 PM
So there were morons who actually believed all social progress for the last 20 years were going to end if Romney got in and that's why they voted Obama?
How many Obama voters voted for him despite wanting Hillary or one of the other Dem. candidates who were "shitting on Obama's head until he was nominated" back in 2008?
You've made my point, dumb fucks on both sides.
#28
-
- VibeTribe
- 17,237 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:45 PM
So there were morons who actually believed all social progress for the last 20 years were going to end if Romney got in and that's why they voted
Romney does not serve the people. Obama doesnt either, BUT he seemed to have genuine emotions and at the very least appeared to listen to middle class and minority issues. The same cant be said for Mr. Romney.
#38
-
- VibeTribe
- 802 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:12 PM
You know Joker, driving in the middle of the road is a bad idea. You have to pick a lane or disaster is certain. The point is to pick which lane takes you in the direction that leads to a better future.
Most people choose Obama because at least he lives in the world of 2013, not 1952.
Unless you have an alternative that has a viable chance of coming to fruition, your haughty approach serves nobody but yourself.
Most people choose Obama because at least he lives in the world of 2013, not 1952.
Unless you have an alternative that has a viable chance of coming to fruition, your haughty approach serves nobody but yourself.
#39
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,444 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:16 PM
You know Joker, driving in the middle of the road is a bad idea. You have to pick a lane or disaster is certain. The point is to pick which lane takes you in the direction that leads to a better future.
Most people choose Obama because at least he lives in the world of 2013, not 1952.
Unless you have an alternative that has a viable chance of coming to fruition, your haughty approach serves nobody but yourself.
What ever the Green Candidate's name was. Jill Scott or something, I think. Oops, that is Jill Stien.
I vote for Obama for the Supreme court appointments, and because Mitt would say anything to anyone to be elected.
#LesserEvil.
#41
-
- VibeTribe
- 802 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:21 PM
Like I said andy, a VIABLE alternative. We dont live in a nation where any candidate other than one of two parties has any realistic chance. The game is already rigged, doubly so against alternative party candidates. So yes the choice comes down to lesser of two evils and many Americans choose the evil that is at least in touch with reality.
#45
-
- VibeTribe
- 17,237 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:31 PM
You know Joker, driving in the middle of the road is a bad idea. You have to pick a lane or disaster is certain. The point is to pick which lane takes you in the direction that leads to a better future.
Most people choose Obama because at least he lives in the world of 2013, not 1952.
Unless you have an alternative that has a viable chance of coming to fruition, your haughty approach serves nobody but yourself.
this is a good way to put it.
#46
-
- VibeTribe
- 802 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:33 PM
They are the same. The difference is that one is going forward and one is sitting still and slowly drifting backwards. One wants rights for all and one wants to cling to bigotry. One sees the poor who have no money or power as the problem and one sees the rich with all the money and the power as the problem.
Both are wrong on many levels, but much like 6 year olds with polar opposite parents, we have little choice other than to run away from home, or cling to mommy's supportive, tolerant skirt.
Both are wrong on many levels, but much like 6 year olds with polar opposite parents, we have little choice other than to run away from home, or cling to mommy's supportive, tolerant skirt.
#48
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,274 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:58 PM
I don't doubt there's a million different excuses one could use to justify picking what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. However, I haven't found one good enough to persuade me.
Turd Sandwich / Giant Douche
Like I said, both sides ...
#49
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,798 posts
Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:49 PM
They are the same. The difference is that one is going forward and one is sitting still and slowly drifting backwards. One wants rights for all and one wants to cling to bigotry. One sees the poor who have no money or power as the problem and one sees the rich with all the money and the power as the problem.
Both are wrong on many levels, but much like 6 year olds with polar opposite parents, we have little choice other than to run away from home, or cling to mommy's supportive, tolerant skirt.
It seems waiders are needed in here. The shit is getting deep.
