Republicans vs. Democrats TV: Lefties want comedy, right wingers like work

[bsmooth]

That's a biased liberal answer based on one exaggerated answer to one question.  If you were to ask many Christians, they would tell you science only helps to confirm faith. There are many Christian men and women of science.

I don't think the lists are exactly correct but I also don't think most people are "all" anything. I think the biggest thing to come from it is the general types of shows people watch.

Just curious.... Has anyone in here who considers themselves liberal ever watched Duck Dynasty? That's one of my favorite shows.

Jaime and Adam are avowed atheists. That is not a biased liberal answer. That is one reason they are so skeptical.

[CF DolFan]

^ I don't mean to discredit any of you who support the GOP.  I'm not saying, or even suggesting that you, personally, do not respect higher education or science.

But I do stand by idea that the base of the GOP tends to go the other way.  You may be able to nitpick studies to dispute global warming, but it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.  The same goes for evolution.

But it's greater than that.  The GOP insinuates that the highly educated are somehow eggheads.  They disparage things like college professors.  Mitt Romney speaks French, but hides it.  There are major issues with textbooks in Texas, which feeds the rest of the country, because the hard right GOP is screwing with the curriculum. 

I'm not saying that sensible Republicans are anti-science, but the fringe of the party, which is more and more in charge these days, from where I sit, definitely is.

You are speaking about a minority of people. Many of the comments in here are so far off I don't even respond and that's why. Many of the liberals in here attack people who have "crazy" ideas and are right wing and pretend that's the norm. I really hope you don't feel that way because if you do it says a lot of your prejudisms. Honestly ... it's no different than saying all democrats use abortion for birth control and are drug and welfare abusing hippies.

And I have to agree with jvides ... the idea that global warming is man made isn't only by uneducated people no matter how many times it is said in here. There are plenty of people on both sides. In fact I know many conservatives who are just as confident as you that it has been proven NOT to be man made. This list includes many engineers with both PEs and doctorates.. which I would consider educated. It's far from a settled subject.

[CF DolFan]

No, there is a large section of the religious population that is against science because it disagrees with what the Bible says. There are scientists who have faith. Believing in science does not make you an atheist. I find it is the faithful who are asking for science to prove a negative.

Any Christian that runs from Science does not care about truth IMO.

I know a guy, Lee Strobel, who used science to convert to Christianity. He was the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and a graduate of Yale Law School ... how much more liberal and educated can you get? He was adamantly opposed to his wife becoming a Christian and set out to prove her wrong and through science but ... to his surprise, became a Christian.  I had an unusual journey with Lee and God that not only helped to cement my faith, but encouraged me to rightfully question things.

Borrowing from an about me page on him it explains a little of his journey better than I could. His books The Case for Christ and The Case for the Creator are based on science and evidence.

Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of more than twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national TV programs, including ABC, Fox, PBS, and CNN.
Described in the Washington Post as "one of the evangelical community's most popular apologists," Lee shared the Christian Book of the Year award in 2005 for a curriculum he co-authored with Garry Poole about the movie The Passion of the Christ. He also won Gold Medallions for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and the The Case for a Creator, all of which have been made into documentaries distributed by Lionsgate.

His latest books include The Case for the Real Jesus, The Unexpected Adventure (co-authored with Mark Mittelberg) and The Case for Christ Study Bible, which includes hundreds of notes and articles on why Christians believe what they believe. His first novel, a legal thriller called The Ambition, comes out in Spring, 2011.

Lee was educated at the University of Missouri (Bachelor of Journalism degree, 1974) and Yale Law School (Master of Studies in Law degree, 1979). He was a professional journalist for 14 years at The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois' top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International.

After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee became a Christian in 1981. He joined the staff of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, in 1987, and later became a teaching pastor there. He joined Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, CA, as a teaching pastor in 2000. He left Saddleback's staff to focus on writing.

[Dave Gray]

You are speaking about a minority of people.

Perhaps, but that minority holds the power in the GOP right now.


And "I know several people that" holds no scientific weight.

As a scientific community, global warming is accepted -- that is a fact.  They may be wrong, but that's where the scientific community stands, based on the data, TODAY.  Fact.  It's something like 97%, which is an overwhelming stat.

Same with evolution.  You can find one person that will claim anything.  But it is an overwhelming majority of the community, which includes the very important PEER REVIEW that says the evidence supports it. 

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".

And that was 1987.  There is more fossil evidence in support now.

[Spider-Dan]

I find it puzzling when people say, "I am obviously pro-evolution and the people who reject it are crazies, but that global warming stuff is highly questionable."

There is overwhelming scientific consensus on both of those topics, and the mainstream GOP position (read: the positions espoused by the majority of candidates for federal office) is that the state of those topics is either "undetermined" or "flat-out false."

For example:


In summary: out of the 7 major presidential candidates, 4 outright reject evolution, 2 clearly support it, and 1 (Gingrich) doesn't really take a clear position.  No matter how you slice it, that's a clear majority of mainstream Republican presidential candidates unapologetically rejecting one of the most thoroughly supported theories in the history of scientific inquiry.  You can't spin that.


As for climate change, the official Republican Party platform (link) describes, at length, their desires to dismantle the EPA, to steadfastly oppose any sort of carbon-restricting legislation, and to leverage all the fossil fuels America has available.  In fact, the only mention it makes on the subject of climate change is to snipe at the scientific community that supports that theory (emphasis added):

"Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research."

But maybe I'm wrong...  I am certainly open to hearing more about the "silent majority" of D.C. Republicans that aren't happy to cast aside science to placate their ever-more-extreme base.

I know the "both sides do it" defense is popular in these kinds of discussions, but it's false.  There is no widely accepted scientific (I repeat: scientific) theory that the majority of mainstream Washington Democrats reject.  The GOP has a monopoly on that particular industry.

[badger6]

Not sure what either position matters in the scheme of things. I really don't know or give a shit why or how we as humans got here. It simply does not matter. We can't prove it either way so what's the point ?

As far as global warming. It's really about the same. I'm of the opinion that even it the "theory" is correct, we will all be gone by the time it matters. From what I've read, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the earth has always had times of extreme climate changes throughout history. If that is the case, this may well just be another one of those times. I don't really have a problem with anyone who thinks the "theory" is gospel, but I do think that it's not as important as other things we should be focusing on. I could care less about either one but having said that, I am not religious, nor do I think that I ever will be, short of some conclusive proof that God exists. As far as global warming, I don't really buy it. But if it is real, you have to realize that there is a cost of doing business for our way of life. There is a cause and effect to the choices that were made long before any of us were here. Fossil fuel and our way of life is here to stay, anyone who doesn't like it or thinks that it is going away is living a fantasy and wearing rose colored glasses. Those same people should immediatly go get a hybrid vehicle tomorrow at all costs. If not they are hypocrites. These issues are only talking points to bash the opposition...

[Spider-Dan]

Not sure what either position matters in the scheme of things.

It matters when Republicans are trying to destroy science education (specifically: biology) in public schools because it doesn't fit their anti-scientific worldview.  It has been established for decades that biology is a fundamental part of science curricula, but 21st-century conservatives are trying to re-fight a battle that they already lost (repeatedly and decisively) in the 20th century.

As far as global warming. It's really about the same. I'm of the opinion that even it the "theory" is correct, we will all be gone by the time it matters.

I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of the subject right now.  The point is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has come down on one side of both the evolution and climate change arguments, and today's GOP simply rejects that because it doesn't agree with their worldview.

[Sunstroke]

That's a biased liberal answer based on one exaggerated answer to one question...

That's a biased conservative overreaction based on one honest answer to one meaningless question...

I would say that the whole survey was a biased crock o' shit (ok, I still will), but seeing The Bachelor and the Biggest Loser listed on the conservative side feels about right...as they are arguably two of the lamest programs on TV.

Really can't wait for this election to be over, so we can stop seeing misinformation peddlers on both sides applying conservative and liberal sticky labels on everything. Eat bacon? Gotta be a liberal. Clip your toenails more than once a week? Conservative for sure! I call shenanigans on every politically-minded person in this country. You're the reason we have this ridiculous level of divisiveness and extremism in our country.

[Dave Gray]

There is no widely accepted scientific (I repeat: scientific) theory that the majority of mainstream Washington Democrats reject.  The GOP has a monopoly on that particular industry.

This is true, when speaking of the majority of liberals.  We keep our crazies on the fringe.  The liberal side has 2 conspiracy-based groups: The 9/11 Truthers and the whole Organic Food/Natural Remedy vs. Western Medicine/Homeopathy.  Both are bullshit, but liberals (at the moment) don't have their big names espousing these wingnut ideas on a national stage.

[Spider-Dan]

Just a nitpick, Dave:

- the 9/11 truthers don't precisely align with liberals; there's a substantial portion of anti-government right wingers (mostly libertarian) who propel that conspiracy (I'd hardly call Alex Jones a liberal)

- homeopathy (the belief that inert substances can have "memory" of previous active substances, which allows them to cure symptoms that active substance would cause) is properly grouped with other alternative (read: fake) medicine, and not Western (read: real) medicine

[Fins4ever]

Not sure what either position matters in the scheme of things. I really don't know or give a shit why or how we as humans got here. It simply does not matter. We can't prove it either way so what's the point ?

Well said. Believing in God and creation is a matter of faith. I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.

There are 1000000000000000000000000000 things more important than discussing evolution or religion. Those are personal choices.

How about we discuss how Obama has bowed to the muslims, ran the deficit up to 16 trillion and turned his back on our brothers in Israel? I could go on, but what's the point? 

[Spider-Dan]

Why is it, exactly, that the citizens of Israel are "our brothers", yet "the Muslims" (not "the Iranians" or "the Pakistanis" or even "Al-Qaeda"... no, the Muslims as a whole) are a group to be feared and contained?

[bsmooth]

Well said. Believing in God and creation is a matter of faith. I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.

There are 1000000000000000000000000000 things more important than discussing evolution or religion. Those are personal choices.

How about we discuss how Obama has bowed to the muslims, ran the deficit up to 16 trillion and turned his back on our brothers in Israel? I could go on, but what's the point? 

Because both evolution and religion are being legislated in this country by elected politicians. Not a 'personal choice' in many places.

[CF DolFan]

Perhaps, but that minority holds the power in the GOP right now.


And "I know several people that" holds no scientific weight.

Really ... it's not? One the leading Christians in this country who is both very educated and an atheist with an agenda was converted through science and it holds no weight? I thought the subject was Christians being afraid of science.

As a scientific community, global warming is accepted -- that is a fact.  They may be wrong, but that's where the scientific community stands, based on the data, TODAY.  Fact.  It's something like 97%, which is an overwhelming stat.

You are mistaken Dave. It's not a debate about global warming. It's the debate over if it's man made or even if it's just a cylce. More than 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing and have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Same with evolution.  You can find one person that will claim anything.  But it is an overwhelming majority of the community, which includes the very important PEER REVIEW that says the evidence supports it. 

And that was 1987.  There is more fossil evidence in support now.

No offense but you sound like you bite on propaganda pretty easily.  Has some type of evolution happened? Absolutely but we didn't come from an amoeba or monkeys. The neo- Darwinism theory of evolution is not uni-formally agreed upon.  This would be the easiest to prove but unfortunately not only is evolution not happening today but it hasn't ever happened in recorded  history. 

The idea behind teaching Darwinism over creationism is strictly between that fact.

 

[CF DolFan]

Why is it, exactly, that the citizens of Israel are "our brothers", yet "the Muslims" (not "the Iranians" or "the Pakistanis" or even "Al-Qaeda"... no, the Muslims as a whole) are a group to be feared and contained?

Not hat I don't think you know the answer but let' let's see. When was the last time Israeli terrorists killed a bunch of Americans ... or even threatened Americans? Ok. When the last time someone from one of those groups you mentioned threatened us? Probably already today. Pretending they are not a problem in general does not make it go away.

I honestly don't get the stick your head in the sand and blame "the white guys" and their prejudices for everything. It doesn't make other issues get better.