Washington's Finest

Politics and Social Issues
1

Happened to come across an item on Rep. Greg Gianforte. He was convicted of misdemeanor assault on a Guardian reporter.
This is what jumped out at me, though.
Gianforte believes in Young Earth creationism. belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. He has donated at least $290K in cash to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, a Montana creationist museum which teaches visitors that evolution is false, the Earth is about 6,000-6,400 years old, that dinosaurs were on the Ark and that they likely died out 4,300 years ago during the flood described in the Book of Genesis. Wikipedia.
As you might expect, he’s a Republican and a Trump supporter. He took office in June 2017–nine days after he pled guilty to the assault charge.
Read the rest at Greg Gianforte - Wikipedia

2

41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists

3
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists https://io9.gizmodo.com/5978332/41-of-democrats-are-young-earth-creationists
Then these Democrats are as ignorant as their Republican colleagues. What has this country come to? We are a nation led by morons. Lois
4
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay?
5
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists https://io9.gizmodo.com/5978332/41-of-democrats-are-young-earth-creationists
How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum By Michael Shermer on February 1, 2013 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ Shermer does more than a little intellectual jerking-off in that piece. With winners like
Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food.
Never mind that we depend on the purity of our air, water and health of our biosphere for our life support system. Skeptical-it all you want, do stupid things like treat our Earth's air and water with such casual disregard, if not contempt, and you get stuff like warming our global biosphere. What could possibly go wrong??? There's plenty more quotes to pick on, but no time. should be the heck outta here already. Though I will add mikie the contrarian I notice in a little discussion of your own] , you make many erroneous statements in pursuit of some thesis that never gets beyond we need better prediction and more study. Why you never define, a lot of vague false assumptions, but no more. You have been shown much information and had much explained. In typical contrarian fashion you duck out of that dialogue, which you started. What is so wrong with learning from new information? What is so bad about admitting your understanding was incomplete and incoherent and that there are valid facts and evidence that answer your every scientific challenge/doubt?
6
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists https://io9.gizmodo.com/5978332/41-of-democrats-are-young-earth-creationists
Then these Democrats are as ignorant as their Republican colleagues. What has this country come to? We are a nation led by morons. LoisI'd like to see that same survey take religion into account, not political party. Plus Liberal does not equal Democrat whereas Conservative almost always equals Republican.
7
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists https://io9.gizmodo.com/5978332/41-of-democrats-are-young-earth-creationists
How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum By Michael Shermer on February 1, 2013 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ Shermer does more than a little intellectual jerking-off in that piece. With winners like
Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food.
Never mind that we depend on the purity of our air, water and health of our biosphere for our life support system. Skeptical-it all you want, do stupid things like treat our Earth's air and water with such casual disregard, if not contempt, and you get stuff like warming our global biosphere. What could possibly go wrong??? Shermer touches on it a little bit, but the big scientific shibboleths of leftists are race, gender, and sexual orientation - not the environment. And on that note, environmental fictions from the left are still incorrect regardless of the need for purity, so Shermer is right to point it out.
8
Shermer touches on it a little bit, but the big scientific shibboleths of leftists are race, gender, and sexual orientation - not the environment. And on that note, environmental fictions from the left are still incorrect regardless of the need for purity, so Shermer is right to point it out.
With arguments that are like swiss cheese? Fictions are fictions whether from the right or the left. You love it on the superficial level where anything can be said, supported by nothing more than a wave of the hand, and a cute sentence. Coming up with a thoughtful arguments supported by real evidence and information is the challenge very few, and certain you Beltrane refuse to engage in. Find me one leftie delusion that get's close to the right wing denial that warming our planet will lead to catastrophic rearrangement of Earth's biosphere and weather systems. You know that our society and in fact the biosphere are absolutely dependent on?
9
Shermer touches on it a little bit, but the big scientific shibboleths of leftists are race, gender, and sexual orientation - not the environment. And on that note, environmental fictions from the left are still incorrect regardless of the need for purity, so Shermer is right to point it out.
With arguments that are like swiss cheese?Shermer didn't really present arguments, the article seemed like an outline.
Fictions are fictions whether from the right or the left.
I said as much above.
You love it on the superficial level where anything can be said, supported by nothing more than a wave of the hand, and a cute sentence. Coming up with a thoughtful arguments supported by real evidence and information is the challenge very few, and certain you Beltrane refuse to engage in.
Hot air.
Find me one leftie delusion that get's close to the right wing denial that warming our planet will lead to catastrophic rearrangement of Earth's biosphere and weather systems. You know that our society and in fact the biosphere are absolutely dependent on?
Where did I say otherwise?
10

Okay Shermer’s outline was full of holes.
Unfortunately the reality is that arguments against science by outline and between the lines dog whistles is all we get offered.
Oh yeah, then the running away and never finishing any supposed dialogues or arguments.
hot air,
vague insinuations,
deniability,
…

11
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay? The point is that Democrats are the young party. The Republican creationists are the old party members. As the old Republicans die off the scales will be tipped. The Democrats will be the party backing creationist’s ideas. Might end up having more progressives that are Republican. And the left creationists will lean towards making the Democrat platform more socialist or communist.
12
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists https://io9.gizmodo.com/5978332/41-of-democrats-are-young-earth-creationists
How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum By Michael Shermer on February 1, 2013 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ Shermer does more than a little intellectual jerking-off in that piece. With winners like
Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food.
Never mind that we depend on the purity of our air, water and health of our biosphere for our life support system. Skeptical-it all you want, do stupid things like treat our Earth's air and water with such casual disregard, if not contempt, and you get stuff like warming our global biosphere. What could possibly go wrong??? There's plenty more quotes to pick on, but no time. should be the heck outta here already. Though I will add mikie the contrarian I notice in a little discussion of your own] , you make many erroneous statements in pursuit of some thesis that never gets beyond we need better prediction and more study. Why you never define, a lot of vague false assumptions, but no more. You have been shown much information and had much explained. In typical contrarian fashion you duck out of that dialogue, which you started. What is so wrong with learning from new information? What is so bad about admitting your understanding was incomplete and incoherent and that there are valid facts and evidence that answer your every scientific challenge/doubt? What I see is there are to separate Global Warming pathways going on at the same time. The one used by the scientists of facts. And the other used by the consensual science and political science group. One group has all the money in the world, the other has to work the in quite method of not shaking the boat or pissing off the group with the money and political backing. Don’t point your finger at me about earth’s air and water. I have been for geothermal energy since the early 70’s. Even worked with the Department of Energy trying to setup an educational program about geothermal energy. Back then geothermal was backed by the big companies as a better system than nuclear. But the college liberals managed to shut down the progress being done in geothermal and having it tied up in the court system for years. Just enough for nuclear to completely take over. Nuclear wasn’t all it was said to be and coal had to fill in. Just as some very basic questions never got answered back in the 70’s. You cannot answer some very basic questions today about Global Warming with real science. Today along with fake news, we have fake science for your fake world.
13
What I see is there are to separate Global Warming pathways going on at the same time. The one used by the scientists of facts. And the other used by the consensual science and political science group. One group has all the money in the world, the other has to work the in quite method of not shaking the boat or pissing off the group with the money and political backing.
Yes grasshopper, there are many pathways. There is one physical Global Warming pathway unfolding. It's controlled by the thermodynamics and geophysics of the matter. Greenhouse gases hold a key regulating position in this process. The physics are understood in exquisite detail. We are becoming ever more familiar with this transitional weather regime's destructive realities, namely cascading consequences such as the California fires, and the past ten hurricanes in ten weeks, not to mention what's happening in the rest of the world. The longer term future of that trajectory will be impacted by how much greenhouse gases are ultimately added to our atmosphere, although nothing will change our short term momentum and I fear its going to knock us off our pins. There is one scientific pathway. Observing, recording and understanding what is going on within natural processes. It's been pursued for centuries now and the results are a coherent internally consistent understanding, that the likes of mikie do everything to confuse, dismiss and avoid looking at. A summation is clearly spelled out and open for constructive honest critique - the IPCC reports. Though the overall evidence is there to be found within decades worth of thousands of papers and observed Earth changes. There is one political oligarch driven pathway of disinformation, hate mongering and denunciation against climate scientists. Mikie here has echoed their nonsense often. Supported by massive funding and mega-media outlets dedicated to misrepresenting, false-equivalence and personally attacking anyone or organization that represents the scientific understanding being gathered in real time. Just need to listen to the likes of Seitz, or Singer, or Lindzen, watts, dellingspole, the lord, roger cohen, steele and all the rest, to understand what I'm talking about. Science by insinuation, slander and libel in the service of avoidance. There is the I'm the one and only religious pathway Where all too many people have adopted the incredible notion that they petty, scared, selfish, self-interested humans understand the billions of years old "true" God of Time and Creation, Life and Love. It's an appalling conceit and indicates a profound disconnection with the real world around us and an unhealthy self-absorption into our own mindscapes. It's a terrifying stupefying thing to behold, because this Faith has allowed them to totally tune out the real world. There is the I want mine pathway of single-minded dedication to consumerism, Hollyworld Fantasizing, and the proposition that too much is never enough. This one consists of humans who never evolved past the juvenile self-interest phase of life and into the adult enlightened-self-interest phase, where we learn that thinking past oneself towards community and cooperation are good for all of us, and that we need each other to keep ourselves honest. Very sad, it allowed complete disconnect from all that's uncomfortable or inconvenient and an easy embrace of facade and fantasy.
14

ps

10 Hurricanes in 10 Weeks: With Ophelia, a 124-Year-Old Record is Matched By MAGGIE ASTOR, OCT. 11, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/climate/hurricane-ophelia.html ... Since Hurricane Franklin formed on Aug. 7, Mr. Henson said, there has been “maybe a week total without a named storm roaming the Atlantic somewhere." Two of the 10 hurricanes in that period, Irma and Maria, reached the highest level, Category 5. Two others, Harvey and Jose, reached Category 4. Within a single month from mid-August to mid-September, six hurricanes developed. ..."
15
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay? The point is that Democrats are the young party. The Republican creationists are the old party members. As the old Republicans die off the scales will be tipped. The Democrats will be the party backing creationist’s ideas. Might end up having more progressives that are Republican. And the left creationists will lean towards making the Democrat platform more socialist or communist. You can't be serious. Are you claiming that as old Republicans leave politics, they will be replaced by younger, evolutionist, atheist Republicans? And that the Democrats, being "young", will not be replaced at the same rate? Come on now! :) I'm not sure what point Shermer was trying to make in that article. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are Liberals with anti-scientific ideas. We knew all along that the vast majority of our so-called "representatives" in Congress were religious, didn't we?
16
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay? The point is that Democrats are the young party. The Republican creationists are the old party members. As the old Republicans die off the scales will be tipped. The Democrats will be the party backing creationist’s ideas. Might end up having more progressives that are Republican. And the left creationists will lean towards making the Democrat platform more socialist or communist. You can't be serious. Are you claiming that as old Republicans leave politics, they will be replaced by younger, evolutionist, atheist Republicans? And that the Democrats, being "young", will not be replaced at the same rate? Come on now! :) I'm not sure what point Shermer was trying to make in that article. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are Liberals with anti-scientific ideas. We knew all along that the vast majority of our so-called "representatives" in Congress were religious, didn't we? Not only religious, but stupidly religious. Indoctrinated fools.
17
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay? The point is that Democrats are the young party. The Republican creationists are the old party members. As the old Republicans die off the scales will be tipped. The Democrats will be the party backing creationist’s ideas. Might end up having more progressives that are Republican. And the left creationists will lean towards making the Democrat platform more socialist or communist. You can't be serious. Are you claiming that as old Republicans leave politics, they will be replaced by younger, evolutionist, atheist Republicans? And that the Democrats, being "young", will not be replaced at the same rate? Come on now! :) I'm not sure what point Shermer was trying to make in that article. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are Liberals with anti-scientific ideas. We knew all along that the vast majority of our so-called "representatives" in Congress were religious, didn't we? What bothers me is that young off the farm Republicans that run for office are sweep up into a political dog eat dog world that they wish they never entered. The ones that make it in that world are ones with backgrounds like lobbyists and political scholars all with law degrees. The types that make up a swamp. To answer your question, I do look out of step when you look at the age of the top leadership of the Democrats today. But looking at election night. I could notice the age difference in the two crowds. And the young democrats that, polling said, would back socialist or even a communist form of government. I think the Democrats are going to keep going after those votes. As far as the Congressmen being religious, I think they are all religious and worship the god Dollar. :-)
18
41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists
Oh and what's your point. That this makes it okay? The point is that Democrats are the young party. The Republican creationists are the old party members. As the old Republicans die off the scales will be tipped. The Democrats will be the party backing creationist’s ideas. Might end up having more progressives that are Republican. And the left creationists will lean towards making the Democrat platform more socialist or communist. You can't be serious. Are you claiming that as old Republicans leave politics, they will be replaced by younger, evolutionist, atheist Republicans? And that the Democrats, being "young", will not be replaced at the same rate? Come on now! :) I'm not sure what point Shermer was trying to make in that article. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are Liberals with anti-scientific ideas. We knew all along that the vast majority of our so-called "representatives" in Congress were religious, didn't we? Not only religious, but stupidly religious. Indoctrinated fools. Totally agree. You got that right!