Gingrich is an intellectual? Seriously?"Gingrich has one of
the loosest, least rigorous, most pretentious minds in politics. He loves ideas,
hes just no good at them; and the idea of ideas is not enough to make a man a
serious intellectual. The bloopers in his works of history fiction and
nonfiction, and nonfiction that turns out to be fiction are legendary."
The New Republic, November 3, 2011.Gingrich's pretending to be an
intellectual while embracing the distinctly anti-intellectual positions of the
GOP is not fooling anyone.
Great Article!Agreed!!!The college Drop-outs [Limbaugh,
Hannity, Beck] are the mind and voice of the GOP.And as for Academia
-- They have even gone so far as to formed their own scholastic creditials
-- Limbaugh's - Limbaugh Institute& - Glenn Beck University. Loved this line from the article :"Nevertheless, the
Republican base requires that candidates tack away from science toward the
theistic position only God controls climate. More to the point, Rush Limbaugh
says that climate change is a hoax and so it must be."And
tobacco doesn't cause cancer or emphysema, right Rush?Ditto-head
might as well mean "DoDo"-head.
Up until very recently Gingritch thought that global warming was a potentially
catastrophic issue that needed urgent attention. When he decided he was going to
run for the Republican nomination, he immediately changed his mind.For years Gingritch argued that we needed to reform end of life care in this
country. Then Obama proposed doing just that, and Gingritch was one of the first
ones on the "death panels" bandwagon.Gingritch supported
the individual mandate to purchase health insurance for many years. When Obama
proposed it he started calling it unconstitutional socialism.If the
big criticism of Mitt Romney is that he is a flip-flopper, Newt Gingritch is
certainly far worse.
The GOP is pathetic. It really is.
Conservatism is failing. It has been for 400 years since Galileo had the
audacity to tell the truth about the earth not being the center of the universe.
Conservatives couldn't conserve thier traditions over science and progress then,
and they can't do it now.The tea-party is a small pebble in the road
to progress. They don't see they are like ants trying to stop an intilectual
freight train that's been gaining speed for nearly 5 centuries. We've done away
with serfdom, feudalism, the Inquisition, witch hunts, theocracy, dueling
plagues and child labor in the west. They would love to bring it back but the
rest of the world is following progressive values, not conservatism. I could never be part of conservative stagnation.
The New York Times had an excellent editorial recently that evaluated the
qualifications of a good leader, and concluded that religion could be a
liability if it restricted the open mindedness of a person. The Republican
party has effectively become a religion and closed its collective mind to all
nuanced thought. They have only one acceptable stand on most issues including,
abortion, the death penalty, evolution, global warming, Keynesian economics,
taxes and health care, and no amount of new information, or persuasion can
CHANGE THEIR MINDS. This is nothing like the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Barry
Goldwater, or even Ronald Reagan. We can't prosper as a nation when half the
nation has taken all rational discussion off the table.
The republicans have the most intellectual and experienced candidates for
president. Much more capable than the cabal we have at the moment.Then
the writer uses the global warming scam to butress her idea that the GOPers are
dumb. When its the GOPers that are the more curious and inquisitive regarding
this marxist plan to redistribute wealth on a grand scale. They ask the real
questions like: Who stands to profit from the over-hyped scam? They see how
utterly rediculas Carbon credits are. They ask about leftists ties to the
Chicago Carbon Exchange and wonder why the DNC media gives the players a free
pass on the corruptions surrounding the global warming game.
What a liberal shill. The funny thing is that the so called
"uneducated" talk show hosts know more about what is going on than the
highly educated thinktanks.The conservative talk show hosts were
saying that Egypt was going to end up in chaos, and look at it now, chaos with
no end in sight. The conservatives warned that Obama's policies were not going
to reduce unemployment, and it didn't. They also warned that the Debt comittee
would end up a failure, and it has failed in its purpose. They are more correct
and educated about the political world than the politicians are.If
you want to talk global warming, first find me an journal article that meets the
95% confidence interval (results are accurate 95% of the time) criteria that
nearly all other scientists have to meet before publishing.
Wow!A truthful column.
Gingrich is fairly smart; he shows flashes of it, but then seems to reject it in
favor of pandering to the base. @RedshirtConfidence intervals
are just things you set to whatever interval you want. For instance this paper
in Nature...Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards
the trillionth tonne 30 April 2009 "results in a most likely peak
carbon-dioxide-induced warming of 2 °C above pre-industrial
temperatures, with a 595% confidence interval of
1.33.9 °C."If they wanted to calculate a 95%
confidence interval they could have. It'd probably yield something like .8C to
4.4C. Alternatively you can see it yields 95% confidence that it's at least
1.3C. Are you not going to care about the paper just because they didn't do
that? It's not like they aren't stating it's a 90% confidence interval.
Claim: *'Obama's TARP Slush Fund' - David Asman - Fox Business -
02/24/10 Reality: *'Univ. of Maryland study finds Fox
News viewers to be misinformed on key issues' - By Ryan Witt - Examiner -
12/17/10 'Over 40% of respondents said President Obama started TARP
even though TARP was signed into law by President Bush on October 3rd of
2008.' Reality: *Fox News Viewers know LESS THAN
people who dont watch any, news: Study Huffington Post 11/21/11
Fox News Viewers are less informed than people who dont watch any news,
according to a new poll from the Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Republicans had BETTER get used to talking with 'anti-intellectuals'... they've worked HARD to make people as such.
Gingrich's rise in the campaign is a surprise since he doesn't meet the basic
qualifications required by the Religious Right.
"NO."Here we go again, with another "blame game"
while nothing gets done in Congress again by the GOP. President Barack Obama
must carry the blame for the failure of the debt crisis supercommittee because
he was "absent from the whole process," Republican presidential
candidate Michele Bachmann "BOASTED". But the Minnesota congresswoman
pointed out that the House GOP legislators bent to such an extent that they were
willing to raise taxes if that is what it took to get a deal. She failed to
state, just as long as it's not done to the super ultra elete rich Koch
Brother's and friends. "Politicians derive power from the authority of
their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to
enrich and shield themselves." Insider Trading, IPO Gifts, Self-Serving
Earmarks, Encouraging Campaign Donations. Insider Trading - using government
information not available to the public at large to predict which companies'
stocks will rise or fall. WE NEED "real GOP transparency." The
middle-class are hurting, the poor get poorer, more homeless on the streets, the
elderly suffer, the disabled and Veteran's rot, the hungry rot, Congress could
care less about them. That's my TRUTHFUL views.
Republicans' struggle with anti-intellectuals?. Yea, themself.President Obama will pardon the turkeys. Unless of course the Republicans step
in and block that.The latest fashion trend in Hong Kong is
eyeglasses without any lenses in them. People just wear the frames. The feeling
is that they make you intelligent, even though they're totally useless. Kind of
like the GOP congressional supercommittee. I'm not sure Rick Perry
understands Thanksgiving. When they asked him if he was going to deep-fry a
turkey, he said, "Well, if he's found guilty." Last week
in New Hampshire, Herman Cain said that presidents don't need to know every
detail of every country in the world and he said he's going to take that message
across America to all 30 states. Cain said that we should focus on
our neighbor to the south, Mexico, and our neighbor to the north, Cold Mexico.
It looks like the supercommittee chosen by President Obama to come
up with a plan to solve the deficit has failed. The best idea they came up with?
A bake sale. Unless of course the Republicans step in and block that also.Where's these GOP jobs?.That's my truthful views.
Re: RedShirt | 8:10 a.m. Nov. 22, 2011 USS Enterprise, UT What a
liberal shill. The funny thing is that the so called "uneducated" talk
show hosts know more about what is going on than the highly educated
thinktanks.The conservative talk show hosts were saying that Egypt
was going to end up in chaos, and look at it now, chaos with no end in sight.
Reply: President Obama came home after a 9-day trip to Asia. Well,
he got to see some stuff he never sees at home, like jobs. Where's these GOP
jobs here in America for the past decade?. As for Gingrich's rise in the
campaign, that's caused by the Koch Brother's looking for more tax loop holes,
and more ultra super rich elete "Tax Payer" funded entitlements, and
they think they found a new player in their bag of tricks.
Newt Gingrich and the Bilderburgers - The secretive Bilderberg society, a group
some believe conspires semi-annually to foster global government, will hold a
steering committee meeting in Washington. Among those involved in the
discussion of the latter subject will be former U.S. Sens. Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, journalist Leslie Gelb and
Secretary of Defense William Cohen. McCain, at the special invitation of
Kissinger, will speak at breakfast. House Speaker Newt Gingrich
agreeBilderberger goals must be met. The UN and IMF will get billions of dollars
from U.S. taxpayers, and a Gestapo Secret Police network will stifle dissent by
Americans who resist the "New Civilization." Newt Gingrich and the
Illuminati. Two years in advance, billionaire Jews who comprise the inner
circle of the Republican Party leadership have chosen the nominee of the Party
to run for President in the upcoming 2012 elections. Newt Gingrich, premier
neocon and corrupt former House Speaker, has been given the nod. Already a
campaign war chest of over $20 million has been gathered for Gingrich's use.
Eventually, up to a quarter billion dollars will be amassed.Dump
Newt Gingrich and the Koch Brother's con?.
As long as the left holds all the microphones, conservatives will be portrayed
this way. If the news was truly "fair and balanced" conservatives and
libertarians would be swept into office. DNews does a good job however, all
To "atl134 | 10:01 a.m." you show your ignorance of scientific
principals and publishing standards. First, you cannot ever have a CI greater
than 100%, just like you cannot ever be correct more than 100% of the time.Next, you show that there are no journal articles that meet the
criteria. You see, the thing is that you can't just declare a confidence
interval to be applied to your research. If their models are less than 95%, why
are we even considering them? It is cold fusion all over again, except this
time there is a political adgenda behind it.To "Brother Chuck
Schroeder | 10:48 a.m." I normall just ignore you, but I guess I will
respond this time. You seem to forget that while the Republicans were
controlling Congress, you know, the body that creates the laws, we had
unemployment between 5% and 6%, it was only AFTER the Democrats took congress in
2007 that things went down hill.
To Solidarity: If you needed brain surgery who would you want to do it? A brain
surgeon, or someone with good common sense? That's why I trust people who have
earned a PhD in Climatology over the deniers who post on this forum.
It is a sad state when Newt Gingrich is seen as the "intellectual
giant" in a field of mice. Gingrich, the politician, has come far in his
pursuit of the cash cow, but his analytical skills are lost in the morass of
confusion and noise he generates whenever he speaks.Posing as a
historian with strategic analytical skills for those with a conservative agenda,
he is simply, as George Will put it, "a retail politician" willing to
sell himself to supplement his Tiffany's revolving credit account. However, for
any educated person with a modicum of intellectual ability, Gingrich is
certainly not very convincing.William F. Buckley and the
intellectual center of conservative thought would be appalled with Gingrich and
the current crop of wingnut talking heads. Rather than develop serious
arguments based upon conservative principles, these pretenders, as Parker notes,
have retreated into jingoistic smear to intimidate their opponents and frighten
the base with fear-mongering that the "world as we know it is coming to an
end".Today, this anti-intellectual component of conservative
thinking has developed into a media empire which is long on financial support
and short on meaningful ideas.
"...As long as the left holds all the microphones, conservatives will be
portrayed this way. If the news was truly "fair and balanced...".Rupert, Rush, Sean, Bill, Laura, Ann, Mark, Michael, as well as other
not so famous sycophants, would beg to differ with that statement.Conservatarians playing the "microphone" card?Nice try.
Let's look at OTHER examples of the 'not really' truth out there.
Claim: *'Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim, Survey
Shows' - By Lauren Green - 08/19/10 - Fox News *'Trump on Obama's
Birth Certificate: 'Maybe It Says He's a Muslim' - Fox Nation - 03/30/11 Reality: *'Obamas to attend church for Easter Sunday' - By
Philip Elliott - AP - Published by DSNews - 04/11/09 And 'yes'. That WAS two years before Trump made the claim. Claim: *Sen Kyl mocked for making up numbers in abortion debate By Sara
Israelsen-Hartley DSNews 04/12/11 ' Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) was speaking
on the floor of the Senate about his opposition to funding Planned Parenthood
because abortions are "well over 90 percent" of what they do. Reality: 'According to data from Planned Parenthood, abortion
procedures account for 3 percent of their total services...' - Same article Another example: *'Walgreens Corrects Fox & Friends: We
DON'T Offer Pap Smears' - Media Matters - 04/11/11 It's a wonder
there is not MORE 'mis-spokes' out there.
KM | 7:41 a.m. Nov. 22, 2011 Cedar Hills, UT The republicans have
the most intellectual and experienced candidates for president.============== Wowzers, are you serious?Lets see....We have:Herman the womanizing [Libya....ah
yes....Libya.....um....] CainRick [...and, I forget the 3rd one....Oops!]
PerryorMichele [Which Telepromptor, John Wayne is from
Waterloo, Jimmy Carter caused Swine Flu, The Earth is 6,000 years
old, CO2 is a harmful gas, Paul Revere warned the British, Founding Fathers ended Slavery, and Happy Birthday to Elvis on the
anniversiary of his death] Bachmann.IMHO - Jon Huntsman Jr. and Ron
Paul seem to be the most intellectual, but they aren't looney enough to apease
the ignorant majority of the GOP.
A new poll suggests people might be better off watching no news at all than
tuning into Fox. Fairleigh Dickinson University surveyed New Jerseyans about the
Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria, among other current events, and found that
self-identified Fox News viewers were less likely to answer correctly than
consumers of other news outlets. Fox viewers even did much worse than those who
dont watch any news:[P]eople who watch Fox News, the most popular of
the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that
Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all. Fox
News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet
overthrown their government than those who watch no news.(Nov. 21 2011)The results controlled for partisanship, education, and other
demographics imply that there is actually something counterproductive about
watching a Fox News program. Meanwhile, newspaper readers and fans of NPR, The
Daily Show, and Sunday TV news, did the best overall.
To "Truthseeker | 2:39 p.m." you are funny. I looked up the questions
in the Fairleigh Dickinson University poll. They asked "Americans now have
more ways than ever before to get their news about politics and world affairs.
Im going to read you a list of news sources. As I read the list, just say yes if
you got news from that source any time in the past week."If you
look at their questions, then look at their statistics, you can see that Fox New
has nothing to do with how much people know and don't know. It's called
"Confirmational bias".The funny thing is that if you just
read their questions, anybody with any critical thinking skills can see that the
poll made no efforts to link a person's knowledge of the world with their
favored news sources.For somebody who claims to be seeking the
truth, you sure put on some heavy blinders and just follow the liberal leaders.
'For somebody who claims to be seeking the truth, you sure put on some heavy
blinders and just follow the liberal leaders.' - RedShirt | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 22,
2011 So, the Fairleigh Dickinson University study is 'propoganda'
ALONG WITH the 'University of Maryland study...? Redshirt, you
realize there will probably be MORE studies done, showing the LACK of knowledge
Fox spews and supports, right? But then again, I would expect
nothing less, from the person who today claims Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass
Destruction.' "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W.
Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 *'US gives up search for Iraq
WMD' - BBC News - 01/12/05 'Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq
had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led
invasion nearly two years ago.'
KM:Funny you should mention the global warming debate.Republicans insist we need to have the science completely settled on the cause
of global warming before we consider any action.But the same
Republicans fly all over the nation on airplanes, like tens of thousands of
Americans do, every day. Guess what? The science on aviation is
not "settled", either. The prevailing explanation of how airplanes
fly is easily proven to be inadequate.(For pilots or other aviation
enthusiasts, the historical scientific explanation of how wings generate life is
based on the Bernoulli Principle, which posits that curvature on the top part of
the wing creates a low pressure area, "lifting" the wing upward. But
this doesn't explain how aerobatic airplanes can fly upside down for extended
periods of time, or the commonly accepted aerodynamic understanding that if you
have enough power, even a barn door can be used as a wing.)Using the
Republican stance, we should ground all airplanes until we can get the science
of aviation completely settled.
"Using the Republican stance, we should ground all airplanes until we can
get the science of aviation completely settled."Or more to the
point, using Republican "reasoning" we should not listen to medical
advice from doctors about diet, exercise and not smoking because the exact
causes of cancer are not settled science.
Roland KayserSo you also trust those purveyors of carbon credit exchanges
over common sense?PaganSo you think that all the entitlement
and dependent class that the DNC relies on for a vote, those not even taxed, are
the intellectuals that voted for Pres. Obama? The same people that bought in on
the super hype of Obama that they cried during the ingaguration along with
Oprah? ya right.
Redshirt you believe in things that confidence intervals way below 95%. If
that's your criteria you better take a look at your own beliefs.
GOP shouldn't have to struggle with dumbing down. They're great at it.
The tea party again.
LDS libWhy didn't you mention Romney when you were telling us about
those dumb republicans?Why didn't you mention the telepromter in
chief or his brilliant assistant, Biden?
@KMWhy do you continually bring up the fact the President Obama uses
a teleprompter. Would you like a list of folks why use or used a teleprompter
for speeches? Sarah PalinRonald ReaganGeorge W. BushHarry S. TrumanRichard NixonJohn F. KennedyLyndon JohnsonJimmy CarterBill ClintonGeorge H.W. BushGary HerbertGlenn Beck Every news broadcaster including the great Sean Hannity, Bill
O'Reilley, Chris Matthews, etc.I've even seen a few speakers at a
semi-annual event here in town use a teleprompter from time to time. Shall I go on? How about a new shtick? The teleprompter jab just isn't funny
Besides.............you don't need to be "smart" to be president.
To "Bebyebe | 9:51 p.m. " that isn't my standard, that is the standard
set by most credible scientific journals.To "10CC | 5:49
p.m." there are other principals besides the Bernulli effect that allow
acrobatic airplanes to fly inverted. If you bothered to do a quick search,
there are quite a few aerospace engineers that have posted explainations about
how planes can fly inverted.So, actually, there is proof that
explains how airplanes can fly, and it is well proven and well established.Now show us where Global Warming can explain the Midevil Warm Period or
the Little Ice age. Better yet, show us the model that contains all of the
recent discoveries about how the earth sheds more heat than previously thought,
or can contains a balanced energy equation. Even Michael Mann doesn't have that
RedShirt | 9:28 a.m. Nov. 23, 2011 USS Enterprise, UT For
someone who can't accept the over-whelming evidence and Scientific acceptance of
Global Warming... Meanwhile you fully embrace and accept Abstract
Conspiracy Theories and the totally un-scientifically proven or Scientifically
accepted techno-babble "Abiotic theory" for the origin of oil. [which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather
than a 'fossil fuel' derived from decaying ancient forests and dead
dinosaurs].You can't pick and choose facts to fit and fill your
warped sense of the World and reality.No matter how bad you want to
believe the earth is only 6,000 years old - the facts are -- it isn't.Hence, the problem with the Anti-Intellectual College dropout GOP.
To "LDS Liberal | 12:12 p.m." they accept it, but that doesn't make it
true.Scientists once thought they could turn lead into gold, they
also thought that the earth was flat. Just because somebody did a good job
convincing people of something that doesn't mean it is true.You
claim that you are an engineer, so you should have some understanding of an
energy system.According to the smartest, and brightest of the AGW
proclaimers, the models do not contain a complete energy balance. If they are
modeling something that depends on energy coming in to and leaving it, shouldn't
they have an understanding how much energy goes in and how much goes out?It is you that is probably behind the times, according to NASA and a
recent article in Forbes, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming
Alarmism". NASA has admitted that "The study indicates far less
future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have
predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."Even
NASA says the alarmists have bad models. Do you trust bad mathematical models?
'It is you that is probably behind the times, according to NASA and a recent
article in Forbes, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming
Alarmism". NASA has admitted that "The study indicates far less future
global warming...' - Redshirt1701 | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 23, 2011 1)
Redshirt, Your not going to convince anyone of anything if you insult them. 2) Using quotations around words does not give us the A: author B: Date
and C: Source of your claim. 3) I thought we were NOT supposed to be
using MUILTIPLE display names... MODERATOR!
To "Pagan | 2:06 p.m." I am sorry that you can't find a story knowing
the magazine and the exact title of the article. Again, do you want me to send
my 9 year old over to your house to do the search for you.I think it
is funny when you bring out that whine. It shows several things. First it
shows that you can't argue against the information listed. Second, it shows
that you know nothing about doing a simple internet search. Third, it shows
that all of your quotes are not really anything you have found on your own
because if you can't find information that other people post, how can we assume
that you found any of 15 recycled articles that you constantly post?Who says that we can't use multiple display names? You can cange your display
name so taht you can have multiple names.
The article you are talking about is actually an op-ed by James Taylor a
Contributor. The editorial is about a study published in Remote Sensing and
co-authored by Dr. Roy Spencer. Spencer and Taylor are both authors
of the Heartland Institute: According to Discover Magazine, Spencer
is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James
Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding
from can you guess? ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think
tanks funded by ExxonMobil.Also from the Discover article: Stephanie
Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencers paper,
and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencers model is
"unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". . .
Spencers models are irretrievably flawed, "dont make any physical
sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis
to draw any conclusion he wants. -No, new data does not blow a gaping hole in
global warming alarmismThe quote that you claim NASA made: NASA has
admitted that "The study indicates far less. . . etc.Is not by
NASA at all, rather it is written by Taylor in his op-ed.
Perhaps, Redshirt, you should have your 9 year old fact check for you.
I think the real positive from redshirts comments is that you never trust a
single model, any one who has done any forecasting of any kind understands that.
Each model needs to be additively mixed into the discussion, and discussed in
the context of the other models. Anyone who claims though a single model blows
holes in what has been shown before needs to be very carefully vetted. What does blow me away though is how can any self proclaiming group who
pronounce themselves as the keepers of common sense argue that human activity
has no effect on the environment. Chernoble is a shinning example humans can
introduce long term climate change. The only real argument is at what level
does human activity contribute... Not if. We may be only a minor
contributor, I don't know. But as stewards to this place we still owe it to
future generations we dont trash this plant only to satisfy our own selfishness.
It's a balance, and playing the ignorance card doesn't help.