Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Raw StoryRepublican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
And the hits just keep coming, folks!
Most politicians would classify half of what Santorum says as gaffs. But not, Rick... he doubles-down.
I'm waiting to hear him say that the world is flat... that he has proof, and that the "theory" that the world is round is just a socialist conspiracy, sponsored by Obama.
Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
He definitely wins the prize for the most asinine comment of the year!
What a guy!
Again, don't think this is just some nutty thing that santorum believes. This is an OFFICIAL catholic position, and has been for YEARS. I got into a heated argument on EXACTLY this sort of shorted sighted thinking with one of my religious class teachers in high school in the mid 1970's, and he supported the EXACT same thing - there is NO need to curb humans or human consumption of resources, because "technology" will ALWAYS come up with a solution. And, I thought he was one of the few INTELLIGENT religious teachers I had (he was also a lay teacher).
Basically, it is just more religious magical thinking that views science and technology as some magical exercise that will ALWAYS save people, because it has done so in the past, will IGNORING the fact that all technology did was expand human grasp to a specific set of FINITE resources that TEMPORARILY allowed a raid expansion of overall technology based on cheap and powerful energy sources, sources that are no longer cheap, or plentiful.
Open mouth, spout $hit. I believe we have found Dumbya's idiot adopted brother....
Rick Santorum... Writing the 1984 "Doublespeak" dictionary as he goes. I guess this explains his campaign in the first place, he never expected to win, he's just going to try to turn our language and thought patterns inward and backward and dumbward.
Yes, this coming from a creationist nitwit who thinks the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs walked the earth alongside men, snakes talk, we all are direct descendants of two people, and that the whole kit and caboodle was built in six days by a bearded robe toting sky wizard with super magical powers.
A pro science catholic.
That's rich.
Have they figured out the earth is a sphere yet?
Absolutely correct Mr. Santorum!
Technology advances are allowing for better utilization of mined resources every day and yet the blind opposition continues.
Truthfully I don't like Santorum much but in this case he is right on the money.
Hey, spot on Ricky, and I want to teach Kobe Bryant how to play B-Ball.
Have you noticed that we we are not seeing anyone from the right side of the aisle coming out with outspoken support for Santorum, or Romney? I wonder why?
He continued: "Whereas, we all know that man has a responsibility of stewards of the Earth, that we are good stewards and we have a responsibility to be good stewards. Why? Because unlike the Earth, we’re intelligent and we can actually manage things."
"It’s so funny that this party that criticizes the right for being anti-science, but when it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones!" the candidate declared. "We’re the ones who stand for science and technology and using the resources we have to make sure we have a quality of life in this country and maintain a good and stable environment."
I am reminded of the scene from the hilarious Mel Brooks film The Producers in which the cast of the Broadway musical mounted by Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) and Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder)—an abomination of colossal dimensions—has just finished singing the number "Springtime for Hitler": camera CUT to show row upon row of horrified theater audience members, every single one of them sitting in stunned silence, mouths agape.
there is NO need to curb humans or human consumption of resources, because "technology" will ALWAYS come up with a solution
One of my personal favorites. Scientists can warn - sometimes for decades - that we're facing serious problems, whether they be increasing resistance to antibiotics, dwindling water supplies, pollution of our oceans and air, destruction of the ozone layer, or human-caused climate change.
But no worries. When the rubber really hits the road, the scientists will figure out a way to fix it. All you need is have a little faith.
Liberals are anti-science like abstinence is a sex position (thank you, Bill Maher). Exactly who is introducing Creationism bills into state legislatures?
Please.
Have you noticed that we we are not seeing anyone from the right side of the aisle coming out with outspoken support for Santorum, or Romney? I wonder why?
It's like 2012 has become a really bad test run for 2016.
Let's see just how crazy we can go before we alienate 51 percent of the voting bloc. Pick up a few good ideas as we go, hold on desperately to the House (challenging, now) and obstruct the next four years of Obama until we can run someone else.
Maybe?
Liberals are anti-science like abstinence is a sex position (thank you, Bill Maher). Exactly who is introducing Creationism bills into state legislatures?
See, the beautiful thing is, in their minds Creationism isn't "anti-science", it's "pro-faith".
Now they can paint liberals as anti-science and anti-faith. It's win-win.
It hearkens back to their entire chicken-and-egg paradox of being "pro-life" (no abortions) and "pro-capital punishment" (death penalty for everyone!).
My head is going to @!$%#ing explode. Santorum...
I can't even comment on what he has said, which is a line he has spoken before. Rest assured his mind is a terrifying place. This guy isn't fit to drive the short bus.
He believes that responsible environmentalism is limited only to what we can take from the earth. Mr. Santorum, we have the technology to fish the oceans bare in a matter of months if we really wanted to, but it would result in us starving over the long term. Your logic about not being actual stewards of the earth in favor of raping the earth and simply calling it stewardship is mind blowingly devoid of reason. This isn't some off the cuff remark. You have thought this through. I am terrified how your mind works on other issues.
Imagine if we applied Santorum's ideas to agriculture: Why not simply plant the same field every year with the most expensive crops? Why rotate crops? If the soil dies, why not just pour billions of tons of nitrates into the ground? If the rivers die, so what? If the oceans die so what? If the Dust Bowl comes back, so what? That is Santorum's version of stewardship?!
Please, please, please see a psychiatrist.
Can we start making IQ tests heavy on math and science categories a mandate for all political positions? Science to show you have the ability to reason and deduct information from data, and math to show you could figure out how balance a budget. Or, better yet, let's require them to do a Jeopardy like show, and any negative money accrued from wrong answers, they pay themselves, not their PACs.
Also, if liberal's are anti-science, where does that place moderates? I'd really like to know from Mr. Santorum where I stand, it's been bothering me lately.
Oh please oh please oh please let him get the nomination... And we thought Palin was a gift for Democrat's reelection campaigns.
Aren't there lessons about "husbandry" in the Bible? Does "husbandry" mean exploiting something until it is gone?
Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were "anti-science" because they refused to exploit the Earth's natural resources to the limits of technology.
This nonsense is all about corporate personhood advantage.
Exploiting earth's natural resources includes using high and low technology to pollute and otherwise destroy. Hydraulic fracturing has already forever polluted drinking water that can not be reclaimed. And that is exactly the whole of the problem. How much profit does corporate personhood need? When there is severe scarcity or even a void, I am certain that corporate personhood will seek advantage. Is that the world that Santorum and his ilk seek by claiming that liberals aren't science-minded because liberals seek balance even as we all pass the tipping point for saving our world?
Yes, technology can be used to exploit earth to the fullest extent possible. When the technological exploitation has reached its limits, what kind of world is left to live in? Oil and drinkable water are both at peak available levels. There isn't much drinkable water left relative to the number of people on the earth. When the land is utterly destroyed, where are we to go to grow food. Food is already gene-spliced in a manner that brings animal-vegetable-fish hybrids to our tables [thus earning the pejorative but earned label 'franken-food'].
The real question asked of all of us who have spiritual and/or values of any nature is whether we use our free will to not exploit earth and instead act as shepherds who recognize need for balance in all things. We already experience the environmental inbalance of stripping away the ancient subtropic forests in South America and Africa. We already see increased ice melt at the Arctic to the point where polar bears are drowning as they forage further to find food.
Just because we can, should we? The answer is more than religious/spiritual/technological.
Comment collapsed by the communitySantorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology
The man is batsh!t crazy....plain and simple!
As much as Romney or Santorum or Gingrich may suck, they would be infinitely better presidents than the current occupant of the white house.
why's that -- because of the (R) behind their names?
Despite their obvious failings?
Whatever you say, dude. This is why they Republicans and conservatives in general are losing ground. It's a 24/7 GOP bashfest toward Obama, but people have kinda started to notice something:
The record doesn't match the rhetoric. That rhetoric is pretty much bull$H!t. All they've got is their go-negative strategy. Where, and when, have they articulated how they can do better? Other than promising to bring back more supply-side, trickle-UP upward redistribution of wealth?
Can you imagine if this psycho actually won.
He has offended more people and groups than any candidate in history.
It is quite apparent he is after the weirdos vote.
He is attempting to turn the clock back to the 60's. Birth Control and Abortion were settled years ago, they're the law, get over it.
I can only hope he is the candidate, bring it on stupid.
OBAMA - BIDEN 2012
I tried to follow his train of though, but I got an error message form brain.
Absolutely correct Mr. Santorum!
Technology advances are allowing for better utilization of mined resources every day and yet the blind opposition continues.
I don't suppose you could give an example of how this makes any sense could you? I can't see, by any stretch of the imagination, how this statement makes any sense whatsoever. Are you a "dark horse" GOP candidate yourself? Please explain your comment. Or is it just a factoid that you got from outer space and makes sense in some other solar system? Which one is that where this makes sense?
I really believe that Santorum has some serious mental issues, I am not saying this to be smart or funny, I really think he does.
Oooooooohhhh, I think many of us suspect sanctimonious is crazy....really certifiable.
Absolutely correct Mr. Santorum!
Technology advances are allowing for better utilization of mined resources every day and yet the blind opposition continues.
Truthfully I don't like Santorum much but in this case he is right on the money.
Right, on the money!
I though "husbandry" was when you loved your sheep and goats and chose one for special attention...
I just want to say that any similarity in first names between me and inSantorum and/or Perry, is strictly coincidence.
Aren't those the same people that sided with the tobacco industry for decades? Can he get the endorsement of any reputable mainstream scientific entity or institution??
Liberals are anti-science now???
Lately,I have been thinking about how I just need to change the TV channel when I even see one of derrr gop's candidates speaking,being reported on,or whatever,regardless of what channel/program is on. This only moves towards supporting my decision. I'm about ready to not watch anything political and simply doing all my talking in 9 months. 9 months hmmm? Is that just coincidence? lol.
These psychos will say anything,no matter if it is true or not,regardless of how psychotic they may sound. Not only is it disgusting,it's VERY disturbing. Obtaining power at any cost,which is a large part of the problem,cost.
These SOB's think they can accomplish ANYTHING by simply throwing huge sums of money at whatever they are trying to do. Period.
A report on the news earlier today also stated that we export more oil than we import. I can only guess at one of the main reasons being profit$. We export much to Central/South America they said,because it said big oil makes good profits from them. Yet,it's also Obama's fault that gas prices are going up? Nucking futs. Obviously,we can't tell big oil where to sell their oil,but it's just another sign of the absurd statements by derrr gop with their oil subsidies and everything which goes toward that issue.
Trying to reason ANY of the statements from derrr gop candidates is impossible,meaning,they make a statement and supply some other statement as the basis for the first statement. Both statements ending up being near-ludicrous,and here's yet another one.
Anyhow,this is a good place to vent about their insanity,and funny to hear people justify supporting derrr gop,yet not funny at the same time.
If you want religion to make the laws for the country,go somewhere else,start your own country,put your corrupt religious leaders in charge,and let them have at it with your children,not mine.
Thnx for reading this comment-turned-into-rant-because-reasoning-with-insanity-is-futile.
Obama '12... I am TP and I approved this message which IS intended to be factual.
canary-in-the-coal-mine @ #1.28:
I though "husbandry" was when you loved your sheep and goats and chose one for special attention...
Actually, in the vast and thoroughly unfathomable conservative lexicon of Rick Santorum, that particular form of theologically driven and biblically correct animal husbandry is known as "family planning." ; )
Hey now Don't Bash Rickeee! He has the finest most advanced mind ...
of the 13th century...
It doesn't matter what Rick Santorum says, which is why he is bombarding the airwaves with total bullsh*t. He has secured the moron vote, and now it's all about being seen to all the GOP as the Republican candidate against Obama. You'd think that some of the outrageous crap he advocates - eliminating public schools, outlawing contraception, telling people that they shouldn't try to send their kids to college, would set off an alarm in some at least semi literate GOP'ers head, but apparently they are willing to follow this fascist twit off a cliff. Is it some form of mental illness that keeps poor and middle class Republican voters (and I'm not talking about the real Republicans, the rich and elite here) from voting in their own best interests?
there is NO need to curb humans or human consumption of resources, because "technology" will ALWAYS come up with a solution.
Except that science does not always come up with a solution. Science is not a deity. Where's the cure for cancer, where's cold fusion? For more than a generation science has tried to find a substitute for the rare earth element, neodymium. Where is it? Why hasn't life expectancy risen above 100 years? Where's the cure for hunger?
Santorum doesn't understand science. The mission of science isn't to exploit nature, but first to understand it, and the first thing our anti-science Repukes need to understand is that when you @!$%# with mother nature, she @!$%#s back. Destroy the eco-system that supports human life, and we will die, no questions asked.
Rickeroo wouldn't recognize science if it jumped up and bit him in the butt.
Rick just parrots what he hears other say about him and just says it back.
Its his simple ploy. Rick needs a kick in the head by a mule.
If Rick gets to be the nominee for the repubs. Its going to be funny. If he wins the president whole world will be very scared. :P
Its the power of crazy. Its so crazy he might win. Where did I hear that before?
Its the radical tree hugger environmentalist conspiracy theory. Forget about the REAL science going into a scientific discussion about climate change. The neanderthals have not yet grasped the concept of science, and they don't believe in "evolving."
The bottom line is it really doesn't matter what Republicans believe in - the dominating factor is the Koch brothers, ALEC, and the worst corporate polluters on the planet funding the Republican Party with hundreds of millions of dollars. If they are put into power, there will be NO regulation of corporations on the issues of air, water and food quality, no real standard set to prevent pollution.
Santorum says:
President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
There are different definitions to the word exploit. I believe the following would most accurately describe Santorum's intentions.
to use selfishly for one's own ends
Wisdom certainly certainly has been replaced by greed when it comes to the right wing.
Wow, this guy sounds more and more like Palin.
Why is it that the right exploits the earth just for profit, but always wants to hurt the people on the earth as they exploit?
You don't need the clean water act, be like Cheney and deregulate it for natural gas, otherwise known as t he "Halliburton loophole". I like to be able to light my water on fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005 see last bullet line in Criticism.
I wonder if he knows what the word sustainability means. Way to go Rick, as he exploits all the resources and none are left for his kids kids. Some will support this type of thinking, guess they were left out from that evolution thingy. There were many species of man, some went extinct they think, I beg to differ.
Where's the cure for cancer,
Science has made incredible strides in the fight against cancer. I am living proof. You are now more likely to survive most forms of cancer than you are to die. A mere 150 years ago we did not even have antibiotics. Today we are micro targeting prostate cancer and doing brain surgery.
where's cold fusion?
My youngest is a chem/physics double major, with a math minor. Fusion will happen. His generation will figure it out in our lifetime. We are not that far away.
For more than a generation science has tried to find a substitute for the rare earth element, neodymium. Where is it?
Exactly how would you substitute an element?
Why hasn't life expectancy risen above 100 years?
Average Male life expectancy went form 48.3 in 1900 to 75.6 in 2000. We are 50 years away from a 100 year life expectancy.
Where's the cure for hunger?
There is no need for a cure for hunger. I work in the agriculture industry for an agricultural chemical company (science).
Hunger is not a production issue, it is a financial issue.
The United Sates of American throws away more food in one day than all of starving Africa would consume in a year.
The reason there are starving people in the world is not because there is not enough food, it's because there is no profit in feeding them.
Globally, there is far more than enough food.
People starve because they are poor.
Facts are a pesky thing. Every time the right hears one, they can only resort to insulting the messenger or reversing the roles.
Rick, why do we think you are anti science in the first place? Guess he is admitting not believing in science and sticking to the earth being 6000 years old.
hee haw use it up and throw it away now that's an environmental policy.
At least Frothy is consistent. He was booted from office in PA as an incumbent after going out on the "contraception bad/abortion evil" limb. There's nothing new here for folks in tune with PA politics, and there is so much dirt on this crazy mo'fo that him winning his party's nomination should be the least of his worries. Obama would have more than enough ammo to make Frothy look like an even bigger ass than most of us already think him to be.
Big lies can win over only the weak minded conservative types. the smart conservatives just want smaller government. the majority of repubs just want a white goose stepping bible thumping government even though they would have their rights and health insurance yanked from them. real smart.
My parents are both intelligent and educated conservatives; but they are old and set in their ways, and thanks to Fox News, they are ignorant to some of the insane nonsense spewing forth from Santorum and his fellow candidates. They seriously don't hear anything about it, ever.
All they hear, all day long, is about how horrible the economy is doing and that it's all Obama's fault. That's pretty much the extent of their news.
I would much rather have someone like Bobby Jindal, or even Jeb Bush, both proven leaders.
Laugh. Out. Loud. Seriously. After Obama has gotten bin Laden, fixed the economy, and you think Jindal, whose state is still a sh1thole over 7 years after Katrina, and Jeb Bush, whose state is ALSO a sh1thole now being run by a bonafide crook as his successor . . . I guess you just don't know what leadership means, dude.
All they hear, all day long, is about how horrible the economy is doing and that it's all Obama's fault. That's pretty much the extent of their news.
the biggest contributor to the economic problems are a lack of spending on the part of consumers. All the doom and gloom talk lowers spending even further.
I kind of think the recession was an effect of the Sept. 11th attacks.
1.48 You're right. Bin Laden's goal was to destroy the world economy, and I guess nobody wants to admit that he was pretty successful with that. America alone has seen a lot of changes because of 9/11 - suspicion of foreigners, endless security checks, the rise of fascism, iconic companies going under, etc, etc. And to think Bin Laden got away with it for years, until President Obama took him out.
Actually Rick, most liberals are for exploiting infinite energy provided free of charge to us, the sun. In the long term it's also more fiscally conservative.
In the long term it's also more fiscally conservative.
and that seems to be the problem it doesn't meet the next quarter projects.
I kind of think the recession was an effect of the Sept. 11th attacks.
The 9-11 attacks steepened an already-oncoming recession, which Bush talked almost right out of the thin air by going around for months saying the economy and markets were "due for a correction."
The purpose of which was to lower the cost of labor by making jobs hard to find, and taking away the power of the worker to bargain. It's all of a piece for these vultures. They hate people who work for a living, because they have no clue what that means.
Up is down because we say so. santorum...sigh...
More nonsense by the GOTP.
LOOK OUT !!!
It's a stampede of unicorns!!!!!!!
Ride Ricky ride!!!
Absolutely correct Mr. Santorum!
Technology advances are allowing for better utilization of mined resources every day and yet the blind opposition continues.
There is a difference between utilization and using up resources. There is a difference between unrestrained exploitation and intelligent management of all resources. Which do you think this rapture believing theocrat espouses?
I'll give you a hint: Drill baby Drill to hell with the consequences.
Pablo--
Science has made incredible strides in the fight against cancer. I am living proof. You are now more likely to survive most forms of cancer than you are to die. A mere 150 years ago we did not even have antibiotics. Today we are micro targeting prostate cancer and doing brain surgery.
I'm very happy you have been cured of cancer. There are however some erroneous assumptions in your reply to my original post. If there were a cure for cancer, no one would die from it (assuming they had access to that cure). Cancer is caused by two disparate factors: environmental causes and internal ones. Internally, cell division is finite, we age and die. There is no getting around that. The cells that allow us to grow early in life are the cells that kill us later. Science has a name for that: "Antagonistic Pleiotropy." For that reason, geneticists believe it will be nearly if not completely impossible to genetically alter human beings for the sole perpose of longevity.
Average Male life expectancy went form 48.3 in 1900 to 75.6 in 2000. We are 50 years away from a 100 year life expectancy.
You are correct, but incorrect if you assume that longevity can be extended beyond a 100 because of the scientific inventions of the early 1900s. The environment was harsh, living and working conditions were dreadful, and life expectancy was, as you state between 45-49 years. The reason was the existence of widespread infectious diseases. Modern sanitation dramatically reduced the number of people who die from those external threats. What science did not do is change the built-in timebomb of our genetic code. That's why longevity has been extended very little since modern sanitation. Additionally, life expectancy grew from 45 to 78 primarily by dramatically diminishing the infant mortality rate.
In short, there are biological reasons science won't push longevity much beyond the current life expectancy... at least not without a godzillion more breakthroughs. The "Law of Mortality" asserts that there are biological reasons for why organisms grow old and why death occurs when it does. There are simply genetic limits to how long we can live withou massive medical intervention. The real key to anti-aging is to minimize accumulation of genetic damage within the cells of the body.
My youngest is a chem/physics double major, with a math minor. Fusion will happen. His generation will figure it out in our lifetime. We are not that far away.
Fusion does happen everyday... in the sun. Cold fusion? I hope your son does conquer it, but scientists haven't budged an inch on that for more than 30 years. And they are not optimistic.
Exactly how would you substitute an element?
I apologize, I wasn't clear. What I meant was finding or producing a substitute vis-a-vis its utility. In the same way that burning wood for for fuel was replaced by coal, which was replace by fossil fuels. Science has not found adequate industrial replacements for copper, for silver, for oil, for virtually all rare earth elements.
I do agree with your comments on hunger, Pablo. Cheers.
The life expectancy might actually explode. Its only theory now.
Science tells us that DNA falls apart as we get older and thats why we age. Its not the whole story but a big chunk of it. What can be done about it?
Did you guys read about DNA robot?
The funny thing about Viruses that infect cells. The virus is almost just a chunk of DNA floating about. It might be the way we can live very long lifes. I have talked with some Researchse and they believe that Viruses could be a way to bring new DNA into cells and repair them.
What is next?
a healing virus? that's brilliant.
so what, it infects you with healthy dose of your own DNA structure?
* Caution this information is just speculation and brain storming.
It is not hard science , no treatment for aging :(. Virus being a vehicle for medicine shows promise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy
I am derailing the seed. ahhh.
Though That is an idea. The problem is this. We change 1 trillion cells a year per person. Its a big problem. We have to work out this.
So we got a long way to go. We need hell of a lot of roboticization and automation. Remember we went to the moon :P
Santorum is the most quotable knucklehead I think I've ever seen. You just NEVER know what's gonna come outta this guys squash. It's usually pretty damn funny though.
#2 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:53 PM ESTThe only thing not funny about him is that people would actually vote for him.
It does bring up the question about how you would remove a president from office for being insane.
Daniel The Mensch
Santorum is the most quotable knucklehead I think I've ever seen.
He does give the former half-governor of Alaska a run for the most quotable
So maybe Bachman and Santorum are like distant cousins? Sure starting to sound that way....
Santorum, Bachmann, Palin- triplets and a gift from God! sarc
How did Santorum phrase it, an imperfect gift from God? unfortunately NOT sarc!!
After the election he should be able to get a gig at fox news.
#3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:17 PM ESTAfter the election, they'll probably give him an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame.
Liberals "Are The Anti-Science Ones"
The fact is that Newt is a liberal, What he is going around paying for sex. He wanted an open marriage? We found that Herman Cain could not keep his pants on when young women went to get a job and he interviewed them.
How is that conservative? As usual the republican party call liberals conservatives and themselves are conservative liberals.
We can just talk about this all day.
After the election, they'll probably give him an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame.
Watch it Robert, you're talkin' about my football team. It's a shame that what you're saying is probably true. But, almost every POTUS since Carter (excluding Clinton) has given a commencement address at Notre Dame. Obama's got an honorary degree. Since Santorum is a Catholic I doubt they'd pass on him even if he is a giant douche.
The fact is that Newt is a liberal, What he is going around paying for sex. He wanted an open marriage? We found that Herman Cain could not keep his pants on when young women went to get a job and he interviewed them.
Fidelity as a measure of one's political inclination???
The fact is that Newt is a liberal, What he is going around paying for sex. He wanted an open marriage? We found that Herman Cain could not keep his pants on when young women went to get a job and he interviewed them.Fidelity as a measure of one's political inclination???
Betcha we're heading down the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy path here. Pull up a chair and wait.
The amount of stupid comments coming from these jokers is astounding its like a never ending fountain of foolish rhetoric.I just wish we had a shut-off valve.
#4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:21 PM ESTThere is a substantial number of Americans who believe this stuff. Laugh all you like, but rural and small towns are full of this theology. It just sounds to me like constant wordsmithing from the Republicans and their base to justify gluttonous behaviors like greed and pollution policies to the chosen ones, who are them by the way. It seems absurd and hypocritical, but this fundamentalist movement has been around since the depression and now in the mainstream of GOP platform. It was a movement started by Americas most wealthy as a way to control the masses with religious zealots, works the same way as the trickle down economic policies, only instead of dangling money, you dangle money and salvation.
There is a substantial number of Americans who believe this stuff
I agree, Lola. And I'm not laughing. I had a friend who taught college freshman biology in a small town. This is what she told me. One of her students argued the Earth was only 6,000 years old. She explained to him how archaeologists had scientifically proved that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago ... before man.
He answered that "the Devil" had planted the dinosaur bones and everything was nothing more than a lie. Trust me. There are many more people with religious beliefs that mirror this student.
Small towns are remind me of the example of 'River City, Iowa' the fictional city in the 'The Music Man'.
He answered that "the Devil" had planted the dinosaur bones
He didn't? Oh no!
The amount of stupid comments coming from these jokers is astounding its like a never ending fountain of foolish rhetoric.I just wish we had a shut-off valve.
ha ha ha.
Isnt he already on the fox payroll? seems I heard he made something like 200.00 off them for somethin or other.
#5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:26 PM ESTIMHO, I think Da Saint's knowledge of science is limited to a two foot string tying two paper cups together. And I'm being kind...................
I just read another seed where he got upset when a media pundit said he'd taken his dead son home to "play with him." How crass, rude and classless.
He actually had poor Gabriel stuffed and is using him as a door stop. Also, crass, rude and classless. But it fits with all the garbage Da Saint throws out at the majority of Americans that can actually think, reason and interpret.
#6 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:26 PM ESTPresident Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Hell Yes! We have the technology to strip mine every square inch of the United States, level the mountains and fill in the valleys, break up the very rock of the Earth itself to release it's fossil fuels and sink drills in every natural body of water. Why should we *not* pillage those areas of the United States left relatively untouched by man? And if that isn't enough we have the military power to make sure that we can claim every other countries natural resources to feed our greed.
Of course we *don't* have the technology to do this without destroying the very Earth we live on, or to clean up after ourselves after poisoning the environment but big @!$%#ing deal, at least there will be some people (not you or I of course) making huge profits doing it.
And if *that* ain't "Christian" then you must be being lead by Satan!
#7 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:26 PM ESTI guess there's no point in saving any resources or natural land for the tens of millions of unwanted children who would be created by his abstinence programs.
I guess there's no point in saving any resources or natural land for the tens of millions of unwanted children who would be created by his abstinence programs.
You would have to ask Santorum and the right-wing religious freaks who follow him if that's how they define "Stewardship".
“anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
As soon as we give the ok to drill all the oil that exists, ignore all environmental consequences and put our complete trust in Exxon err... God, he will smile upon us and send us directly to heaven!
Technology is going to save the day? Is this the technology that will be learned from the home schooling provided by bare foot and pregnant stay at home moms or will it be the technology the next generation masters in their bible class?
hey, the bible's got flying chariots (transportation technology), eternal flames (alternative energy), and magicians who can turn water into wine and one loaf into hundreds (agriculture technology)
the fact you muggles infidels don't understand proves the religious are more scientific.
Harry Potter walked the streets of Jerusalem FIRST... yeah, verily, yeah...
Santorum is on a party cleansing tour and is doing a great job. Moderates and independents are listening to this freak and realize he's not going to leave any doubt that he's not interested in courting their votes. If Romney wants to win the nutjob vote, he's gotta get further right of Santorum. I don't think Romney can lean that far right if he had vertigo!
if ROmney had any brains he would cast himself as the moderate, reasonable republican and let Santorum draw the religious right into an ideological ghetto.
if ROmney had any brains he would cast himself as the moderate, reasonable republican and let Santorum draw the religious right into an ideological ghetto.
the problem is, that GOP primary voters are apparently, supporters of the crap Santorum spews
and they are the gate keepers, so Romney would have to run as an indipendant..but considering how many people that had be die hard repub for years were suddenly "independent" after Bush, it would be a sort of irony
Rich reminds of the people who keep claiming that there won't be enough food or water for everyone on the planet.
I remember when it was almost common knowledge that the Chinese would be importing food. Yet I remember a lecturer at university who told me. The Chinese will export food.
Who cares that Chinese are one of the biggest exporters of food in the world. The fact is that it is easier to say something then back it up with facts.
Rick is sure fire crazy.
He forgets that we are to be mindful stewards of the planet, not rapists and pillagers.
#9 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:28 PM ESTI agree WeldDem. After reading this, I went off and looked up Stewardship and I didn't find one definition that included exploitation of our resources....go figure....
Here are a few definitions that I found:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stewardship
the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of natural resources>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stewardship
the responsible overseeing and protection of something considered worth caring for and preserving: New regulatory changes will result in better stewardship of lands that are crucial for open space and wildlife habitat.
From the Catholic Diocese of Spokane:
http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/stewardship.php
Stewardship As a Way of Life
Definition of Stewardship
The 1992 U.S. Bishops' Pastoral Letter, Stewardship . . . A Disciple's Response, a steward is defined as a disciple of Jesus who "receives God's gifts gratefully, cultivates them responsibly, shares them lovingly in justice with others and returns them with increase to the Lord."
From the "The Biblical Concept of Christian Stewardship" Written by John C. Ivins, July 1982
http://ebookbrowse.com/the-biblical-concept-of-christian-stewardship-doc-d144013838
In the New Testament, the Christian steward is without a doubt a manager (Luke 12_42-48). When we become Christians, we become God’s representatives, and we need to become aware of the fact that we are managers of God’s world. We are responsible to Him for taking care of that part of the environment that we are exposed to in this life as a part of our Christian stewardship. We are responsible for the water we drink, the air we breathe, the food that God entrusts to us in this lifetime. Indeed, Christian stewardship means that management of God’s world is the Christian’s responsibility.
Not only is Santorum spouting stupid sh*t, it's obvious that he doesn't quite have a grip on the meaning of his own rhetoric...............
Why are people voting for this bozo?????
Well, its pretty obvious that if you don't side with environmentalists, YOU'RE NUTS!
#10 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:30 PM ESTHahaha...well in all reality I'm going with the philosophy that says "the Earth is my Mother", as contrasted to the one that says "God gave man DOMINION over the Earth"
There is the crux, right there.
Well, if it's up to me I'd say alittle more than that. I would indicte the whole Judeao/Christian/European/Capitalist philosophy.
It obviously doesn't work in the long term.
No jmorris... but he does seem to have an Oedipus complex...
jmorris, you just gave me a very much, needed out-loud giggle!! :)
Thank you!!
Gotta hand it to little Ricky.
Quietly building his boat, while other "candidates" were busy stepping on every rake they could find, poking each other's eyes, flinging pies and poop everywhere.
Now that it's built, and on the water, he just can't help himself from shooting the bottom out.
Hey! Little Ricky, you bail water OUT of the boat........
#12 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:36 PM ESTthe 3 stooges and Yosemite SANtorum - the meanest preenest has-beenest mufuh on the water...
Just shut up Ricky, the more you say, the dumber you sound!!!! And if he gets his way, all of our kids will be spouting the same foolishness. He doesn't want the Federal or State governments to have any part in education. Keep 'em dumb, feed 'em apple pie, and keep 'em waving that flag, then they'll think the GOTP are a group of scholars and all will be well in the world(lat world) that is. No public education, OMG!
#13 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:39 PM ESTThey'reAllCrooks-"Is he running for Pope or President?"
Actually my dear friend, he's running for GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And after he outlaws contraception and makes sure that insurance only covers "unanticipated expenses"...pregnancies will no longer be covered because you, well, you should've anticiapted you were gonna get pregant.
Not only is he scientifically wrong...he religiously reatarded!
I love that phrase, "religiously retarded." It must be something like "spiritual insanity."
Take your pick, any man who claims to speak for God is either one or the other, or, in Da Saint's case, probably both.
The technology and science of renewable energy in the form of solar and wind is something Rick Santorum and his political cronies have always fought furiously against.
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
This is Santorum's pro-science idea of exploiting the Earth's natural resources? He's the consummate hyprocrite and liar.
#14 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:39 PM ESTI wonder where he keeps his triceratops saddle.
#15 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:47 PM ESTThe visual of that is hilarious!
It also means he would be sitting backwards. Fitting. Always looking at where he's been, rather than where he's going.
Kinda like his mouth.
National Academy of Science has hundreds of very top scientists signing off that Global Warming due to human activity is a scientific fact. It is their professional job to find and report the truth.
Also, to me the fact that for the first time ever in my life winter never showed up this year shouts Global Warming. There is essentially no snow in many areas and people are not wearing winter coats in the middle of winter.
is essentially no snow in many areas and people are not wearing winter coats in the middle of winter
They have down sized to sweater vests!
Phil:
Also, to me the fact that for the first time ever in my life winter never showed up this year shouts Global Warming.
Same situation here. It's terrifying.
Also, to me the fact that for the first time ever in my life winter never showed up this year shouts Global Warming. There is essentially no snow in many areas and people are not wearing winter coats in the middle of winter.
Mucho scientific there lefty. Google the near record cold this winter in the arctic, how that is making a bunch of "politically unsupportive" ice. and how that is keeping it mild in the lower 48.
Liberals love the science, it is just their conclusions that are useless because of that genetic defect that ignores simple arithmetic.
Start with a math class before you conspire to create an industry.
Liberals love the science, it is just their conclusions that are useless because of that genetic defect that ignores simple arithmetic.
Although I think his conclusion about no-winter = global warming may be a bit oversimplistic.
Unusual weather patterns are expected to be the result of such processes.
Fact is, man is having and will continue to have an impact on the climate. Just what the results will be exactly, well, that's not as easy to predict. Unusual cold spells in some areas, winterless winters in others... these are just small symptoms.
One thing is for sure, though: it's probably not a good thing.
Although I think his conclusion about no-winter = global warming may be a bit oversimplistic.
I agree that a one-winter oddity does not a global warming theory prove, but it is a symptom, a harbinger of things to come. And that is terrifying.
Although I think his conclusion about no-winter = global warming may be a bit oversimplistic.
Agreed. Though One of the worst winters followed immediately by virtually no winter does fit. But it will take more than 10 years to determine if it is a change in climate or aberrations. Remember AGW does not equate to all seasons being warmer in all locations. It means that the climate changes which could result in any of the following:
The operative word here is "change". The operative concern is "speed". We can deal with change if it is slow enough. If it happens to fast, it can overwhelm our ability to adapt. This is the concern over AGW as opposed to natural GW. We are causing an accelerated warming and an accelerated climate change. We are reducing our time to adapt to these changes and it is this speed that is the problem, not the actual temperatures. If this process was taking 10,000 to 100,000 years life would adapt. Happening in 100 to 1000 years life will be hard pressed to adapt and widespread disruption results until some 10,000 years has passed and life has adapted.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp
How can anyone deny the facts and signoff's by Nobel Prize winning scientist? These people want to be President? Have a cabin in the woods with four fireplaces, all buring 24 hours a days, the cabin gets hotter on average, you might have one colder period,..it's that simple to me.
"A growing body of evidence indicates that humans now have a significant impact on climate. Nevertheless, it is difficult to identify humans as the only cause of a particular weather event or local climate change.
The operative word here is "change".
Can everyone please just take note of this? Enough with "global warming".
You do understand that global warming is a reason for climate change right Stand up? I'll make this simple for you. When you change temp, in this case warming, the climate changes... Do you get now? Temp and climate have a strong relationship with each other. So, global warming, which is the rise of the global average temp, is one of the driving forces (along with soil depletion, water pollution, deforestation etc...) on the changing climate hence climate change. Does this need to be broken down further for you?
Need I break it down further for you? The term "global warming" has done nothing but cloud the issue.
Yes we should dumb down the science reporting more to appease the ignorant. /s.
No it does not cloud this issue. The climate is changing. Why is the climate changing? Because of many different variables but one being Global Warming. It is that simple. Global Warming is the global rise of temp. Climate Change is what's happening because of Global Warming, along with other variables. I don't understand how that is cloudy. If it is not dealt with than it might become a issue in which Global Warming causes Climate Change and the changing climate will then cause Global Warming to speed up.
Fact - Global warming IS the cause of global climate change. The increase in the average temperature of the planet is the reason we are seeing the change in global climate.
He is just a horrible, horrible person, and I am hoping that enough people realize this, he drops out, and we will never have to hear him spew this garbage again...
#17 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:58 PM ESTwe really NEED him to be the nominee. He'll do the majority of shooting right at his own foot.
Of course, he kinda reminds me of a guy named QUAYLE - shot his wad running against Bill, then Georgie jr and then has disappeared from the national political scene...
any public voice Santorum has is bad for this democracy.
no, him having a public vote is great
give him a national TV show till Nov
its him having any sort of public OFFICE that would be bad for our democracy
ron pauls previous run created the Tea Party.
what do you think will happen with those who support Santorum.
The earth and everything in it the world and its inhabitants belong the LORD for He laid its foundation on the seas and established it on the rivers. Psalm 24:
By the generous grace of the Creator, we are allowed to occupy this planet. But with that privilege we have a sacred obligation to be good stewardship of the world, for the next generation to enjoy.
#18 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:00 PM ESTWell yeah... the Party embraces and rejects science quite selectively at their whim... sometimes it's the Republicans rousing funds with creationism and downplaying anthrogenic global warming.. sometimes it's the Democrats waging the War on Pot despite all reasoning and human knowledge on the subject.
... but like Jack Sprat and his wife... together they lick the platter clean. Meaning they get the fundraising done... science be damned.
#19 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:02 PM ESTSantorium just needs to drop out of the race, he is simply ignorant.
#20 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:04 PM ESTI guess that depends on whether you want Republicans to have a slim chance of winning or not.
He's a great promoter for Obama among sane people.
best spokesperson for the DEMs that they could ever have FOR FREE...
I think this guy's gonna be the best thing that happened to Obama since Sarah Palin! Keep talkin' Rick! We want to hear ALL your thoughts.
#21 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:05 PM ESTWe must understand the poor soul is saying whatever he thinks the radical right wants him to just to keep the money flowing. See! He has already sold his soul for pwer and greed!!!!
#22 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:08 PM ESTNow here's one I agree with. Rick has definitely sold out morality for campaign money.
It's too bad he keeps the other villains in office... You know... even with his war record and his Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention, 'Bama looks good in comparison..
... the Party owns both sides of every ticket...they never lose an election. How do you keep a really bad man in office? You get a worse guy to run against him.
Since no one will vote outside the Party... we'd rather eat our young than "throw away our vote"... They're all set, and we are as screwed as we deserve to be... which is substantially so.
even with his war record
What war record? His voting on war related issues? Because he certainly never served in the armed forces!
Nothing might be better for the GOP than Santorum becoming its nominee for the presidency. The politics of the arch-conservative evangelical right would become exposed for what they are: a self-righteous, supremacist and largely irrational mix of ideology based on fear. That might just motivate wiser, more considerate and moderate conservatives to take back the party's reigns and restore its respect.
#23 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:11 PM ESTthat would require an entire change in the FUNDING from the current "rich teavangelical rightwingnutrelgionazis" to the "ordinary political moderate". Sadly. that ain't gonna happen...
Good point Seastar, unfortunately considerate and moderate conservatives are an endagered species for allowing a fringe movement to hold them hostages.
This man is truly evil. He twists the words of his own faith for his own gain. God commanded that we be stewards of the Earth, not to exploit it by any means we are capable of.
#25 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:15 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
