...Marco Rubio and Jim De Mint, in my opinion.
Marco Antonio Rubio (born May 28, 1971) is the junior United States Senator from Florida, serving since January 2011. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives (2007–2009).
Jim De Mint (born September 2, 1951) is an American politician who was a United States Senator from South Carolina from 2005 to 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party and a leading member in the Tea Party movement. He previously served as the United States Representative for South Carolina's 4th congressional district from 1999 to 2005. DeMint resigned from the Senate on January 1, 2013, to become president of The Heritage Foundation.
(Marco Rubio talked about running for President recently. I think he should hold off until after the policies of the left totally flop. By then, the majority will be on board with change for the better,
instead of the worse.)
Nobel Prize winning economist F. A. Hayek said: “We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.”
The present system we have cannot produce an adequate leader among it's own. They are bought by special interest and serve their masters very well. We the electorate are lazy and misinformed by the tabloid press. This includes network and cable news reporting services. Unless we make a concerted effort back towards self rule we will continue in the current sewage that is our political system.
Publicly financed campaigns
These are our only hope for change.
Let this be a lesson to the youth out there.
This is what can happen to a mind when watching Fox news.
The next thing we will know we will have business refusing to serve people based on their personal beliefs. Sorry Mrs. we can't serve you without your husband present. Sorry lady, but if your face isn't covered up I can't serve you. Sorry lady, but your face is covered up so I can't sell you a coffee. Sorry sir, you'll have to leave unless you provide a crucifix.
Please people take your remotes and turn off fox news and watch John Stewart.
So, you think Rubio is one of the good guys?
Him, along with a bunch of other Republicans blocked the Bill that would provide expanded benefits to veterans. Rubio's was THE most shameless excuse for doing so.
"SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FL (2/26/2014): If in the end these negotiations fail — as I tragically have to tell you they are destined to fail — and Iran retains the enrichment capability ... I would argue to you that it actually is relevant. Because it is our men and women in uniform that we're going to turn to when this thing ends up the way I know it will. And ask them to take care of this problem."
The Tea Party members will eventually save us. They are growing in numbers. I believe the youth will catch on... as they observe the disaster this nation becomes. They will be the patriots of America who will have to fight the eventual and creeping invasion of Russia / China.
(So, don't let them (the youth) get addicted them to technological screens. Keep young children off of them until they are at least six years old.
And if our youth no nothing about the reality of God, heaven help us.
You think youths will be lining up to join a racist, homophobic, sexist, uneducated (especially anti-science) and generally backwards party? The Republican party is struggling as it is to attract young people, and even young Republicans tend to be more moderate in social issues. The Tea Party thinking it'll convert 'em... well, it wouldn't be the first issue they were delusional about. lol
My favorite Tea Party member was the "I'm not a witch" lady, she was hilarious.
I seriously wonder if there is anything at all the Tea Party is rational about, but I have better things to do, like watch grass grow, than Google quotes from their members.
Here are a few quotes from De Mint:
"Obamacare is not about getting better health care. Americans will get better health care just going to the emergency room."
"I've said it often and I believe it—the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. As people become more dependent on government, less dependent on God."
Claimed the government was "going to charge taxes on Christmas trees so they can start another government agency to promote Christmas trees. We don't need to do that at the federal level. We can't even afford to do what we're already doing. And to add another tax to something and say we're going to create a promotion agency, it just makes you want to pull your hair out."
He's also claimed that gay people people and unmarried women who are having sex should not be teachers.
Yeah, these guys don't sound much like rescue rangers to me!!
Well, they do to me. Just to let you know.
"You cannot do anything without God.It's a profound and elemental truth. Not, you cannot do most things without God. You will not be able to do anything that you want, truly, in fulfillment, without God."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … sZyGISF.99
But for the right winger to say that those people needing health care should rely on God to help them rather than appropriate public policy is ludicrous. Most developed industrialized societies have solved these kinds of problems in the last century. Nothing against God of course, and what you say is ultimately true, but the rightwinger uses God as an excuse or crutch in the place of tangible actions possible by us mere mortals to address problems among us.
I would say all unmarried people shouldn't be having sex. End of story.
But KH, that is your opinion, who has the right to make that a universal requirement for approval except God, himself, or herself if you like? I may say otherwise, is your point of view any more valid than mine? That is a rather pompous and arrogant position taken by DeMint in this case. I may well not believe in HIS religion he uses to support his views, do you think that he had even considered this?
What if all humans on this earth could live according to the principle of no sex before marriage?
In the sense of ultimate love of God we could. But since we love ourselves more...
Have at it guys and gals!
Suffer the consequences, be my guest.
And we do and we always will.
I agree with your concept in principle, but coersive approach that would have to be used to institute DEMint's point of view will have to be anti-democratic on its face and quite theocratic, that is not a pluralistic America and is unacceptable.
And I guess you have plans to enforce that? Are you also going to punish teenage boys for masterbation as well?
"We live in a society obsessed with public opinion. But leadership has never been about popularity."
"I just want people to know that if they want to change the direction of the country, they can do it, but only if they're active, informed, and engaged."
Sex is healthy and fun. Any restrictions upon it have been imposed by men (usually) in an effort to control women (usually). Marriage is the biggest restriction of all. In almost every culture, it was instituted as a way for men to control women.
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
Yes. We're lucky to live in a time and place where we actually have a bit of freedom. Sexually, career and otherwise. Not the usual for most of history.
Women reap the benefits of sex more drastically than men.
I don't know what you mean? Women have more fun during sex? Depends on who you are having sex with, I imagine. I don't know what other benefits you mean unless you're referring to potentially getting knocked up, which is pretty much not a benefit 99% of the time. Unless you have gay sex. Whoo gay sex, no accidental pregnancies!
Maybe everyone should just have gay sex until marriage. that would be like, the responsible thing to do.
well, getting pregnant is pretty drastic don't you think? and it is always a benefit.
Are you saying that getting pregnant is a benefit for women but not men? How so?
"Sex is healthy and fun."
Sex leads to pregnancy.
The woman is 100% benefited, (unless the benefit is deemed the opposite and it must be chopped up and vacuumed it out.)
The man benefits too. Why do you inquire about the man?
Women should realize that they are the ones who must assume the majority of the consequences of having sex. Sex *After* marriage is preferable to sex *Before* marriage. Any reasonable and thinking woman can determine this truth!
I inquire about men because you made the comparison:: "Women reap the benefits of sex more drastically than men." Then, you said pregnancy is a drastic benefit, which leads me to believe that you believe men do not benefit as much as women when a pregnancy occurs. It seems pretty clear, unless you meant something else....?
Sex after marriage may or may not be preferable, depending on the person. You do realize your beliefs are your own and not absolute truths that apply to everyone, don't you? Sex is most enjoyable when it is simply for pleasure. Reasonable and thinking women enjoy sex, benefit from sex (you know, those other benefits that don't involve pregnancy and childbirth) and reap those benefits outside of marriage, some of us for many years. Now, I am married. Is sex after marriage "preferable"? Well, it's great but I wouldn't call it "preferable." Sex before marriage was great, too.
By the way, the only reason I'm married is to satisfy a societal construct that says if I want my lover to receive certain benefits we must be married. A piece of paper authorized by the government is nothing more than a contract. My promise would be just as good without it. In fact, it might even be "preferable" since it is given freely and without the conditions imposed upon it by a male-dominated culture.
What is your actual point?
All I'm saying is that if we don't listen to Mother Nature, she'll box our ears.
It is obviously better to be married to a man who will help out in the boxing ring. His help / strength is a wonderful thing.
I enjoy having a man as a partner, but I did just fine without him. No Mother Nature boxing my ears, either. lol
I may have to differ with you here PP, in our current economic and cultural climate at least in my experience marriage is more of a benifit for women than for men. The commitment for families and woman's tendency to earn less than men on the average, gives that piece of paper legal authority. Having been married for a while and the sole breadwinner, it is easier for me as a guy to do what I like without the restraint of any partner. Guys generally are not the nesting type, at least the old codgers I associate with...
Research does not support your opinion. Men are happier and healthier in marriage. Women are happier and healthier when single. One might argue that women in general are better off financially when married but that is rapidly changing. However, is it better to have more money, or to be happier and healthier? I guess it depends on your priorities.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Who said that, I wonder.
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing."
Hillsdale College was founded as Michigan Central College in Spring Arbor, Michigan, in 1844. Nine years later it moved to Hillsdale and assumed its current name. As stated in its Articles of Association, the College undertakes its work “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings resulting from the prevalence of civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety in the land, and believing that the diffusion of sound learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.”
Hillsdale’s modern rise to prominence occurred in the 1970s. On the pretext that some of its students were receiving federal loans, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare attempted to interfere with the College’s internal affairs, including a demand that Hillsdale begin counting its students by race. Hillsdale’s trustees responded with two toughly worded resolutions: One, the College would continue its policy of non-discrimination. Two, “with the help of God,” it would “resist, by all legal means, any encroachments on its independence.”
Following almost a decade of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against Hillsdale in 1984. By this time, the College had announced that rather than complying with unconstitutional federal regulation, it would instruct its students that they could no longer bring federal taxpayer money to Hillsdale. Instead, the College would replace that aid with private contributions.
Hillsdale continues to carry out its original mission today, both in the classroom and nationwide, through its many outreach programs, including its monthly speech digest, Imprimis.
A prayer written in the Bible that was placed inside the 1853 cornerstone of Central Hall reflects its continuing commitment: “May earth be better and heaven be richer because of the life and labor of Hillsdale College.”
Other good guys/gals who are authors:
William J. Bennett : America The Last Best Hope
Ann Coulter Godless: The Church of Liberalism
Laura Ingraham: Power to the People
Ann Coulter is my hero.
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
"No one condemns those who are in the dark, to stay in the dark forever." Fortune Cookie
"I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and
that they may absolutely refuse to move at all." - Alexis de Tocqueville
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." - Mark Twain
It once was considered radical for a woman to show her ankle, for a man to work on Sunday, for Jackie Robinson to play baseball. Conservatives fight change, until it becomes the norm, then they move onto the next innovation to fear and resist.
Abstinence would cut down on the traffic going back and forth from the astral to the physical and back again. Abstinence would allow the sleeping souls in heaven to remain peacefully in the arms of the angels. Have we no compassion for the unborn souls who are happily lounging in heaven??
Sorry, I live in the real world, not some fantasy. That said, I support measures that would limit abortions like quality sex education and easy access to birth control. Abstinence doesn't work. It has been proven not to work.
Q. Where do YOU think you are from?
A. Heaven and the arms of angels.
Q. Who supports the women who don't happen to have an education or career and they get pregnant and decide keep their child?
A. The government, i.e. all of us. Yes, we pay for their slip-offs / ups.
BTW The incidence of needy unwed mothers is what causes Ann
Coulter's outlook, (regarding the quote you referred to earlier.)
The Way I See It
1. I don't know, and it's okay that I don't know.
2. How about the father? Yes, that was flippant, but why are you focusing on the women only? It takes two.
3. Ann Coulter is my hero. She knows God. "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
Well technically abstinence does work and is 100% effective if followed correctly. But following that to the tee is the tricky part. Is that what you meant?
Abstinence isn't necessarily THE answer but a more responsible approach to sex IS. If one intends to have sexual relationships, one must be responsible enough to understand the necessary for contraception. One must be mature enough emotionally, mentally, and psychologically to have sex. One has to fully be cognizant of the psychological mechanics of sexual relations.
If one is too immature and not ready to have sex, then postpone having sex until one is TOTALLY PREPARED to have sex. If one isn't ready, DON'T have sex. Sex is not the be and end all of everything! One can use self-control in many instances until one is ready and mature enough for sex.
One must adopt an attitude of responsibility and accountability regarding sex. Responsible sex means emotional, mental, and psychological prepareness and that includes knowledge of the body and the wise use of contraception. Abortion should only be used as a last resort;contraception should be in order.
I also would like to add that waiting until marriage in terms of sex is a little beyond the pale. Married people can have more irresponsible sex than single people. In fact, a study has shown that 31% of unintended pregnancies are from married women. It is not whether people are married or not, it is HOW RESPONSIBLE they are in terms of contraceptive use.
"Conservatives fight change, until it becomes the norm, then they move onto the next innovation to fear and resist."
You mean like George Wallace? Oh wait, he was a liberal, not a conservative. My bad.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln. Wait a second, let me get this straight...
So, since Lincoln was a conservative, that means he was against change and since George Wallace was a liberal, he was for change? Wait, I am confused now. Wasn't Lincoln the guy that is credited with freeing the slaves and wasn't George Wallace the one that was for segregation?
I am sorry, but I actually took history classes, so please excuse my confusion about what you said.
George Wallace was a Democrat and a conservative. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and a progressive. I am sorry, but I actually know the difference between a political party and a label, so please excuse my correcting what you wrote.
Oh how convenient it is that you can cherry pick any excuse you want, but it just isn't so. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative in the truest sense and George Wallace was a liberal to the core, as were most southern democrats. I will give you a couple of quotes from David McCullough. Just to give you some of his credentials; he is a Pulitzer Prize winner that wrote 1776, the biography of Truman, the biography of John Adams (you might be familiar with the HBO film), and various other important historical books. He said:
"Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of."
" In 1958, Judge George Wallace was an Alabama liberal, running for governor. He tried to balance two ambitions -- to help the poor - and himself."
Just because you don't recognize segregation as a main talking point for modern liberals doesn't mean he wasn't politically a liberal. He was a typical liberal for his day. You might need to go and research the democrats before the 1950's and 60's which is when they discovered that they need to patronize African Americans to get some votes.
LOL, you are the one cherry picking a racist Democrat and a progressive Republican. Progressives, by definition, embrace change.
That is not cherry picking. That is providing you only two examples for time sake, but I am sure one hundred examples wouldn't suffice for you because you don't worry about those darn statistics or even facts as you stated in another post. Whatever goes on in your little brain is enough evidence for you.
Your calling my brain little is a reflection of you, not me. Enjoy your reflection in the mirror; it must be lovely. ;-)
No, the fact that of all the things I wrote, you only chose to focus on the word little shows that you are insecure. Your brain is little compared to an elephants and so is mine, so maybe you should focus more on providing facts for your statements. RA must be your babysitter because he took care of that for you.
No, not lucky, just the contemporary norm.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
I have heard the 'contemporary' abortion stats. Its not a pretty picture, Pretty Panther.
"In 2010, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC)."
"according to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day."
When did this become about abortion? Most women have sex before marriage. Most women do not have abortions.
I think this about what is best for single women… to not get pregnant… to not have sex. It is a matter of logic.
and following the laws of nature.
It's a matter of opinion. If it's better for you, great. I agree it's better not to get pregnant until you are ready. That has nothing to do with marriage or sex before marriage.
Marriage is a perfectly wonderful institution. There is a recent study which revealed that men and women are happier in marriage than in cohabitation. My question is this: What is wrong with discussing the ideal of abstinence… it is always a worthy and helpful practice. 100%.
I have no problem with abstinence. Go for it. Just don't try and convince me it works as a cultural form of birth control because it's already been proven it does not. More religious folk get abortions than atheists. Statistics, ya know.
"More religious folk get abortions than atheists. Statistics, ya know."
I'd love to see the statistics for this quote. Could you please provide some data?
"Yes, countries that are more religious do indeed have higher abortion rates, and it's probable that this is because when the religious get hold of the reins of power they introduce policies that lead to more abortion (usually highly dangerous illegal abortions). Why? Because the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. And the best way to do that is high quality sex eduction and easy access to contraception."
Religion and abortion - the facts
First of all, the link you provided is not available anymore.
Secondly, it was a blog, which is not a valid source for facts. If you were writing an essay and used that website, you would get laughed out of the room, even by junior college standards.
Try to provide something from a professional journal. I am sure you have a few laying around since you sound quite educated on all subjects you speak about.
Eh, it was there just this morning and the reason I used it is because of its long list of legitimate sources. You can find those yourself. Right now, I've got packing to do. Enjoy your searching for statistics to support more atheists getting abortions that religious people.
First of all, I never said atheists get more abortions, you are the one that said christians get more abortions, so it is your duty to provide information to back up your claim and a "blog" is not a valuable source.
You said: "Right now, I've got packing to do. Enjoy your searching for statistics"
Yes, those darn statistics get in the way, don't they! lol I guess you just expect us to take your word since you are the obvious expert.
Abortions in the United States:
73% report a religious affiliation.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presski … facts.html
Well done my friend. That is all I needed. I also found one that you might like:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2013 … index.html
I never said I was an expert, which is why I provided a source which was, yes, a blog that provided a summary with a list of sources that can be independently verified. If you don't believe me, fine. Maybe this link will work now. It works for me.
By the way, I never attack the source, only the data, which is what people who care about statistics would do. I've used Fox News as a source, if they are presenting factual data.
lisa shea??? lisa shea is your source? This is another blog and she provide "other" sources, not sources to back he data. Here is her intro to prove this is a blog:
"Greetings and Salutations! I've been on networked computer systems since my youth in the 1970s and had my first webpages live in the early 1990s. I am a writer and database developer by profession and an explorer of life by avocation. I'm an eclectic sort of person, and I enjoy a wide variety of hobbies. Books have had an enormous impact on my life, and two that have guided me have been the Honesty of Aragorn - Lord of the Rings and the Environmentalism of Dune.
My web site has grown into over 52,000 pages and images, all hand written and created by me. I update it frequently; check out my blog for daily notes. The current photo of me is from November 2012, at one of my boyfriend's gigs. The sidebar displays images of summertime morning glories in my back yard."
Okay, you attacked the writer of the blog. How about attacking the statistics? Or, proving her conclusion about the statistics is false?
That would be called "debate."
I never "attacked" the writer. I am only trying to let you know that a blog is not a valid source. Anyone worth their salt should know this. This is research 101.
I'm still waiting for your rebuttal based on data.
By the way, you forgot to thank RA for doing YOUR due diligence for you.
LOL, you're funny. Thank you, RA. Are you happy now?
See, that wasn't so hard. Politeness is a lost art, so sometimes people have to be reminded.
Remember: "It takes 13 muscles to smile and 33 to frown, so why overwork?"
Dear Mr. Mklow1:
You seem to have manufactured my impoliteness. I believe if you peruse this thread you will find you were the impolite one. However, given your seeming inability to understand you reap what you sow, I am inclined to simply smile and move on, as I have been doing (smiling, that is) since you first entered this thread. I enjoy a good argument on Hubpages Forums. You have provided a bit of amusing distraction from my packing. For me, what matters is whether the facts, as presented, are accurate. Since you concur that the facts as presented are accurate, then I can assume this "debate" (such as it was) is over.
Last time I checked, it was impolite not to thank someone for helping you. I teach my children this, so I thought I should pass this knowledge on to you.
As for you saying that it is important for facts being presented accurately, this also goes for me, which is why I took issue with your presenting a blog as facts. I have also proven that facts and how they are presented are important to me by acknowledging the information RA presented and I concurred that this said information was correct. If I were a person that only cared about what my views were then I wouldn't have done this.
If you go through the thread, I never once said you were wrong, I only took issue with your source, which was not fact based. You then proceeded to provide another blog as evidence after someone else had to provide actual facts to support your statement.
As for you saying "I enjoy a good argument on Hubpages Forums." I can see that you do. My kids argue. I debate, which is why I asked that you present actual facts instead of blog information. Otherwise, it would have been just another opinionated argument.
By the way, I presented you facts about George Wallace given from a Pulitzer Prize winner, yet you seemed to ignore that. Is it that you cannot stomach being wrong, so you are not acknowledging it? When facts were presented to me, I did, so why can't you.
Didn't you write this reply so you could seem like the "bigger person", yet you cannot even say that I am correct.
Oh my, Mr. Mklow1,
As I have repeatedly stated, the blog presented a summary of the data, with sources. I did not present a second blog; I merely resubmitted the same link that didn't work the first time. Again, the data was correct, which is what is important, not whether or not it was summarized in a blog. It could be summarized in an email, a forum post, a news website, whatever.
Since you are so concerned about politeness in the form of thanking forum posters who enter with additional information to back up another's post, please politely go through the threads here and remind each and every person whose forum post was backed up by another person who posted additional facts to thank said person. I'm sure others need to be schooled in the proper art of thanking people who provide additional info in forum threads. Never mind if it takes you hours and hours, I'm sure you are up to the task because I'm not the only one who fails to do so and it is important to pass on your knowledge to us rubes who don't understand what it means to be civilized.
I didn't ignore your statement about George Wallace, I merely took issue with describing him as a liberal. One historian does not constitute a consensus, but if you want to call him a liberal I don't care. Whatever floats your boat. You can even be "right." It was not the primary point of my posting in this thread anyway.
I look forward to seeing your admonitions to others here about their impoliteness for not thanking those who provide additional sources to bolster their arguments. It should be fun. And educational.
With all of the other stuff you wrote, I will just write that off because you don't seem to get it and you really don't seem to get the concept of reliable sources. That is OK and I know there are people like you out there that will believe anything they read on the internet. That is nothing new.
The thanking RA thing was really a joke, but you seem to really focus on that, though it is really a non-issue.
Now, as for this. You said:
"I didn't ignore your statement about George Wallace, I merely took issue with describing him as a liberal.
First of all, I didn't describe him as a liberal. His IS a liberal or was since he is dead. It is not about me calling him one.
As for you saying this: "One historian does not constitute a consensus, but if you want to call him a liberal I don't care."
You seem to value the blogger extraordinaire Lisa Shea's opinion, but as for David McCullough, oh, he is just another historian and his "opinion" is just written off! lmao!!! Wow, you are really funny!
Um, Lisa Shea presented a summary of facts, with sources, which you concur are correct.
I can find other historians who don't characterize George Wallace as a liberal, but like I said, I don't care enough to bother. I said you can be right. I guess that's not enough?
As for the rest, my suggestion that you schools others on their impoliteness is also a joke. You reap what you sow, remember? Since you think I am really funny, I'll take that to mean you like my jokes.
"I can find other historians who don't characterize George Wallace as a liberal, but like I said, I don't care enough to bother."
Of course you can because nothing in this world is 100%. There will always be someone to dispute claims, especially in the ultra-competitive world of academia.
The fact that you aren't willing to look any further has nothing to do with you not caring, it has to do with the fact that you are not willing to put in the research. To dig deeper takes more than simply Google-ing the question and you would actually have to read some articles or books on actual paper.
"not willing to do the research"
Isn't that same as "I don't care enough to bother"? LOL
So you are acknowledging that you just spout off your opinion without basing it on facts. I just want to get that straight.
OMG, you're somethin'! I already said you can be right. Twice. Do you want me to carve it in blood on my forehead and post a picture? Chill out already, dude.
Hey, I was only responding to this comment that you made.
"not willing to do the research"
Isn't that same as "I don't care enough to bother"? LOL
I was only trying to clarify, so if anyone should chill out it is you. You act like you just left it off at you saying I am right, which you didn't.
I guess you are the only one that has a right to respond to comments that are made.
I never asked you not to comment. I just wasn't sure what more you wanted. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this one highly belabored point! LOL
You said:"Do you want me to carve it in blood on my forehead and post a picture? Chill out already, dude."
That sounds like you don't want me to comment, but I guess that it is your world and we just live in it.
You should see the wisdom in that cartoon and go pack.
By the way, I said "religious folk," not Christians.
Thank you for providing a link. I hate it when people discount sources to win an argument, but this source isn't really substantive. It's a blog, isn't it? If you have another source that confirms the "findings" within this blog, I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, I have to discount the value of your statement. It's simply not supported by data or a study. We can all cite blogs that confirm what we want to believe. In a debate, one has to provide credible evidence to support claims. With all due respect, I don't believe you have accomplished this goal.
She sources the data provided in the other link so glowingly praised by Mr. Low plus multiple other sources but if you don't think it's credible you are welcome to debunk the data just like Mr. Low was welcome to do but didn't.
You put it in a lot nicer way than I did it, but she still will not understand what we are talking about because I am sure she has never done college level research (or at least not in this century) because no professor would accept a blog or even Wikipedia as a valid source. Now, one might say that we are not in college, but I do think there is a standard in research and to me, where you get your source from is a bare minimum.
I couldn't agree more. When I first entered the forums here at HubPages, I criticized somebody for using Wikipedia as a source. When I was an undergraduate, the Internet didn't exist, but as a graduate student, I had access to the Internet. If I had used Wikipedia as a source in college, my research would have been discarded. In forums, I've learned that Wikipedia is persistently used as a major source, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. We can all blog; blogs can't be considered reputable unless they themselves cite reputable sources, studies, or data. Opinion pieces aren't sources.
This is so true. Do you think stating that "reasonable and thinking women" [insert statement that agrees with your values/ideas/philosophy/religious belief] could contribute to building walls?'
Just wondering what you think.
"Instead of benefiting the wealthy first, the policy (supply side/trickle down economics) actually benefits the working class first. This may sound impossible -- after all, it's the wealthy who get the tax breaks, not the poor. However, Sowell maintains that because the wealthy make investments in order to make a profit, they spend the money first on expenses of the business venture. (In other words, spending money to make money.) These wealthy investors must pay workers, thus creating jobs, before they can expect to see any profits. Therefore, it's the workers who receive the most immediate relief." Source: Thomas Sowell
http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle- … omics3.htm
I tried to follow your link but it would not work. Anyway I prefer to differ with Thomas Sowell as trickle down never did work. The trickle down theory evolved as a scam to placate the rich. The supposition was that if the rich were left more of their money through tax breaks they would invest it in business to create more jobs for the lower classes. What is not expressed very clearly by those that credit the upturn in the economy during Reagans Presidency was his investment into the old backup economy generator, the military. Unfortunately any capitalistic model requires a demand before you supply it. The rich are on the supply end and by doing so they are behind the curve as the consumer, who by the way are mostly the lower classes, provide the demand for the rich to lower their exposure or risk. Most risk investment comes from innovators and inventors if you go by percentage of income used. Most inventors risk all they have on the ideas they promote while hoping an investor will see the proof of concept and therefor grease the production and marketing wheels. It is not simply a "If you build it, they will come" scenario when it comes to investing capital into untried areas. It is not invested to create jobs, it is invested to earn profits. The risk is the determining factor and the wise investor minimizes that risk carefully. Sowells concept is bass ackwards.
Abstinence education has been a massive policy failure. The ideal of abstinence, of course, works great. In reality, it doesn't work. There's simply no disputing this fact. Anybody who actively promotes abstinence education to the exclusion of other forms of sex education is a person who is not informed and not helpful.
Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon.
Should we adopt Chicago's sex-education policy, and begin instructing kindergarteners about sex? Abstinence is a valid, reasonable policy. Do we really expect five year olds to be sexually active in any way, or do we expect them to be abstinent? Personally, I would expect young children to be abstinent, and I bet you would too. Thus, abstinence is a valid policy. It also works pretty well for millions of teenagers. Contrary to the Left's collective belief, there are many young adults and adults who are abstinent. Abstinence is the most effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies; it's the only guaranteed way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Again, that makes abstinence a valid policy, perhaps not a perfect policy but valid.
Dear daughter, you can have sex as carefully and responsibly as you want. Just be aware that you might get pregnant no matter what you do to try to prevent it as no method of birth control is 100 percent effective. If you are willing to take that risk, have at it. Willy nilly sex is just fine. The animals on the farm are having a great time. No one one gets hooked up for life on the farm! Yay for their freedom!
And if you do happen get pregnant with your barnyard lifestyle, you can always have the fetus cut-up and vacuumed out of your uterus. Or you can have the child and give it to the nearest uneducated low-life daycare center. Of course on the surface the daycare center will appear fine. So, just don't show up when your child has a wet diaper in a cold room with the fan left on. Or when no one is watching your child and they let it wander outside on its own crying with no one to hear it... or worse, wanders off. Maybe into the neighbor's yard where there is no fence around the pool… where your child falls in and drowns. Oh well, better than getting cut up and vacuumed out.
So, go out there and have a really great sexually emancipated life. OKAY?
See, this really is about lifestyle, isn't it? "barnyard lifestyle"
If you really want to reduce abortions, you would speak kindly to your daughter about the realities and responsibilities of having sex. You would explain that only abstinence is 100% effective, and that abstinence require immense self control and maturity. You would also explain the reality that most people fail at their attempts at abstinence and if they are not using birth control they are likely to become a mother or a father. So, even though you encourage abstinence and will do whatever you can to help her achieve it, you will help her find birth control that, if used properly, is very close to 100% effective. It is much better to be prepared than to expect perfection.
While you're reaching for the moon, the ground on the Earth might be crumbling around you.
This is a ridiculous response to a serious issue. People around the country are promoting abstinence education while simultaneously removing women's ability to find information on contraception as well as access to contraception. Promoting abstinence education is like promoting the consumption of fast food as being a good dietary choice. If you can't accept science and data, I would argue you're not a functional human being. At the very least, you shouldn't be making policy decisions. I'm not arguing about personal decisions.
The best thing to reduce abortions would be to provide women and men with free contraception.
If one truly cares about reducing abortions, and pretty much all people do want to reduce abortions, then one will support those methods that produce results and abandon those that don't. However, that would mean being unconcerned about how much sex other people are having, and whether or not they are married while doing it. That seems to be difficult for some people.
I don't think it is an all or nothing type of solution. I think it is a mixed bag. Providing contraception is valid, as is teaching the value of abstinence, though none are effective alone. Some even say that the show "Teen Mom" has contributed to teens abstaining from sex due to how the show portrays the life of an unplanned pregnancy.
Just because it seems impossible doesn't mean it is. Changing the culture takes time and patience, but it can be done.
And yet there are so many babies born with no one to take care of them. It is really pathetic. Who cares about the babies?
So here's another fact: abstinence prevents unwanted pregnancy.
There's no question about that. None.
Here's another fact: abstinence education does not prevent unwanted pregnancies.
In other words, telling somebody to refrain from sex simply doesn't work.
Given those facts, what do you propose as a solution to reduce the number of abortions in the United States and the world?
One of the major problems with the U.S. is people trying to make public policy from their own personal beliefs while simultaneously ignoring data that contradicts those same personal views.
I'm all for talking about the value of abstinence, but the conversations should be simple ones: if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. If you're going to have sex and don't want to get pregnant, use a condom, take the pill; etc.
Folks who ONLY want to discuss abstinence contribute to an increased abortion rate just as those who don't ask for personal responsibility from their children do.
Hello. There is only one way to prevent pregnancy:
Keeping the sperm far away from the eggs. How ever you want to do this is fine by me. But lets be scientific about preventing pregnancy.
Oh geez. Abstinence only education has been PROVEN not to work. States that have abstinence only education tend to have MORE teenage pregnancies.
Sex is not a scary, evil thing, and teenagers aren't going to buy that. We should just be honest about sex. It's fun, even healthy, but has risks. If you're going to have sex, do it with someone you trust, while you BOTH can consent (you should be sober and no one should feel pressured), and you should do it safely with condoms. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being abstinent, either.
That being said, unwanted pregnancies happen even to women who are abstinent - rape. Frankly, NO woman whose body is capable of pregnancy is 100% safe from the possibility. That's the sad reality we live in. I find it disgusting to judge any woman who is unexpectedly pregnant, no one knows her situation except for her. And it's up to her where to go from there - whether to go through with the pregnancy, or abort, it's her choice and no one else's.
After all, pregnancy isn't all on the woman, either. Unless she went to a sperm bank, there's a man required as well. Unfortunately, in our society, women get all the blame if they get pregnant outside of marriage, are shamed as sluts, etc.
Anyway, back to the topic - let's make a list of actual good guys! Here's mine that come to mind.
George Takei (best Facebook like page ever)
Bill Nye (fighting the good fight... aka, the fight for intelligence in society)
Ellen Degeneres (loved her hosting the Oscars!)
Aliasis, abstinence only sex education is beating a dead horse. What is need is a comprehensive sex education program which teaches the rudiments of the sexual organs, the importance of respect and responsibility in the sexual relationship, and the USE/IMPORTANCE of contraception. Contraception must be MORE OPENLY discussed in the sex education curriculum.
Statistics show that the United States has one of the highest rate of teenage pregnancies of any first world nation. Sadly, sex is still has an underlying negative and/or taboo meaning. We still have a Judeo-Christian combined with a Puritan heritage which views sex is evil, wicked, and taboo, fit only for necessary purposes. Religious groups are still riled up regarding subjects surrounding sexuality and nudity which they equate with sex. Yes, there are people who see certain parts of the human anatomy as obscene and nasty.
Here's my list of the good guys of America:
(1) Dr. Wayne Dyer, motivational speaker, psychologist, and spiritual teacher who exhort people to live their best lives and be their best selves, ignoring the societal construct.
(2) Oprah Winfrey, humanitarian and inspirational to all, love her spirit and attitude towards adventure. She made an impact in America and in the world. She broke gender and racial barriers.
(3) Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor, teacher, and humanitarian.
(4) Iyanla Vazant, spiritual teacher and coach who helps people achieve their MOST in life.
Yes, lots of liberal sites state that abstinence education is a failure. According to the Washington Post and a "landmark study," abstinence education encourages children to delay sexual activity:
"Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02628.html
The New York Times calls the study a "rigorous study" that was published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/educa … .html?_r=0
The Washington Post isn't known for its conservative views.
The New York Times isn't known for its conservative views.
Prior to this "landmark study," there were plenty of studies and reports that indicated that abstinence-only policies are effective. "The report, 'Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence', released yesterday, examines 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen pregnancy, etc. "
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/studie … ion-report
Thanks for a very informative post, Education Answer.
This is probably the most thorough and informative post in the whole thread. It carries a lot more weight than the other posts that only give their opinion.
Notice, though, that the opponents are using the word "only" when describing the use of abstinence education. This is their loophole, but I haven't heard anyone say that abstinence education is the only way to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies and STD's, but that it compliments them and is an important part of the process. I think used together, they all have a positive effect.
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, while many abstinence-education studies clearly state that abstinence should be the most important part of the plan, I believe that it should be complimented by sex education at an appropriate age. There's absolutely no reason people on both sides of this issue can't merge and take research-proven data to develop a more effective plan.
I like your list. I especially admire Bill Nye. A few good people from my list:
Bono (a generous humanitarian)
Betty White (so funny, and a great human being)
Sandra Day O'Connor (thoughtfully influential)
Dr. Laura, America's #1 Relationship Talk Radio Host
On: SiriusXM Stars Channel 106
Call 1-800-DR LAURA (1-800-375-2872) 11am - 2pm PT
Hannity is the author of three books. The first two, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, were published through ReganBooks. Both of these books reached the nonfiction New York Times bestseller list, the second of which stayed there for five weeks.
Hannity wrote his third book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, which was released by HarperCollins on March 30, 2010.The book became Hannity's third New York Times Bestseller.
Really? Of all the people in America you could pick as shining examples of good you pick talk show hosts?
That's so sad.
Well, we lowered the bar with TV talk show hosts. It is actually kinda hard to find the good guys of America. Got any? Maybe the guy who said this: "The best thing to reduce abortions would be to provide women and men with free contraception." Oh, was that you? well, then, YOU are one of the good guys!
I hope you read others as well as I have found these two flawed in their approach and repetitively wrong with their facts. That's not to say they don't have some valid points but Hannity's meanness and disrespect are a real turn off for me.
Can you elaborate on some of the facts they got wrong in the book?
One thing I am sad about is hatred of the president. We need to be saying prayers and counting his good qualities over his bad qualities. Somehow America needs to get on the same page and fight the divisiveness. So every body on the left, yield to the right a little, and everybody on the left yield to the left a little. Like the dots in the Yin and Yang symbol.
Which would you rather have? The facts or the spin? Hannity is a tool of the right wing GOP that likes nothing Obama has or ever will do. I will be the first to admit Obama alienated many with his lack of planning or political savoir-faire. He did not spend enough time in Washington to learn the ways things are done and that compromise is a two way street. But Hannity and the other drones that act as if they have a corner on the market with the facts are ridiculous and taint the conservative movement with their no to anything tactics. Conservatism serves no one if nothing gets done and what is their accomplishment other than to divide this country even farther apart? If you are looking for a book report on his "masterpieces" they make me ill with the bias and acid disrespect for their topic.
I think I asked a fair and valid question. If you accuse someone of getting facts wrong, that means you can prove this. The three things I got from your response were:
First of all, I asked for the specific facts Hannity got wrong in his books, yet you gave me your personal opinion on why you don't like him.
Secondly, I did not ask you to give a book report, just the facts that Hannity got wrong in his 3 books. I am not asking for all, just some. That is fair, right?
Third, it sounds like what you are saying is that he makes you so ill that you actually haven't read his books. Am I correct in that assumption?
I had listened to Hannity for years on talk radio trying to find some logic in his commentaries. I have tried to read his garbage but could not finish anything he has written as his bias and pointed views take on events far from what is reality upon closer examination. If you feel I am being obtuse with your questions I need specifics as his many takes on issues are as plentiful as drops in the ocean. If you wish for me to reply to a certain specific topic or opinion he has penned then let me know what it is you are asking. But if you would rather attack me for not finishing any of his books then have at it. His jargon and opinions are what they are designed to do, divide and make money in the process.
In his book "Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda" he assumes that there is a conspiracy to undermine and overthrow Americas Capitalist system. I got about three chapters into this mess soon realizing it is more a sermon on connect the dots than it was factual.
In his "Deliver Us from Evil", more sermons about how the godless are wreaking their views and brand of religion on us while George Bush is the savior of the day. Give me a break. Once again I could not get through one chapter of this syrupy crap.
In his "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism", he assumes that liberals are waging a war on our freedom and that threatens our security because terrorism is an acceptable thing while democrats run the country. He forgets to mention that under George Bush the Patriot act removed more freedoms in a single stroke of the pen and began the massive witch hunt that the NSA and CIA have continued to today. Once again his "facts" are conjecture and opinion deduced through connect the dots mentality that he has used before. What a waste of time is what I found out beginning this book only to be ill with the misrepresentations he calls facts.
As I said if you have any specifics you wish me to speak to I will certainly reply to them. Otherwise I find Hannity a waste of time and effort.
"I have tried to read his garbage but could not finish anything he has written as his bias and pointed views take on events far from what is reality upon closer examination."
So, long story short, you have no clue if he distorted fact because you have never read a book of his, though I find it ironic that you took the time to START 3 of them, though it sounds like you Googled it and paraphrased what you read in the description. I came to this conclusion because no one starts 3 books from someone they despise so much, especially when you have already formed an opinion about him.
"If you feel I am being obtuse with your questions I need specifics as his many takes on issues are as plentiful as drops in the ocean."
Why do you need specifics to pinpoint the lies that he told in his book. This is all I asked for. One would be suffice. You still cannot seem to do that.
"If you wish for me to reply to a certain specific topic or opinion he has penned then let me know what it is you are asking."
Yes. I was spefically asking about the distortion of fact you were referencing. I don't get how this is so hard. Oh, that's right. You don't know any because you didn't read any of the books that you said he lied about fact.
"But if you would rather attack me for not finishing any of his books then have at it."
If by "attack" you mean ask you to present a non-fact you are talking about, then yes I am a jerk for actually asking you to back up your accusation.
You are such a shining example of how someone should not worry about doing research or rely on facts and base all of your beliefs on a personal opinion. (just in case you don't realize it, I am laying on the sarcasm real thick!)
This is how sexism and racism exist, by people assuming they know all they need to know by making a knee jerk decision to just not like someone because of the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, or their political party. Congrats to you for being the highest member of the evolution chain.
What are you? My District Attorney? I said I had not finished his books. I knew you would take this route. No I do not know EVERYTHING he stated in his books. But I am sure you do as you find this character a mesmerizing wealth of knowledge. As I stated I could not stomach the insinuation and veiled "facts" he was presenting as information. If you want to believe I have so represented myself as dishonest by "googling" books descriptions then so be it. I guess I will have to paint you with the same brush as you have not presented one fact and have taken up his mantle of attack without evidence. I have successfully removed Hannity's books from my Kindle and do not intend to replace them as I said he is a waste of time and might I add yours to defend. If you wish to continue in your attacks I will not respond as this has become a bigger waste of time than reading what little I have of the trash and vile innuendo Hannity posses as fact. If you wish to pollute your mind with his trash then have at it but you do yourself a real disservice by doing so.
"I said I had not finished his books. I knew you would take this route."
So you are upset that I asked you to back up your claim that Hannity distorted facts in his book, which you did not read? So what you are saying is that we should just believe what you said based on your opinion? If so, then why? My point of asking you the first question is that most people are sheeple and just follow what others tell them (i.e. political parties) to think. I took a shot in the dark that you didn't read these books because I understand most people are too lazy to actually research what they actually believe and just follow in line with what they are told to believe.
"I guess I will have to paint you with the same brush as you have not presented one fact and have taken up his mantle of attack without evidence."
Why should I present facts. I didn't make an accusation that anyone had or even hadn't lied. I have actually never said that Hannity was honest, but when I do make an accusation, you better believe that I can back it up. You did say he distorted facts and I asked you to back that up, but you keep dodging the question because you really don't know the answer, you just gave your personal opinion. But in this digital day and age we don't really have to be held accountable, do we?
"If you wish to continue in your attacks I will not respond"
You keep saying that I am attacking you, but I am only asking you to present a fact to back up your accusation that someone lied. Is that too much to ask or are we now living in a world where opinions are more important. I guess we have become a Twitter society that belongs to the Kardashians and my way of thinking is old fashioned. Facts be damned! lol
""If you wish to continue in your attacks I will not respond"
Remember these words that you said? lol
I see you couldn't stand by these either.
Your assumptions are well noted also. I happen to be quite in the middle and accusing me of leaning left and your defending Hannity who invokes the Christian Right I can only deduce that you also practice accordingly. Unfortunately you wish to question my integrity by saying I have not read anything he has written to be confused with having read enough to make me want to vomit with his many debunked theories. No I have not read his books in their entirety as you wish to belabor and that includes the few chapters I have read of his annoying "facts". I included some of his quotes and "facts" as described by him and you wish to boar us with completion of the book. I have challenged you to respond with some of his facts from any of his books but you have yet to prove that even you have read any of his books as you have not produced any proof as of these postings. If you wish to belabor the point further of my having read his books in their entirety you win if that is the object of your point! But responding to only the fact that I have read any of his books in their entirety is ridiculous and your tit for tat has made no points with me or anyone else on this Hub as well. And I guess you are correct in my not being able to resist responding to your taunts as you think you have some kind of upper hand in this. But this has turned into a really stupid conversation as is enjoyed in Hannity's argumentative confrontational style that disguises itself for factual conversation. Congratulations for your ascension as a Hannity neophyte.
You said: "and your defending Hannity who invokes the Christian Right I can only deduce that you also practice accordingly."
I haven't once defended Hannity. Please show where I have. I think your emotions are getting the best of you and it sounds like you are getting a bit flustered.
You said: "I have challenged you to respond with some of his facts from any of his books but you have yet to prove that even you have read any of his books as you have not produced any proof as of these postings."
I have never read any of his books, so I don't know where you are getting that from. I merely asked you to provide some of his non-facts you accuse him of. I am not a fan of Hannity, nor do I watch his show as I have said before. Does this mean you have the right to make accusations without doing your due diligence? I have not defended him, nor have I accused him or anyone else in politics of being a liar. That is because I don't have proof. I do have opinions, but I would never accuse someone of being a liar based on my opinion unless I have evidence to back it up.
You said: "But this has turned into a really stupid conversation as is enjoyed in Hannity's argumentative confrontational style that disguises itself for factual conversation."
But remember: It takes two to tango.
I am not alone in this argument either.
You said: "Congratulations for your ascension as a Hannity neophyte."
And BOOM goes the dynamite! There is the ad hominem attack. All this emotion from you when I only asked you to give examples of Hannity not telling the truth, which you have yet to provide. I am sorry I asked you to prove yourself and this seems to be a sore spot for you. I guess we should just take you for your word and your opinion as gospel.
By the way, I always find it funny when someone belongs to Hubpages, a writing website, yet doesn't write hubs.
Boy oh Boy you sure did get me didn't you. Just as I said a really stupid conversation. By the way I am deeply into writing a book and haven't the time to post any new hubs. If you were on this hub site for awhile you would know that from time to time hubs get deleted for whatever reasons. I had an inkling that you were disingenuous with the reference to Google because I followed up and discovered the same as you.
Oh wow! You are a writer? What is the name of your book and what is the subject? Do you have any other books out there I might can read?
I am just in the submission stages of one book but the other I am deeply into research. I just come on here to safely connect with others who are like minded and diverse in their views. "If" I get it published I will let you know what and where.
Wait a minute, which is it? You come here for people that are like minded to you or diverse in their views?
Anyway, I just said I find it funny, that's all. You don't have to take that personal. Just an observation.
Kind of like someone that goes to the beach fully dressed. It just strikes me funny.
I think what the gentleman is trying to say is that Sean Hannity is a disingenuous moron. It's not really hard to find how he distorts the truth. The web is rampant with reliable fact-checking on his various claims. Here's one, for example:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_ … lp00000008
The fact that the gentleman, knowing this, actually gave Hannity a chance and read some of his books says a lot about his openness to differing opinions.
If you Google "fact-check Sean Hannity" you will come up with hundreds of sites that have spent some time fact-checking him and the breadth of his lies and disdain for the truth (this is what happens when you support the party of anti-science).
As Hannity has actively tried to debunk global warming, that right there makes him an idiot since global warming is a proven scientific fact.
First of all, we can only speak for ourselves. Anything else is just an opinion and assumption, not fact.
Secondly, I can only take rhamson at his/her word. He/she was discussing Hannity's books having non-facts, yet didn't read the book. I pretty much knew this, since most people that lean really hard towards a political party and become a cheerleader every chance they get. This is why I asked the question.
As for Hannity being a liar or not; I am not saying this is right or wrong since I have no personal feelings towards Hannity and have never watched him. I just think people should be held accountable for what they say and at least have done some due diligence before stating something as fact, which rhamson didn't do. This type of action is a common act of sheeple.
For instance, I am guessing you jumped to the rescue since you are probably leaning liberal. Correct?
Oh, of course I lean left. That's obvious. But if there were an anti-science idiot on the left brought to my attention, I'd call them out just as fast. Anybody who declares that science is just an opinion is profoundly stupid and thinks science can be discredited by throwing up non-scientists to provide differing arguments is just a moron and having some kind of debate about the value of their arguments needs to be quashed rather quickly and discredited for what it is: idiocy. I have much respect for conservatives who really stick to their limited government argument because it's true that government intrudes in our lives in ways that it need not.
I am not familiar with Hannity's opinion on science, but I am in the academic world and am familiar with the competitiveness of publishing. I read an article in the Economist about how 100 years ago there were only a handful of true scientists whereas now there are tens of thousand competing for only a small percentage of University positions. Getting published is the best way to secure a position and the best way to get published is to make wild claims that can be linked somehow to be correct in theory. Publishers put these articles at the front of the line because they sell magazines. Most say this practice is diluting science a bit all in the name of the almighty dollar.
Another example is in the 70's, orthopedists (who are scientists in their field) would recommend surgery for any patient that complained of pain in that area, with most coming out better after the procedure, physical therapy, and medicine. So obviously the doctors had a good reason to perform surgery; it made the patients better and more importantly it made them and the hospital money. One plus one equals two. RIght? I mean the surgery did cure the pain.
Well, some scientists felt surgery for everyone was a bit extreme so they performed a study to see if surgery was necessary all of the time, so for half of the patients, they would open the skin and sew it up without performing surgery while the other half they would actually perform the procedure. All would have physical therapy afterwards and take the recommended medicine. The study found that the half that did not have the surgery performed actually did better in the end. So one plus one doesn't always equal two.
For science, you have to take it with a grain of salt and also be able to read between the line. When reading an article on something, you must ask yourself; "What do they get out of it?" Usually the answer is money, so their conclusion can be biased or whatnot.
Pharmaceutical companies hire scientists to create new drugs to sell. Do you think they spend more time on creating a drug to cure pancreatic cancer or maybe HIV? They are not as profitable. Rogain, viagra, sinus medicine, etc. litter the TV ads. Again, science research can be skewed by money.
I might be profoundly stupid with my grammatical acrobatics.
Rick Perry of Texas, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 … 92882.html
Scott Walker of Wisconsin: In January 2012, Walker returned a $37.6 million federal grant meant to set up a health exchange in Wisconsin for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Walker posited that "Stopping the encroachment of Obamacare in our state, which has the potential to have a devastating impact on Wisconsin's economy, is a top priority."
"Governor John Kasich - Kasich for Ohio.com
Balancing The Budget. Cutting Taxes Creating Jobs. It's The Ohio Model!"
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Not according to Paul Krugman who says economic zombie ideas have eaten Rubio's brain!!!http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opini … n&_r=0
by Charles James4 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
This week in Michigan enough Tea Party delegates showed up at a Republican meeting to elect delegates to the party's nominating convention for the election in November to defeat the current Republican party chairman's...
by Harvey Stelman8 years ago
With everything in America on a downward spiral, why on earth is President Obama using a shovel to help us. Please read <snipped - do not start threads for the sole purpose of promotion or posting links>I'm ready...
by Prakash Ranjan Paul5 months ago
I think it's high time someone brought home to Mr President the brute and naked truth, as I view it, namely the fact that his silly policies that fail to win the seal of approval of the international community including...
by Deforest10 months ago
I am not saying that none of the candidates gathered the 207 electorate votes. I am just stating that a majority of the US citizens vote blank. Will the majority rule?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.