Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Politics Science

Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science' 1237

Posted by Soulskill
from the pi-is-exactly-three dept.
ndogg writes with news that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has counterattacked those critical of conservative views on science, saying that they're 'anti-science' themselves. From a CBS report: "In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on 'phony studies,' and that climate change science is little more than 'political science.' His views are not 'anti-science' as Democrats claim, Santorum said. 'When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,' he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

Comments Filter:
  • by sethstorm (512897) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:37PM (#39117919) Homepage

    Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'

    Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tysonedwards (969693)
      Doesn't this whole situation seem childish?

      Unnamed Democrat: Rick, you are anti-science.
      Rick: You're anti-science!
    • by meerling (1487879) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:04PM (#39118305)
      Many politicians don't understand and tend to be against science, especially when it's inconvenient for them. They foolishly think that opinions can change reality. Though it is true that lately the Republicans have brought the anti-science rhetoric to a new achievement in ignorance and stupidity.

      Santorum himself is one of the biggest of the ignorant loudmouths on the Republican side at this time. The only place he is not anti-science is some alternate fantasy land, and I really wish he'd either go back there, or at least honestly pass a grade school science class and leave his religious beliefs both out of politics and science as it has no place in either.

      Let's hope this fool goes back to whatever toilet he crawled out of, and soon.
      • by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:16PM (#39118427)

        We're talking about a party whose latest gimmick is "sonogram bills", a new method of "slut shaming" that involves forcing a woman to go through a completely unnecessary procedure in which a dildo-like object is wrapped in a condom, covered in cold nasty goop, and forcefully shoved into her vagina before they'll let her have a completely different, unrelated, completely legal medical procedure.

        "Science" doesn't enter into their discussions on any level.

        Santorum also got into "I'm more christian than you" bullshit when he insisted that Obama "follows a different theology" the other day... from where I come Republicans are the nonchristian ones. They certainly don't love their neighbors, they don't give a crap about the poor and needy, they're not remotely interested in creating fair legal systems (something the OT is pretty damn big on, Deuteronomy 27:19, Leviticus 19:15 as starters) and as near as I can tell, their religious ceremonies involve the worship of wealthy old white men and the pursuit of money...

        • by funwithBSD (245349) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:23PM (#39119175)

          The sonogram happens either way, and it is not intervaginal except during a very specific week of gestation, otherwise the external one is used.
          What is being required is that the sonogram be shown to the patient before the procedure.

          See below for the Virgina Planned Parenthood's own FAQ:

          âoePatients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, weâ(TM)re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

          Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.â

      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:20PM (#39118469) Homepage

        They foolishly think that opinions can change reality.

        No, they correctly think that if you can change opinions in your favor, then reality doesn't matter (or at least is someone else's problem).

        The reality of AGW is irrelevant as long as they can sow enough doubt that they never have to take substantive action. Which has pretty much already worked. Reality loses.

        • Canute (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @12:01AM (#39120637)
          And King Canute led the court to the sea, commanded the tide to turn back and it did not. He then turned to the onlookers and said what could be translated into modern terms as "can you stupid fuckers see now that you can't do everything just by talking about it?"
          It's depressing that the "we can define our own reality" bullshit has crept in so far. The only way to directly change physical things is to do physical things
    • by vuke69 (450194) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:11PM (#39118385)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk [youtube.com]

      Science funding goes up under republicans, and down under Democrats.

    • So science is only climate science and evolutionary biology.
      If you disagree with the popular findings in this field then you must be against all science.

      I prefer C# over Perl. I must be anti open source.
    • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:24PM (#39118519) Homepage Journal

      Except, of course, Intelligent Design is officially denied by the Vatican [catholicnews.com] in favor of something called "Theistic Evolution" which basically is evolution combined with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics, with God as the Observer/Creator (because God's observing the universe, he's affecting the universe).

    • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:16PM (#39119701) Homepage Journal

      Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science..

      He wants to call Democrats anti-science, fine with me. As long as we are engaging in irrational nonsensical twisting of the language, I will call him anti-religion.

      His anti-religious views seek to crush all that is true and good about God. Everything he says is Jeblasphmey (New word I just made up, from Jesus and Blasphemy) His Jeblasphmey is also santic (deliberate, not a spelling error) because he worships the anti-santa (also deliberate, spelling Nazis GTFO). May the good lord protect us from Jeblasphmey and smite this anti-religionist in his Santorum hole.

      Conservative idiots have been befouling clear thought and rational language for decades now, why should this fuck-up be any different?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:38PM (#39117925)

    ... how stupid America really is ...

  • No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bobtree (105901) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:38PM (#39117937)

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • by Slutticus (1237534) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:41PM (#39117981)
    Santorum claiming that environmentalists are "anti-science" is like saying anti-rape activists are against sex. What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?
    • by rednip (186217) <rednip AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:49PM (#39118109) Journal

      Are they sitting this one out or something?

      No, It's all they have left after twenty some odd years of trying to 'out do' one another on being the 'most conservative' as determined by a combination of scores given by various corporate funded 'think tanks' and random radio hosts. Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.

      • by ChronoFish (948067) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:58PM (#39118913) Journal
        <quote>Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.</quote>

        Which why I (maybe others have too...) coined the phrase: "Even Ronald Regan wasn't conservative enough to be Ronald Regan."

        That's what happens to heroes - they become larger than life.

        -CF
    • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:52PM (#39118163)

      Actually they are sitting this one out. The RNC doesn't want to win this election any more than they did the last one. Look, the economy isn't going to "recover" in the next four years. Oil prices are going to continue to increase whether Iran is in the picture or not. Formerly prosperous Americans will continue to have their wealth harvested by the global elite that cares about no country. Would you want to be the party in power while all this was happening? Much better to be the loyal opposition and keep those lobbyist checks rolling into those offshore bank accounts.

      Absent of a Palin to poison the well, the best the RNC and SuperPACS can do this time is to promote a useful idiot like Santorum. Barely credible enough to be a candidate, but certain to lose to Obama. Keep him in the news. Leak (or create) enough bad press about Romney and it's a shoe-in.

    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:05PM (#39118325) Homepage

      What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?

      Yes. Statistically, the incumbent wins something like 75% of the time. It's not like that means it's an automatic Obama win... but if you're a Republican and want to gain the White House and want the best chance to do so, then assuming Obama will win and basing your strategy around running in 2016 against a new Democrat maximizes your chances.

      That's why we have the crowd we do, including the stunt-candidacies like Terrible Toupe and Godfather's Pizza Man.

  • Pots and Kettles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roeguard (1113267) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:43PM (#39118009)

    Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.

    By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

    Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.

    • by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:48PM (#39118071)

      Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.

      By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

      Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.

      This.

      It takes a remarkable human being to trust science over his or her own beliefs when the two are in conflict. It's one thing when we haven't decided what the right answer is--but when we've decided, God help Science if it's not on our side. We are more likely to question methodology, etc... if the result is not one that we like.

      This is troubling among people conducting experiments as much as it is among politicians. Clinical trials where someone has made up their mind beforehand and so doesn't even bother to write down a patient symptom that the person conducting the trial believes is easily explained, for example.

    • by mmcxii (1707574) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:55PM (#39118207)
      people are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.

      Fixed that for you.

      The fact of the matter is that most people who discuss science don't know jack shit about the science. Sure, they'll repeat what they hear. They will embrace the science if their party of choice embraces the science. They may even be right doing that but they care little about the science itself. Sadly, this will probably never change.

      "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." -Carl Sagan
    • by Darinbob (1142669) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:15PM (#39118419)

      Is it ideology, or is it just about saying what it takes to get the votes? To be an ideology there has to be some thought behind it, maybe not to the level of a manifesto but enough thought to integrate this view with the other political positions you have and be able to defend it, extrapolate, etc. However much of the voting public doesn't do this, their "ideology" is "the other side is evil, so anything they're for we're against, and anything they're against we're for." So clearly if Democrats are trying to do something about climate change is _must_ be some sort of liberal plot designed to make us pay more taxes and take away freedoms. You're not going to get these voters on your side by cogently discussing the issues but instead you need to take a strong binary position on every issue, it's either good or evil and there's no room for nuance.

      If I wanted to get the presidential nomination for the Republican party you can be that I'd take these same tactics. Enough bozo quotes to keep the far loon base happy (I hate to say far right or hard conservative because they're not really on any sort of political spectrum), demonize the other side, promise tax cuts, criticize the other side's tax cuts as misguided pandering, denounce all regulations (to get Wall Street funding on my side), claim to do all sorts of things on the first day of office that would be impossible without dictatorial powers, and so on. Then when nominated I switch tactics and take a more moderate approach. Ie, I'd be Santorum or Gingrich during primaries and Romney during the general election.

    • Re:Pots and Kettles (Score:5, Informative)

      by brit74 (831798) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:22PM (#39118493)
      Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas.
      That's all good and fine, but - if we accept it as true - all it proves is that the Republicans have more of their beliefs in conflict with science than Democrats. If you don't believe me, then sit down and add up the number of issues where Republicans are against the science, and then add up the same thing for Democrats. I recently heard a discussion where they were attempting to figure out the level of bias on the Left and Right and they needed an issue where Democrats are largely in conflict with the science. The best candidates for the left are anti-nuclear power (which is actually a left-wing in the 1960s, I doubt it has much traction now) and some of the organic food, anti-genetically modified food, and anti-vaccine movements. All of them look pretty small, though. I bet you'd have a hard time arguing that these are issues where a majority of the Left agree with any of them. On the other hand, creationism and anti-global warming are majority opinions among Republicans.
      http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html [environmentmagazine.org]
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx [gallup.com]
  • This guy is a joke (Score:4, Interesting)

    by langelgjm (860756) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:45PM (#39118037) Journal

    Santorum's claim to have come "from the coal fields" is a stretch - by two generations. He has never worked in a coal mine. His parents' professions were psychologist and nurse, and Santorum is a lawyer who has spent all of his adult life in politics.

    By that measure, I come "from the shipyards of Baltimore." I'll have to remember that if I ever go into politics.

    I find this new definition of political science funny. Politicized science is what he meant, I guess. All these fools should just admit that they like science and regulation when it supports their preconceived notions about how the world should work, and when science and regulation contradict those notions, science and regulation are evil.

  • Santorum "Truth" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:48PM (#39118081)

    I like Santorum. He says what modern Republicans are thinking, as wrong as that may be. He does not hide the crazy behind a manufactured persona like Romney. Ron Paul has too many heart felt beliefs that are antithetical to the GOP. Gingrich is a dishonest retread from a previous era, pushing the same failed policies.

    But Ricky is a true reflection what Republicans are all about, and proud of it. If there is any justice, Rick will win the nomination where he faithfully campaign for what the GOP believes in.

  • by cptdondo (59460) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:48PM (#39118097) Journal

    The bible says that man has dominion over the earth, and it is ours to do with as we please. And it is immutable, so nothing we do can affect God's work:

    Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    What a crock of shit. Santorum's "science" is nothing but avarice and ignorance.

  • by pyrr (1170465) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:52PM (#39118151)
    ...considering it's coming from someone whose view of science is something that you believe on faith, ignore inconvenient research, and consider even the slightest doubt or margin of error that an opposing viewpoint has to completely debunk it. It's not science to believe that since you have 100% confidence in your faith-based theory that has no evidence, but you can imagine a miniscule source of error in an opposing theory, that the person with the fewest doubts "wins". But just try telling a "Creation Scientist" that...or someone who believes on faith that there is not any possibility that there is human-caused global climate changed. They hold their views on faith, their minds will not be changed no matter how much evidence they're presented with.
  • Hypocrits abound (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:52PM (#39118153) Journal

    and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."

    A deregulationist citing the protection from local environmental regulations. That's rich.
    The hypocrisy is double because Pittsburg is currently undergoing a massive battle over fracking regulations.

    Pittsburg has banned fracking outright and PA Republicans were trying to pass a State law to nullify local regulations.
    When that was deemed a politically untenable idea, they switched to a straight-jacket of State level regulations.
    Read about it here: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142948831/a-debate-over-who-regulates-gas-fracking-in-penn [npr.org]

  • by Lanteran (1883836) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:58PM (#39118251) Homepage Journal

    In other news, the irony meter was destroyed in a freak explosion earlier today.

  • WTF Just Not Enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IonOtter (629215) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:03PM (#39118299) Homepage

    It is rumored that if Santorum actually gets the nomination, the GOP will draft Gov. Christie of NJ for the Republican candidate. But he's one cannoli short of a heart attack, so not many will vote for him. Nobody wants Romney, either, because of Romneycare and the whole Mormon thing. And Paul, as much as he may appeal to some people, is one fall away from a hip replacement.

    So here's an interesting fact? Jeb Bush and his father showed up at the Whitehouse back on the 27th of January [usatoday.com] for a long talk. (Oh, to have been a fly on THAT wall.) The other interesting thing is that Jeb's wife, Columba, has made it neuteringly clear that he's not available until 2016.

    So! 3 completely unelectable candidates so far as the GOP is concerned. The party favorite-which is why they're sometimes known as the "Waiting For Jeb" party-isn't available either.

    I'm going to guess that the "fix" is in, and Obama is going to be president for another term. Then after that, we'll have another Bush in the Whitehouse. So everything that's happening in this "election" is just a dog & pony show, just as it's always been.

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:06PM (#39118343)

    It's good to see a heavyweight intellectual like Rick Santorum weighing in on a complex environmental question. I think we can call "problem solved" on this one.

    Somebody ought to ask Rick about global overpopulation. I bet he could solve that problem too! He'll just say "It's God's will. There's no overpopulation." Another problem solved.

    Maybe Rick can solve all our complicated problems for us--so we don't have to think at all!!

  • by chmilar (211243) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:09PM (#39118369)

    To begin: I would like to hear Santorum's definition of "science". How would he describe science, its methods, and its purpose? That should be good for a few yuks.

    His opinion might fit perfectly with his understanding of science.

  • by Fned (43219) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:19PM (#39118465) Journal

    Calling someone "anti-science" because they advise restraint when using up natural resources and changing the environment, is like calling someone "anti-capitalist" if they refuse to spend all their money and go into debt.

    Huh...I think I just figured out Republican fiscal policy.

  • by retroworks (652802) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:21PM (#39118485) Homepage Journal

    Everyone, listen. I can explain this, as I have a degree in "political science". Through careful observation of the political cycle, we have learned that there is a percentage of the voting populace who know very little, who get confused by information, but have mutated to hold a few beliefs very, very, strongly. They have adapted from being ignored by the majority of Americans, who don't hold those single beliefs as strongly. At each extreme of each party, these single belief mutants compensate by participating very early in the election cycle, to try to kill off the common sense bearing candidates, much as a new male lion kills off the progeny of the previous pride leader. As the common sense candidates are killed off by filicide earlier and earlier in the caucus cycle, the remaining candidates evolve to express the same strong opinions of the early influencers. The majority responds by electing the opposite party (House ore Senate) from the executive party in order to balance out the risk of extreme legislation taking place. Some candidates try to survive the cull by camouflaging their beliefs (flip flopping), or allowing their own core beliefs to evolve very rapidly to meet the polling environment. It's all normal, move along, nothing to see here.

  • by forkfail (228161) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @02:08AM (#39121433)

    As would Orwell.

    Attack your opponent with what your opponent should be attacking you on.

    Turn the truth and the meanings of words completely around.

    It goes so far beyond lying that I'm not sure that there's a word for it outside of a Newspeak dictioary.

If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?

Working...