December 27, 2012

Will Boehner’s speakership survive?

American’s for Limited Government’s President Bill Wilson, appearing on FOX News:

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:42am
29 comments | Trackback

Comments (29)

  1. it’s alarming really that boehner is in such denial about his suitability for leadership

    he’s sort of the steve ballmer of the republican party

  2. Republican self destruct sequence initiated…

  3. Have a nice Christmas, slippery? Spent the day bitching about commercialism and hating on Santa and ‘Christianists’?

  4. In answer to your question: I sure hope not.

    The GOP needs to say no to the Democrats driving off the fiscal cliff…

    Of course Bonehead Boehner needs to be far smarter about explaining why the GOP opposes this, but the blame needs to be directed to where it belongs: Barack and Harry.

  5. I don’t hate Santa or fellow Christians. Christianists? Meh. I hope they got coal. And I did give a Little Free Library as a gift – so there’s that.

  6. I don’t hate Santa or fellow Christians.

    So few of your ilk have any clue what the word “hate” means, I believe you actually believe that.

    Doesn’t make it true. Indeed, the fact you said it makes it even less likely to be true.

  7. Republican self destruct sequence initiated…

    Some of us are as happy about that as you.

  8. I’m looking at it as a gift, Jeff.

  9. McGehee – there’s a difference between looking down my nose at the knuckle-dragging anti-science “keep your government hands off my medicare” tea-partiers, with a sort of sad pity, and actually hating anyone.

  10. looking down my nose at the knuckle-dragging anti-science “keep your government hands off my medicare” tea-partiers, with a sort of sad pity… [Emphasis added]

    And that pretty much says it all regarding you. He who has ears…

  11. slipperyslope says: “I saw 3 pink elephants walking down the alley today…”

  12. I’m getting a little, actually a lot, tired of this “anti-science” theme/meme.

    Where is that coming from? I only know a few people who are anti-science and they are liberals/progressives/commies. I’m guessing it’s because we all aren’t nodding along like trained seals about global warming? The ridiculous idea that lopping off ones primary and secondary sexual attributes/appendages and chowing hormones of the opposite sex will turn that amputee into a woman by magically changing up his DNA to a her?

    Someone ‘splain, please.

  13. the stem cell thing didn’t help and why in fuck’s name do we need an anti cloning ban and corrupt republican congresswhore Don Young banned genetically modified sammins and then there’s the whole creationism in school thing and both of team r’s last nominees were whorish climate change patsies until they weren’t, which speaks more to their cowardly and pandering natures than to their attitudes about science really and then you had bachmann’s weirdo tardasil tantrum and maybe lots of other stuff besides

  14. also, akin akin akin akin akin akin and also akin

  15. Did AGW help? Fracking fraud? Claiming that not being leftist makes you disturbed demented or retarded? I’d elect an Akin over a Crist in an instant.

  16. People who don’t understand science tend to be anti-science. Adult stem cells work just as well if not better than fetal stem cells, so that argument is full of holes.

    Dems are notorious in their anti-GMO stance regarding our food supply. The third world could be fat and sassy if GMO foods, grains in particular were allowed. They are also anti-vaxxers even given rafts of information debunking the stance that vaccines cause autism or that all vaccines are suspended in thimerosol. Some vaccines are suspended in an egg suspension that can cause allergic reactions if you are allergic to eggs.

    Akin isn’t representative of well, anyone now that he is a non-entity. Plus, Dennis Kucinich for contrast.

  17. Is putting 15% ethanol in fuel that will corrode engines, and impeding energy exploration to boost a materials and technology product that barely works and is very expensive because you think once some magical money threshold is passed it will auto-bootstrap itself, forbidding nukes, and demanding that manufacturers and energy produces leave the air CLEANER than they found it, and taxing energy expenditure as a carbon footprint, really even remotely sciency? Is it even businessy ?

  18. Or even sane, for that matter.

  19. If you see your self as an enemy of the culture who has infiltrated to a position where you can do it harm and bring it down and share in the pillaging the ruins it is sane. It’s ugly, but rational if you actually have a safe place to go with your loot. It’s not very ‘fraternity of all men’ or even humanistic though. Of course those ‘enlightened’ paradigms may have been sheep-skin facades to disguise something much crueler, more primitive, and predatory, all along…

  20. Exactly.

  21. slipperyslope says December 27, 2012 at 11:50 am

    …aaaaand he proves my point.

  22. (chirpyfeet blather)

    SBP, how much do you want for that updated Trollhmmer script? Name your price and let me pre-order. PLEASE!

  23. It’s on the list, McGehee. No need to pay; it’ll be voluntary public service.

  24. “Dems are notorious in their anti-GMO stance regarding our food supply.”

    Yep. You can do any experiment you want as long as it’s on a fetus. We can’t be allowed to violate the dignity of, say, corn, though.

  25. You can do any experiment you want as long as it’s on a fetus.

    Or a country.

  26. maybe both varietals of congresswhore are not super best friends with science maybe they’re more concerned with identity politics and pandering

  27. science ain’t exactly averse to whoring itself for the g-man’s coin

  28. Maybe they both are.

    But honestly I would rather take the group that is provisionally “anti-science” because they don’t like the principles espoused (i.e., “oh hey let’s not do experiments on fetal stem cells because that means we’re creating a market for dead fetuses, which is a thing we’re not comfortable with”) versus a group that’s anti-science because SCIENCE DOESN’T TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT SO THEY’RE MAKING UP NEW “SCIENCE” TO DO JUST THAT (i.e., what, we don’t have evidence that catastrophic man-made global warming is a thing? LIAR LIAR THE IPCC SAID WE DO NA NA NA /hands over ears).

    Speaking as a scientist, one of these things may frustrate certain avenues of scientific advancement (which leads to corresponding advances in others–adult pluripotent cells/induced pluripotent stem cells have a lot of research behind them in places where fetal cell research has been closed off) while the other completely ruins our ability to be scientific about things (… climate science. the end).

    From this point of view I don’t even mind people being concerned about GMO foods as they might cause future health problems or result in unexpected second- or third-order consequences for the environment. I DO mind bad science about human health and the environment being marshaled to defend GMO bans. I doubly mind bad science being taken as fact resulting in ridiculous legislation that further impedes our ability to progress (vaccines).

  29. Also yes x a million to Ernst’s comment.

    Although to be fair the politicization of science and universities is such that many many scientists are more willing to whore themselves out to causes they think are “just” versus being unabashed whores. Because leftist scientists who get money from leftists causes are much less vulnerable to being sniped at over their choices in funding than anyone who has ever taken money from Big Oil, Focus on the Family, or anyone who has ever marked down “Republican” as their party affiliation on a voter’s registration form.

Leave a Reply