You can always count on Newt Gingrich to give you bang for your buck when it comes to rhetorical diarrhea. Here's how it's done.
At a campaign event in Suwanee, Georgia, ...
Rick Santorum is a strange, strange man. More we hear of him, the more frightening the thought that a man as disturbed as he could possibly one day occupy the ...
After watching the absolute madness emerging from the Republican presidential contest this week, the illustration above speaks for itself. From Mitt Romney's insane opposition to the automotive industry bailout which ...
The best from Political Humor's rundown of the week's political humor.
“They announced the winner of the Westminster Dog Show, and tomorrow the winning dog gets to ride on the roof ...
From The Onion:
Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new ...
Grover Norquist, in his CPAC speech, revealed exactly why the GOP establishment favors a Romney win.
All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless ...
The Republican presidential race appears to have shifted from debating the economy to discussing social issues - same-sex marriage, abortion and, amazingly enough, birth control. The year is 2012 and ...
Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
~Max Planck
Er, about that Max Planck quote. Kind of insensitive, don’t you think.
You realize there are actually people out there openly, vocally espousing killing off the over 60 generation – the baby boomers, et. al., to solve our economic problems? The same groups are often stigmatized for the political sclerosis in the US. Never mind that the 60+ crowd was largely responsible for the revolutionary reforms of the 1960′s.
So you want to be a little careful when you start talking about the death of a generation or two solving your problems. Somehow that always seems to translate into hastening the deaths of the same generation(s).
Are you kidding me, Carl? Is that really how you interpreted the quote?
I’m not sure where you’re at or what thoughts are floating through your head to have you interpret that quote in the manner you did. Planck was not suggesting killing off anyone. He was speaking about paradigm shifts in the evolution of scientific thought (e.g. Einstein’s notion of relativity which was not instantly accepted by all). He was suggesting that at times the only convincing force in terms of acceptance is time itself.
An example of what Planck was suggesting was the move from the Ptolemaic view of earth as the center of the universe to the Copernican model of a sun-centered solar system. Acceptance of the latter was not immediate but instead took generations. For some, religious based ‘science’ is not easily replaced by fact based science. No amount of scientific facts or debate can move some from their beliefs. It’s just the way it is and one can only hope that time will eventually bring about a more enlightened and knowledgeable people.
The guy who spends $20 to visit the Creation Museum so he can drool while looking at animatronic displays of dinosaurs and people coexisting is not about to alter his beliefs because you tell him that science shows him to be wrong. The focus should be on education with the hope of bringing about a generation of people a tad bit more knowledgeable than their parents.
Paradigm shifts are all about time. In our current age of science by consensus, with the purse strings and media outlets for discovery ever narrowing, true fact based science may be only a figment of our imaginations anyway.
@mario piperni Sorry about that. I should explain myself a little. I am very familiar with the whole paradigm shift thing. Perhaps if I mentioned that I am a frequent visitor to Reddit.com it would help.
I’ve encountered more than one article, and comment, there that pointedly targets the over 60 crowd for one reason or another. The Planck quote struck me as just one more example of ageism.
I am also sensitized to the way so many people seem to depend on death – their own death or someone else’s – as a way to solve problems.
Maybe people need to be made aware of how deeply these prejudices and this reliance on death as a source of solutions are engrained in our culture.
You realize there are actually people out there openly, vocally espousing killing off the over 60 generation – the baby boomers, et. al., to solve our economic problems?
no, there isn’t, nobody of consequence at least. nobody in the Obama administration is propsing, discussing behind closed doors, or even thinking it. anything you’ve heard in that regard is simply more lies and fear-mongering the same as “death-panels” were. but of course, in AZ, we see that that talk was, as usual, projection.
@T’omm J’onzz. Nobody is talking about the Obama administration and nobody is projecting anything. Jeesh.
I am talking about fringey groups posting on the internet, ginning up resentment against the elderly. I have personally reported several such posts to site administrators.
“I started to wonder how common this Fox Geezer Syndrome was. I began to poll conservative friends of my generation who had right-wing parents. At least eight different people – not an Obama voter among them, and one of them actually a George W. Bush political appointee in Washington – told me that yes, they had observed a correlation between the fevered emotionalism of their elderly parents’ politics, and increased exposure to Fox News.”
For the record, my mother is 88 years old and because right wing radio is so pervasive, often finds herself listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. She has no trouble whatsoever spotting him as a demented right wing blowhard. Politically, she is an independent, and stubbornly so.
Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner
Er, about that Max Planck quote. Kind of insensitive, don’t you think.
You realize there are actually people out there openly, vocally espousing killing off the over 60 generation – the baby boomers, et. al., to solve our economic problems? The same groups are often stigmatized for the political sclerosis in the US. Never mind that the 60+ crowd was largely responsible for the revolutionary reforms of the 1960′s.
So you want to be a little careful when you start talking about the death of a generation or two solving your problems. Somehow that always seems to translate into hastening the deaths of the same generation(s).
Are you kidding me, Carl? Is that really how you interpreted the quote?
I’m not sure where you’re at or what thoughts are floating through your head to have you interpret that quote in the manner you did. Planck was not suggesting killing off anyone. He was speaking about paradigm shifts in the evolution of scientific thought (e.g. Einstein’s notion of relativity which was not instantly accepted by all). He was suggesting that at times the only convincing force in terms of acceptance is time itself.
An example of what Planck was suggesting was the move from the Ptolemaic view of earth as the center of the universe to the Copernican model of a sun-centered solar system. Acceptance of the latter was not immediate but instead took generations. For some, religious based ‘science’ is not easily replaced by fact based science. No amount of scientific facts or debate can move some from their beliefs. It’s just the way it is and one can only hope that time will eventually bring about a more enlightened and knowledgeable people.
The guy who spends $20 to visit the Creation Museum so he can drool while looking at animatronic displays of dinosaurs and people coexisting is not about to alter his beliefs because you tell him that science shows him to be wrong. The focus should be on education with the hope of bringing about a generation of people a tad bit more knowledgeable than their parents.
Paradigm shifts are all about time. In our current age of science by consensus, with the purse strings and media outlets for discovery ever narrowing, true fact based science may be only a figment of our imaginations anyway.
@mario piperni Sorry about that. I should explain myself a little. I am very familiar with the whole paradigm shift thing. Perhaps if I mentioned that I am a frequent visitor to Reddit.com it would help.
I’ve encountered more than one article, and comment, there that pointedly targets the over 60 crowd for one reason or another. The Planck quote struck me as just one more example of ageism.
I am also sensitized to the way so many people seem to depend on death – their own death or someone else’s – as a way to solve problems.
Maybe people need to be made aware of how deeply these prejudices and this reliance on death as a source of solutions are engrained in our culture.
no, there isn’t, nobody of consequence at least. nobody in the Obama administration is propsing, discussing behind closed doors, or even thinking it. anything you’ve heard in that regard is simply more lies and fear-mongering the same as “death-panels” were. but of course, in AZ, we see that that talk was, as usual, projection.
@T’omm J’onzz. Nobody is talking about the Obama administration and nobody is projecting anything. Jeesh.
I am talking about fringey groups posting on the internet, ginning up resentment against the elderly. I have personally reported several such posts to site administrators.
SEE:
Fox Geezer Syndrome
http://tinyurl.com/4dbmlyx
“I started to wonder how common this Fox Geezer Syndrome was. I began to poll conservative friends of my generation who had right-wing parents. At least eight different people – not an Obama voter among them, and one of them actually a George W. Bush political appointee in Washington – told me that yes, they had observed a correlation between the fevered emotionalism of their elderly parents’ politics, and increased exposure to Fox News.”
For the record, my mother is 88 years old and because right wing radio is so pervasive, often finds herself listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. She has no trouble whatsoever spotting him as a demented right wing blowhard. Politically, she is an independent, and stubbornly so.