Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts - Page 2

The diplomat · February 18, 2004, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Well, you are sheep, and you're used to herding. You just mistaken wolves for sheepdogs.

So Republicans are sheep under Bush. Dems were sheep under Clinton. YADDA YADDA YADDA

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Arrian · February 18, 2004, 16:26

It's a Sava thread. That's where and how they usually go.

-Arrian

chequita guevara · February 18, 2004, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
So Republicans are sheep under Bush. Dems were sheep under Clinton. YADDA YADDA YADDA

We're all sheep, baby. I'm just one of those most dangerous of creatures, a clever sheep.

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat

So Republicans are sheep under Bush. Dems were sheep under Clinton. YADDA YADDA YADDA

This thread is going nowhere fast.

There is more truth to that than you think, 40% will vote for Bush, 40% will vote for Kerry no matter what, except for me of coarse, because I am open minded.

What the two parties are going to fight over are the undecided 20% that will decide the next president.

Boris Godunov · February 18, 2004, 16:30

So diplomat and Defiant, arguable two of the most biased right-wingers on the board, won't believe something critical of their presidential hero because it might be the result of bias.

The irony is funny, but I can't decide if it's the "haha" kind or the "

" kind.

And don't expect diplomat to believe anything a scientist says, anyway, Sava. He believes they conspired to foist evilution on us.

Dauphin · February 18, 2004, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant

Big Crunch,
Review the article, it only says Bush is bad, no specific claims yet, but Sava right away is branding Bush, wouldn't want to know why?

These are specific claims, they just aren't fleshed out:

Quote:

repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases

I doubt an article would go into more detail at a first print.

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:34

Quote:

And don't expect diplomat to believe anything a scientist says, anyway, Sava. He believes they conspired to foist evilution on us.

now I am beginning to understand...

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So diplomat and Defiant, arguable two of the most biased right-wingers on the board, won't believe something critical of their presidential hero because it might be the result of bias.

The irony is funny, but I can't decide if it's the "haha" kind or the "

" kind.

And don't expect diplomat to believe anything a scientist says, anyway, Sava. He believes they conspired to foist evilution on us.

Intellectual response from Boris again, look I want to see the full report before I go on Kerry's bandwagon, gggeeeee, and you wouldn't be considered one of the biggest liberals out here, would ya?

The diplomat · February 18, 2004, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And don't expect diplomat to believe anything a scientist says, anyway, Sava. He believes they conspired to foist evilution on us.

I can't believe you're bringing up the whole creationist thing! That was done to death months ago!

I never ever said that scientists conspire to foist evolution on us. If you are going to quote me, then do it right!

besides, I am a scientist myself. I have the utmost respect for science.

All I have said is that I want to see some specifics. I am not going to bash Bush just because Sava tells me as I am suppose to.

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

These are specific claims, they just aren't fleshed out:

Quote:

repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases

I doubt an article would go into more detail at a first print.

Why not? Your are critizing the President of the USA, why not bring it all, change my mind if you can. I think it is kind of irresponsible of these "superior intellects" not to bring the whole show.

Ned · February 18, 2004, 16:36

Sava, the article itself provides no details and no examples.

However, I think he scientist might be upset about the stem cell issue.

Also, the global warming issue seems to be highly controversial in scientific circles even today. It is its advocates that seem politically motivated.

Chemical Ollie · February 18, 2004, 16:36

What did you expect from an administration that leans on votes from people who think it's OK to ban Theory of Evolution from being teached in school?

EDIT: Sorry for repeating other people's arguments. However, the other mentions of evolution vs creation was written while I wrote this.

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:36

Quote:

I am not going to bash Bush just because Sava tells me as I am suppose to.

you don't need to bash him... you just need to acknowledge the truth. You shouldn't confuse bush-bashing with the bashing of your own personal conservative ideals. John McCain honestly represents conservative ideals and I love him.

Boris Godunov · February 18, 2004, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Intellectual response from Boris again, look I want to see the full report before I go on Kerry's bandwagon, gggeeeee, and you wouldn't be considered one of the biggest liberals out here, would ya?

Waiting to see the full report is a big cry from insinuating that a panel of nobel laureates would lie to attack the President. The former is reasonable, the latter is smear.

And I doubt I'd be considered one of the biggest liberals by anyone's measure, except of course extreme right-wingers. Hmmm, who here would fit that description?

The diplomat · February 18, 2004, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you don't need to bash him... you just need to acknowledge the truth. You shouldn't confuse bush-bashing with the bashing of your own personal conservative ideals. John McCain honestly represents conservative ideals and I love him.

What truth? You haven't showed me one example or proof that the Bush admin lied or distorted scientific facts.

Show me some specifics and I will gladly tell you if Bush distorted science.

If Bush did distort science, then I will gladly acknowledge the truth.

Dauphin · February 18, 2004, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant

Why not? Your are critizing the President of the USA, why not bring it all, change my mind if you can. I think it is kind of irresponsible of these "superior intellects" not to bring the whole show.

Again, I ask, where have I criticized him? All I have said is that I doubt the scientist would lie or exaggerate.

I am trying to get a copy of the paper from their website, but it keeps timing out. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Waiting to see the full report is a big cry from insinuating that a panel of nobel laureates would lie to attack the President. The former is reasonable, the latter is smear.

And I doubt I'd be considered one of the biggest liberals by anyone's measure, except of course extreme right-wingers. Hmmm, who here would fit that description?

Boris,
I dont' know if they would lie or not, I don't know them and I would want to see the full report before I make that judgment, and have other scientists look at it since most of it would probably over all of our heads except for Mtg.

Boris, if you consider me far right, you are then about as left as the come, really that shouldn't bother you.

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Again, I ask, where have I criticized him? All I have said is that I doubt the scientist would lie or exaggerate.

I am trying to get a copy of the paper from their website, but it keeps timing out. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Big Crunch,
I am not talking about you critizing the President, I am referring to the scientists.

Kuciwalker · February 18, 2004, 16:48

I want to see the actual facts that are disputed before I decide, but until then I'm leaning towards the scientists.

Sadly, I think Kerry would be even worse (though not necessarily in the same ways), so it won't change my opinion wrt the election

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:48

Quote:

Show me some specifics and I will gladly tell you if Bush distorted science.

I said in the first post "more to follow".

I'm looking for the actual report... or any other mention of this development. The corporate media probably won't report this, so it may be a while.

Boris Godunov · February 18, 2004, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
I can't believe you're bringing up the whole creationist thing! That was done to death months ago!

In that thread, you repeated some of the most absurd creationist claims that would make any actual scientist laugh his buttocks off. So excuse me if I take your scientific credentials with a huge grain of salt, as well as your complaints that these scientists are just showing their bias. I think it's hysterical you're complaining about bias, when that is exactly what is motivating your argument here.

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:49

Quote:

Sadly, I think Kerry would be even worse (though not necessarily in the same ways), so it won't change my opinion wrt the election

you can't vote so your opinion doesn't matter

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you can't vote so your opinion doesn't matter

Now that is just flat out mean.

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:52

here's a site about an earlier situation in which Bush misused scientific data...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

Dauphin · February 18, 2004, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant

Big Crunch,
I am not talking about you critizing the President, I am referring to the scientists.

Oops, your style made it look like you were.

You complain they haven't brought on the accusations, but they have. It just isn't reported in detail in the NYT article. Do you blame the scientists for this?

chequita guevara · February 18, 2004, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you can't vote so your opinion doesn't matter

Why can't skywalker vote?

Sava · February 18, 2004, 16:55

here's the report from Aug 8th, 2003... the original story I posted is a follow up to this

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/poli...cience_rep.pdf

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
here's a site about an earlier situation in which Bush misused scientific data...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

Are you referring the Condom Effectiveness conspiracy.

Just kidding, I am reading it, however some of the stuff maybe over my head, may have to call Mtg in.

Boris Godunov · February 18, 2004, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why can't skywalker vote?

16 year olds can't vote, AFAIK

Defiant · February 18, 2004, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Oops, your style made it look like you were.

You complain they haven't brought on the accusations, but they have. It just isn't reported in detail in the NYT article. Do you blame the scientists for this?

Yes, I do. It is kind of like the layman saying I thing Bush invasion of Iraq s*cks but not explaining why. Of coarse all individuals have their god given right to say what they want, but this site is notorious for having you backup what you say with some evidence and that's a good thing. Then all of a sudden these scientists say Bush is crappy because of nuclear power, hell you don't even know if it is power or weapons he is talking about, we need details, you demand the same thing from me and I do you.