Typical Tea Bagger
I do not know how Teabaggers (The Tea Party) sees themselves; but I see them as shallow, selfish, incoherent, trivial people! Like Bill Maher on “Real Time with Bill Maher” says, “I will stop calling them Tea Baggers when they stop calling it Obamacare.” Now the government is facing a shut down because they have shown they cannot play well with others. They say to themselves….it’s our very minority ideal way for all or we will just take our ball and go home – while shutting down the government! The Democrats and Republicans have enough problems without the “Teabaggers” bringing their frivolous ideas to government. 
To use another expression from Bill Maher, they are like the kid that only reads one paragraph, when the teacher says who read the chapter and that kid raises his hand to ask a question about that paragraph to make it seem they read (or know) something.
13th Generation American said on 19 Saturday 2011 am31 9:56 am:
“With 43 million people in the US living in poverty, 20 million unemployed, The Patriot Act constitution buster, US record military spending in 2010, record deficits, 50 thousand troops and 20 thousand mercenaries in Iraq, 94 thousand troops and 170 thousand mercenaries in Afghanistan, GITMO still in business. We are talking about a birth certificate? Nice!” (I saw this posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/the-2012-speculatron-week_3_n_837854.html#s255150&title=Haley_Barbour)
Teabagger Work Ethic
The paragraph they did read, they did not even understand. They read – cut government spending and for some reason they think it means cut any program they cannot benefit from directly. Many of them profess to be Christian, attend these WalMart Mega-churches and read the Bible the same way – the Bible hates the same things they do – Gays!! These people attended college to pledge Mom’s sorority or Dad’s fraternity, oh… and to get a degree. They never thought of college as a place to get an education and actually learn something!
Many of the Teabagger Party do not even believe in evolution or global warming. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Host of PBS NOVA scienceNOW says it best, “The nice thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it.” Even when they can be proven wrong with science they just feel what they “believe” is foundation for governmental policy.
Why do the teabaggers feel they are acting on some mandate from the people? Where is that coming from? The Republicans barely have control of the House and not many old school Republicans will endure this teabag farce for long. Do they really feel they are doing what is best for Americans? They should see Americans see they are acting for their own self-interest (pockets). The poor don’t watch Fox News and can’t be the loudest, they have bigger problems than worrying where Obama was born. Or is it simply the poor have an inability to organize, protest, and in some cases vote because of limited means or jobs that are more important for feeding their family, than concerns of governmental policy. They better enjoy their ride because I can only hope it will be VERY short lived.
Help me out… give anything… even if it’s only a $1
https://thomasajohnston.com/2011/04/02/repeating-a-lie-does-not-make-it-true/
Thomas Johnston 
“Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Host of PBS NOVA scienceNOW says it best, “The nice thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it.” Even when they can be proven wrong with science they just feel what they “believe” is foundation for governmental policy.”
So what happens when science proves a theory or hypothesis wrong at a later date? Does that mean we’re STUCK with the first theory or hypothesis?
And what about the abortion debate, where the pro-choice crowd simply compares a developing embryo to a cancerous tumor? Cancer tends to kill, but a developing embryo is, in and of itself, human life.
And let’s look at the graphic you show for a moment that depicts the political differences between the general public and scientists. I won’t argue the numbers, but given these numbers I’d say I have a problem with science in general if more than half of the scientists follow one political prescription. Put another way: would you have a problem if 55% of scientists were avowed Conservative Christians? Would that make you call into question many of the scientific premises, hypothesis’ and theories that have been suggested?
What will happen when science proves another theory or hypothesis correct at a later date… I hope my thinking will evolve as well. I also believe in evolution (LOL another debate). I am an optimist and I delight in things being proven correct rather than proven wrong!! I like the idea of learning more and having my opinions challenged. I like for my ideas to evolve.
Would I call into question scientific premise based on scientists being conservative or Christian – NO! Science is not about beliefs, it is about FACT. That would lead me to believe I needed to explore
Scientific knowledge is constantly changing and updating.
For many women, childbirth IS worse than a cancerous tumor as many, many women die in childbirth. More die in childbirth in the U.S. than do in countries where there is single payer national health care, more even than in a lot of other civilized countries. No one who is well educated in either theology or science is anti-abortion. Those who are able to get and use birth control may never need it. Some of the later term abortions are for medical reasons — people who wanted to grow the fetus/embryo into a human but who had medical conditions that were going to kill the fetus/embryo and the mother.
My father, a minister, instructed me that as a woman one must never go to a Roman Catholic Hospital as they would always choose the potential life — fetus or embryo — over the real one, the mother. I have always followed that excellent guidance and advice, never needed it but you will never find me in a RCC Hospital as I don’t intend to give money to those who care so little for the lives of women.
Opposition to abortion is always about one of two things in my observation: (1) ignorance of science or (2) ignorance of what religion should be all about — helping people live happier, more authentic lives. Fundamentalist religions don’t help people though, they hurt them at the expense of using their theoretical rules as what you might call graven images.
What happens though when science is driven by beliefs and political agendas rather than a valid curiosity? I think the whole man-made global warming debate was pretty much debunked last year through the whole university e-mail scandal. Just one example.
There’s so much about science that we’re discovering that we don’t know (not necessarily a bad thing or an evil plot… just a natural outcome of having limited information). For example, animals and some subspecies have been discovered that were thought to be extinct or we never knew existed; at least that’s what I’ve read in various media reports that I have no reason to doubt given my experience and knowledge.
I’m fascinated by science, though I’m not a scientist. I tend to agree that there is a certain amount of evolution within species, but definitely not ACROSS species, like the whole notion that millions of years ago yours and my ancestors were apes.
It sounds like there are certain things we might be in agreement on because I also want science to be based on fact and not a political or personal agenda.
Science is a process, a way of exploration, of discovery, not a way of believing or even thinking. One doesn’t ‘believe’ in science any more than one believes in art or music or writing. There are many religious scientists. But it doesn’t necessarily mean their science is ‘driven’ by a religious mandate. Neither does science ‘prove’ anything. It can disprove things, but not necessarily prove them per se. It provides a means to test hypotheses and indicate with some degree of certainty whether there is a ‘relationship’, ’cause and effect’, or ‘likelihood’. I suspect if more folks were familiar with the ‘scientific method’, they wouldn’t be afraid of it.
But the actions of a few ‘gossipy’ scientists ragging on colleagues did NOT in any way debunk the reality of climate change. Good heavens, there are all manner of folk in every walk of life. Have scientists ever rigged results? Does fraud exist in scientific circles? Are there ‘bad apple’ scientists? Do some scientists use religion or politics to shape their ‘science’? Surely. But doesn’t that happen everywhere? And it doesn’t invalidate what science has allowed us to understand about the form and function of the world around us. In fact, training in the scientific method allows one to look at any information being presented and make a fairly rational judgement about it’s veracity – or at least provide one with the knowledge of how to go about getting to a better answer.
As for evolution, it happens whether you believe it or not. Resistance to pesticides in insects is the evolutionary result of the overuse of pesticides in agriculture. Resistance to antibiotics in bacteria is the evolutionary response to overuse of antibiotics. Do you use antibacterial handwashes?
Science isn’t based on facts, it discovers facts – sometimes from fiction (there have been all kinds of crazy ideas someone sought to test that provided ‘facts’ beyond their wildest dreams). But I agree, it’s a real shame a personal or political agenda usurps real and open dialogue, whether in a scientific or political forum. What do scientists have to gain from claiming climate change as a reality? What do industries contributing to climate change have to gain by claiming it as a hoax? Whether you’re a scientist or not, that ought to make you want to find out more…..
Anyway, I’ve gone on longer than I intended to. But thanks for the opportunity – it’s my first blog response!
And yes, I have scientific training – though I’m not a ‘practicing scientist’ at the moment.
Thanks for sharing! I appreciate your contribution! Discussion is not a bad idea!
And congrats on your first blog comment! I am honored it was my little ole blog! 😉
That e-mail scandal was incorrectly reported by a lot of the media. Global warming deniers are the ones who have been debunked by the way as you will find if you do serious reading.
My apologies for putting my reply in the wrong spot. It was another reply to Todd Fitchette.
No need for apologies! I enjoy ALL interactions whether they are agreeing with me or not … as in Mr. Fitchette’s case… it is not agreement!! But I still welcome All opinions and thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I also am glad to find someone that agrees with me! You may be surprised to know I am an Ole Miss business school graduate… even from a conservative background I found the light!! lol
Just want to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply excellent
and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.