Galileo and the Church

[Charles Kozierok]

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

What's old is new again. If you don't like the facts because they dispel your mythological worldview, then abuse your power to suppress them.

 

[monovillage]

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

What's old is new again. If you don't like the facts because they dispel your mythological worldview, then abuse your power to suppress them.

After next week I'm going to change and put non-partisan in my signature. It will be as honest as some of these think tanks that claim being non-partisan and then don't live up to their claim. Unless you always believe them. Do you?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

After next week I'm going to change and put non-partisan in my signature. It will be as honest as some of these think tanks that claim being non-partisan and then don't live up to their claim. Unless you always believe them. Do you?

The CRS is not a think tank. It's part of the US Congress, and I've never found any prior instances of its non-partisan status.

That is, until the scum that is the current Republican Party, decided to play politics with it.

Because this is what the right is today. If they don't like something factual, they just claim that it's partisan and oppose it. This is how we get climate change denial, morons claiming that a statistician with a great track record should be ignored because he "seems gay", and idiots like Sean Hannity saying there are long lines for gas in New Jersey right now because Obama won't drill in the Arctic.

In contrast, your posting record shows you consistently to be partisan and dishonest. I don't think your signature is going to fool anyone. (Especially since a quote from you proudly declaring your overt partisanship is in someone else's signature.)

 

[Matt1970]

Since the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts were acrosss the board (all tax brackets), and there really have been no tax cuts for the top only that I can remember, what the hell are they basing their data on?

 

[davmat787]

In contrast, your posting record shows you consistently to be partisan and dishonest. I don't think your signature is going to fool anyone. (Especially since a quote from you proudly declaring your overt partisanship is in someone else's signature.)

I think that is mono's point, that if he were to put non-partisan in his sig it would be just as dishonest as this committee *claiming the same thing. Correct me if I am wrong mono. Mono is one of the few that will at least admit his bias, I wish more people would even though it is clearly obvious.

*not claiming this to be the case as I am not familiar enough with this group to make the claim.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just fyi (not a criticism of intent) I've done a considerable reading about Galileo, and he really worked hard to get himself in trouble. Hes often seen as a noble figure, but interestingly enough he was an outright disreputable scoundrel that lived in fear of being upstaged. Not nice.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think that is mono's point, that if he were to put non-partisan in his sig it would be just as dishonest as this committee *claiming the same thing.

No, it would not be just as dishonest, because the CRS has a long history of being non-partisan, whereas monovillage describes the sitting president visiting a fresh disaster site to inspect damage and lend moral support as a "photo op of asshole Obama looking at storm damage".

Reputation matters.

 

[buckshot24]

Just fyi (not a criticism of intent) I've done a considerable reading about Galileo, and he really worked hard to get himself in trouble. Hes often seen as a noble figure, but interestingly enough he was an outright disreputable scoundrel that lived in fear of being upstaged. Not nice.

Interesting enough the church was actually defending the scientific consensus of the day.

 

[HomerJS]

After next week I'm going to change and put non-partisan in my signature. It will be as honest as some of these think tanks that claim being non-partisan and then don't live up to their claim. Unless you always believe them. Do you?

I don't ever recall the Library of Congress being accused of being a bunch of libs

 

[Lemon law]

Just fyi (not a criticism of intent) I've done a considerable reading about Galileo, and he really worked hard to get himself in trouble. Hes often seen as a noble figure, but interestingly enough he was an outright disreputable scoundrel that lived in fear of being upstaged. Not nice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, what Hayabusa ignores, if Galileo was not the voice in the wilderness correctly crying bullshit, some other scoundrel would have done what the world so desperately needed. Another thing to point out lies in the fact that Galileo had only SOME observational evidence that Catholic church dogma could not be correct. As it was later followers of the scientific method Galileo advocated like Tyco Brahe and later Newton to really absolutely prove the Ptolemy was wrong.

And in the maybe final Irony lies in the fact that the Roman Catholic church has long ago made its peace with modern science. As its now mainly the total scoundrel Protestant attention seekers combined with idiot politicians that totally deny modern Science.

 

[zinfamous]

what, so allowing the wealthiest of us to offshore more and more money to escape less and less taxes doesn't create jobs?

 

[monovillage]

The CRS is not a think tank. It's part of the US Congress, and I've never found any prior instances of its non-partisan status.

That is, until the scum that is the current Republican Party, decided to play politics with it.

Because this is what the right is today. If they don't like something factual, they just claim that it's partisan and oppose it. This is how we get climate change denial, morons claiming that a statistician with a great track record should be ignored because he "seems gay", and idiots like Sean Hannity saying there are long lines for gas in New Jersey right now because Obama won't drill in the Arctic.

In contrast, your posting record shows you consistently to be partisan and dishonest. I don't think your signature is going to fool anyone. (Especially since a quote from you proudly declaring your overt partisanship is in someone else's signature.)

I've declared my partisanship numerous times. I just find it funny that so many partisan organizations claim non-partisanship (i.e. The League of Woman Voters) but take partisan/biased stands on some issues.

http://ca.lwv.org/ballot-recommendations

 

[zinfamous]

Just fyi (not a criticism of intent) I've done a considerable reading about Galileo, and he really worked hard to get himself in trouble. Hes often seen as a noble figure, but interestingly enough he was an outright disreputable scoundrel that lived in fear of being upstaged. Not nice.

So you're saying he was more likeable than Edison?

:hmm:

 

[Fern]

Upon reading reading the article closely I don't see any real problem. The inflammatory remarks seem to be from the author and politicians.

I'm sure the CRS can deal with questions about its methodology and address them as necessary.

BTW: It's a study, not "fact" and it's private anyway.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

I've declared my partisanship numerous times. I just find it funny that so many partisan organizations claim non-partisanship (i.e. The League of Woman Voters) but take partisan/biased stands on some issues.

http://ca.lwv.org/ballot-recommendations

are you suggesting that the League of Woman Voters are partisan toward women issues?

:hmm:

 

[monovillage]

I think that is mono's point, that if he were to put non-partisan in his sig it would be just as dishonest as this committee *claiming the same thing. Correct me if I am wrong mono. Mono is one of the few that will at least admit his bias, I wish more people would even though it is clearly obvious.

*not claiming this to be the case as I am not familiar enough with this group to make the claim.

Thank you. That was my point that just a claim of non-partisanship is not the evidence I need to actually consider an organization/think tank/etc. non-partisan.

 

[monovillage]

are you suggesting that the League of Woman Voters are partisan toward women issues?

:hmm:

Did you look at their recommendations? Some of them have nothing to do with "women's issues", but are left of center/Democrat stances.

 

[IronWing]

Did you look at their recommendations? Some of them have nothing to do with "women's issues", but are left of center/Democrat stances.

Which one, left of center or Democrat? It can't be both.

 

[monovillage]

No, it would not be just as dishonest, because the CRS has a long history of being non-partisan, whereas monovillage describes the sitting president visiting a fresh disaster site to inspect damage and lend moral support as a "photo op of asshole Obama looking at storm damage".

Reputation matters.

Welcome to ATP&N. Your initial resistance was futile.

 

[zinfamous]

Did you look at their recommendations? Some of them have nothing to do with "women's issues", but are left of center/Democrat stances.

weird.

The democratic party is firmly right of center on any reasonable scale.

that being said, the stances on those issues aren't squarely "democratic" stances.

You can also read further into my comment, though, and realize that when I say "they support women's issues," this means that they tend to ignore the republican party. This is because the republican party has so firmly declared that they do not like women.
:\

 

[monovillage]

Which one, left of center or Democrat? It can't be both.

One of the reasons I picked LOWV was because they sponsor a number of "meet the candidates" events in my area. Some Republicans have started to skip those events since the questions asked and the presenters have become so partisan in the last few years that they no longer consider the League to be an unbiased organizer and have stopped dealing with them. The local newspaper still considers them to be "non-partisan" and always chastises the Right for not being part of the events. I see no reason the blindly accept the "non-partisan" label without more investigation. People are biased, but not everyone lies about it or conceals it.

 

[monovillage]

weird.

The democratic party is firmly right of center on any reasonable scale.

that being said, the stances on those issues aren't squarely "democratic" stances.

You can also read further into my comment, though, and realize that when I say "they support women's issues," this means that they tend to ignore the republican party. This is because the republican party has so firmly declared that they do not like women.
:\

If Republicans and Libertarians and Democrats are all "Right of Center" The who's at the center and who's left of center?

 

[Moonbeam]

After next week I'm going to change and put non-partisan in my signature. It will be as honest as some of these think tanks that claim being non-partisan and then don't live up to their claim. Unless you always believe them. Do you?

I keep telling you not to believe anything you think. Your job was to respond with logic to the OP, not go off accusing think tanks, which have nothing to do with anything , of partisanship and them threatening to put such a claim in your sig. It's frankly just not mature and you got CK so pissed off he called your party scum. We have to use some measure of sanity to thoughtfully run our affairs and about the best we can do is rely on people dedicated to giving us truth in a non partisan fashion as best they can. If you just react like an emotional child to charges your Mommy likes sex with strangers, or some such emotionally motivated response, you will get to be know as a donkey who brays partisanship at every turn. Now go back over the OP's link and try again. I know you are a good person who loves other people. We can't have folks going off like roman candles every time you open your mouth. You'll give them ulcers and heart attacks and make them lose faith in their fellow man.

It's not so bad, is it, to be out to lunch. You are out to lunch in my opinion, but I like you and I smell a free meal.

And I'm beginning to feel quite egotistical, myself, about being rich. I just spent around 50 million in gold to buy armor for a dear family member. And I worked my ass off to make the money. I am just as fucking great as any Republican.

 

[zinfamous]

If Republicans and Libertarians and Democrats are all "Right of Center" The who's at the center and who's left of center?

It's a fair question, so the scale is broken.

yes, in our two party system (stop kidding yourself, libertarians are no less republican) someone must be at a center point--but this means such a scale no longer references typical ideals of the right and the left; but simply recognizes two differing views.

In terms of ideology, there is simply no "left" in this country. on a left/right scale, no one--no one so truly left of center any more. Both parties have a bit of a conservative base, but the current GOP has gone so far to the batshit end of right ideology....it's like they no longer have a place in this world (except, I'm starting to think they want to turn this country into a place like Pakistan)...that it's still easy to see clear differences in the ideologies of the two parties.

The polarization is still there, but the scale has moved off of the ideology scale, and is simply used to define where people sit on their "teams."

It's disgusting, and it's primarily the fault of Newt Gingrich.

 

[woolfe9999]

I find the GOP's substantive criticism of the study highly amusing for its hypocrisy:

They also protested on economic grounds, saying that the author, Thomas L. Hungerford, was looking for a macroeconomic response to tax cuts within the first year of the policy change without sufficiently taking into account the time lag of economic policies.

Wait, what time lag? We all know that Obama was responsible for every job lost from the first day he entered office because economic policies have *immediate* effect and that if he had just adopted the correct policies he could have totally stopped all job losses within 3.8 seconds of his inauguration. Now what is this notion that there is a delay period between the enactment of an economic policy and its actual effect on the economy? Let's get this straight: the policy they favor for stimulating the economy - cutting tax rates on the upper brackets - is expected to take a year or more to actually have an effect. So by that rationale, even had Obama adopted a GOP strategy for fixing the economy, it wouldn't have helped for at least a year?