Because of the bandwagon people. When it started, and I mean when tea party rallies were just starting, it was not just the fringe, extremist republicans that it had become. It was essentially a bunch of libertarians, which of course would be predominantly conservative-minded.

 

As to NSS' point about the perception of the tea party, i'm guessing that has to do with how the media portrayed the group as a bunch of dumb racist rednecks. Most people don't like to associate with that kind of thing.

The mass media, at first, portrayed the Tea Party in a pretty favorable light. I think the prevalence of extreme right-wingers being the representatives of the movement is what repelled people from it, not some giant conspiracy against them.

 

A lot of talking heads on the far right saw the movement, and decided to co-opt it to their own gains. That then drew in the far-right GOP wing, thus overwhelming the more libertarian streak that originally fostered the movement. So if you want to blame someone for their perception in the public eye, instead of pulling the unsubstantiated poor victim card, I'd blame those talking heads and politicians if I were you. They basically stole the concept and contorted it to their desires.

 

Well heres a good reason to vote for Obama, he "destroyed" Rondo's jump shot:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont...?urn=nba-wp7524

 

A vote for the Republicans is a vote for the Celtics!

A vote for the Republicans is a vote for the Celtics!

Except Dallas also beat the Heat in the playoffs, so everyone owes Texas a favor.

Rick Perry played no role in that. Maybe if he called up Lebron and told him that hes not clutch, but otherwise he just merely sat there while Obama was out on the streets ruining Rondo's game.

The mass media, at first, portrayed the Tea Party in a pretty favorable light. I think the prevalence of extreme right-wingers being the representatives of the movement is what repelled people from it, not some giant conspiracy against them.

 

A lot of talking heads on the far right saw the movement, and decided to co-opt it to their own gains. That then drew in the far-right GOP wing, thus overwhelming the more libertarian streak that originally fostered the movement. So if you want to blame someone for their perception in the public eye, instead of pulling the unsubstantiated poor victim card, I'd blame those talking heads and politicians if I were you. They basically stole the concept and contorted it to their desires.

 

I don't think it's some giant conspiracy. I think it's what they did to play to their liberal base. "Listen to these uneducated whack jobs! No government? Stop government spending? What are they thinking?! And they spit on black people. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

I don't think it's some giant conspiracy. I think it's what they did to play to their liberal base. "Listen to these uneducated whack jobs! No government? Stop government spending? What are they thinking?! And they spit on black people. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

I guess I didn't see anything like that, especially not at first. Perhaps you can show me. I remember seeing some embarrassing videos, but they were YouTube pieces. I don't recall any of the mass media treating them like that, in fact I saw them being treated like stars, which is what the MSM tends to do with shiny new things.

 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.asp...14_CUTLIN497125

 

Responding to a man in Langley who asked if Obama "wants to destroy America," Coburn said the president is "very bright" and loves his country but has a political philosophy that is "goofy and wrong."

 

Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said.

 

"As an African-American male," Coburn said, Obama received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs."

 

Coburn went on to say that most of the country's problems were created by Congress and that "I don't think presidents matter that much."

Some cheerful news for this thread.

 

Elizabeth Warren has opened an exploratory committee for a run at Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate Seat.

Some cheerful news for this thread.

 

Elizabeth Warren has opened an exploratory committee for a run at Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate Seat.

 

Something tells me this is the real reason she wasn't nominated for the CFRB.

Something tells me this is the real reason she wasn't nominated for the CFRB.

Probably...but conversely, if she could have been confirmed for that position she'd have been nominated long ago and this wouldn't be an issue.

 

That'd actually put a smile on my face, they block her from becoming CFPB head and it costs them a Senate seat.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.asp...14_CUTLIN497125

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!!!

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.asp...14_CUTLIN497125

 

Maybe Jack Ryan's affirmative "action"...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.asp...14_CUTLIN497125

I think Senator Coburn needs a visit from the Capitol police. It appears he's been threatening Senators. I'm not joking.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) ripped his colleagues during a tour of northeast Oklahoma, calling them “career elitists,” “cowards” and said, “It’s just a good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor.”

Link

 

In '06 Bachmann Staffer Was Arrested in Uganda on Terrorism Charges

In '06 Bachmann Staffer Was Arrested in Uganda on Terrorism Charges

It's a lot wierder than just "Terrorism charges" if you read the article, it sounds like the guy was trying to be a bounty hunter.

Question for the group; does Rick Parry's attack on my livelihood here deserve to replace Bobby Jindal's?

I'm not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long, how old the earth is."

The Solar system itself started 4.56 U-Pb billion years ago. The Earth itself had coalesced as one of a hundred or so smaller-than-current-Mars sized bodies within 5 million years of that event. The Earth then grew by accretional processes as those bodies began slamming into each other. The final impact that created the Earth-Moon system happened about 50 million years later (largest error bounds are actually on that one).

 

 

Question for the group; does Rick Parry's attack on my livelihood here deserve to replace Bobby Jindal's?

 

The Solar system itself started 4.56 U-Pb billion years ago. The Earth itself had coalesced as one of a hundred or so smaller-than-current-Mars sized bodies within 5 million years of that event. The Earth then grew by accretional processes as those bodies began slamming into each other. The final impact that created the Earth-Moon system happened about 50 million years later (largest error bounds are actually on that one).

 

Every so often they figure out that the universe is older than previously thought. So that can probably apply to this...despite them currently thinking the solar system started 4.56 U-Pb billion years ago, in another decade they'll revise that to say 5.54 U-Pb...

 

Or...are you claiming they've never -- ever -- changed these numbers before?

 

Just wondering.

 

Edit: And I realize that science generally accepts that the Earth is like 4.43-4.55 billion years old based on those isochron reads. Then again, I'm totally talking nonsense, because I took Geology courses like 14 years ago now.

Edited August 19, 201114 yr by Y2HH

The revisions get more accurate and are within the error bounds of the previous calculations generally. I don't think that the estimated age of the earth has been significantly changed since the advent of nuclear physics and radiometric dating. It's been 4.xx +/- yy since the 50's. Same with the universe: yeah, it flucuatted a lot before we really started to figure things out post-WWII, but it's been a pretty steady 13.x +/- since then and new findings only remove margins of error, not shift the estimates out of the previous range.

 

Accepting that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge has nothing to do with the "skepticism" people use to dismiss legitimate scientific knowledge in favor of mythology.

You guys and your scientific mumbo jumbo.

In other words, I really don't think Perry is taking some metaphysical postmodern view of knowledge here. I think it's typical right-wing "them sciency-types don't know nothin'!" ignorance, especially combined with his "we teach creationism in Texas" and "global warming is a hoax and scientists are frauds" statements lately.

The revisions get more accurate and are within the error bounds of the previous calculations generally. I don't think that the estimated age of the earth has been significantly changed since the advent of nuclear physics and radiometric dating. It's been 4.xx +/- yy since the 50's. Same with the universe: yeah, it flucuatted a lot before we really started to figure things out post-WWII, but it's been a pretty steady 13.x +/- since then and new findings only remove margins of error, not shift the estimates out of the previous range.

 

Accepting that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge has nothing to do with the "skepticism" people use to dismiss legitimate scientific knowledge in favor of mythology.

SS is correct here. In fact, it's been 4.5 billion years since the late 1950's, when Claire Patterson (from Caltech) figured out how to do the first Pb-Pb measurement (his big work was creating an actual clean lab that was lead free. A side effect of him doing this was realizing that the U.S. was poisoning itself with lead, leading to the regulation of lead and removal of lead from gasoline.)

 

One thing worth remembering...for a non-geologic reason, we actually know the decay constant of Uranium 235 and 238 pretty darn well. Maybe better than we know any other radioactive decay constant.

Actually quick google search reminded me of the "age crisis" that existed until the 90's. The universe was thought to be around 10b years old but the same calculations showed stars at the center of the galaxy at 13-20b years old. Something was obviously off here. Further research led to new discoveries that solved the problem neatly and gave us the current estimate of 13.7b

+/-.

Actually quick google search reminded me of the "age crisis" that existed until the 90's. The universe was thought to be around 10b years old but the same calculations showed stars at the center of the galaxy at 13-20b years old. Something was obviously off here. Further research led to new discoveries that solved the problem neatly and gave us the current estimate of 13.7b

+/-.

There was something similar with evolution. Lord Kelvin did a calculation assuming that the Earth was a sphere cooling by diffusion that gave an age of 30 million years, which he stated was the age of the Earth, but then biology was sort of saying "that's a moderately long time but that doesn't seem quite long enough for the full boat of evolution to happen." That went on for a few decades until radioactivity was discovered.

Same with the sun, since nuclear physics wasn't yet known the only possible source was combustion which gave a ridiculously low estimate. But basically once Lyell came around the idea figuring out the age of the earth by tracing back religious lineages was tossed out.