Where have you guys been. Pete Stark is an open atheist; he's the first congressman to hold such a status.
Rick Perry.
- Thread starter derek
- Start date
RP is a doctor, so I'd love to know how to justify his scientific ignorance. I'm sure in his early days he prescribed or recommended that his patients got flu shots, which proves he doesn't deny evolution. Maybe he doesn't realize it. A lot of science deniers don't even know what they're denying. It's funny.
Brooks
Eyes Wide Open
Truly amazing to hear.
"We don't have geological support for evolutionary forms...'
'It is (emphasis added) a theory..."
So, he clearly doesn't know science, which is odd since he's a doctor. He uses 'theory' incorrectly (a simple dictionary check will fix that). I'm more shocked about the comments he made on geology. There is no issue there, among geologists, or any other branches of science.
"We don't have geological support for evolutionary forms...'
'It is (emphasis added) a theory..."
So, he clearly doesn't know science, which is odd since he's a doctor. He uses 'theory' incorrectly (a simple dictionary check will fix that). I'm more shocked about the comments he made on geology. There is no issue there, among geologists, or any other branches of science.
Liverslapper
w00t
nckissfan
Civil War reenactor
my pick for the GOP would be Herman Cain, although I know he will not be selected. Cain is a businessman, not a politician. I like the ideas he has, but am sure that most Americans would not grasp them, just as they don't get into what Ron Paul has to say. Paul makes a lot of sense on some issues, but he is too far from center to please anyone.
Enemy242
Member
herman cain strikes me as a fucking dipshit. from all the stuff i've seen him say, the fact that his whole basis is he owned some pizza company (yeah because that makes you a great leader in all facets of society, because you were able to run a pizza company) and the fact that he just strikes me as a fucking tool from all the stuff i've seen him say on tv, his whole relation to the daily show etc (stirring up shit because someone used a voice he found racist and then went on a rant while saying he wasn't? grow the fuck up.) i definitely would not want him leading the country. he strikes me as just a black candidate for the republican party to try and emulate obama by being like HEY, BLACK GUY WORKED FOR DEMOCRATS, LETS GET THIS GUY ON.
none of them honestly seem good to me, rick perry is the absolute worst and dear god i hope he doesn't win (but it's so fucking scary he potentially will), bachman or whatever is a complete dipshit, romney doesn't seem terrible but is just your typical smiling douchebag, herman cain i discussed above, and all the others i can't even really think of, let alone give a fuck about.
if i were to choose any of them it'd probably be ron paul, he seems the most sane of all of them (though that isn't saying much) and seems like he's able to actually think a bit outside of the normal box unlike the rest of the cookie cutter suckups. no doubt he's batshit insane in some regards and would probably fuck something up, but at least it'd be a change from the regular douchey ass kissing politicians that are just carbon copies of each other every year. i really don't like any of the candidates, nor obama, and i can't see any reason to vote this year unless i can find someone who i wouldn't feel bad about supporting.
it kinda reminds me of that louis ck joke (i think) where he talks about not voting because if you vote then you can't bitch about them, whereas if you don't vote you can bitch about it all and distance yourself from it. obviously thats not my reason, the joke just made me think of it but really i don't think i can bring myself to vote for anyone who isn't at least the lesser of the evils. maybe i'll just write in nader even if he isn't running as a big fuck you that no one will see or care about. thrilling.
none of them honestly seem good to me, rick perry is the absolute worst and dear god i hope he doesn't win (but it's so fucking scary he potentially will), bachman or whatever is a complete dipshit, romney doesn't seem terrible but is just your typical smiling douchebag, herman cain i discussed above, and all the others i can't even really think of, let alone give a fuck about.
if i were to choose any of them it'd probably be ron paul, he seems the most sane of all of them (though that isn't saying much) and seems like he's able to actually think a bit outside of the normal box unlike the rest of the cookie cutter suckups. no doubt he's batshit insane in some regards and would probably fuck something up, but at least it'd be a change from the regular douchey ass kissing politicians that are just carbon copies of each other every year. i really don't like any of the candidates, nor obama, and i can't see any reason to vote this year unless i can find someone who i wouldn't feel bad about supporting.
it kinda reminds me of that louis ck joke (i think) where he talks about not voting because if you vote then you can't bitch about them, whereas if you don't vote you can bitch about it all and distance yourself from it. obviously thats not my reason, the joke just made me think of it but really i don't think i can bring myself to vote for anyone who isn't at least the lesser of the evils. maybe i'll just write in nader even if he isn't running as a big fuck you that no one will see or care about. thrilling.
But Ron Paul's sanity can be questioned, since he denies science. He sort of dismisses the issue. 'He doesn't believe in evolution so he can't be elected president...' and he waves his hand like it isn't relevant. These are the people making or potentially making decisions about the future of the country. So, yea, it worries me. Not just that he denies the science, but that he clearly hasn't investigated it. So we have a man who has made his opinion about something without doing the research. That in itself is troublesome. The implications are not good. That's why I don't like the radical GOP ideas in general. They just do retail politics without any real hard data to back things up. For example, they tell government to get out of the way and let the private sector create jobs. But the problem is that trickle down economics doesn't work anymore. It did work in different circumstances under Reagan to a slight extent depending on how you measure it, but it certainly wouldn't work today either as a quick fix or a long-term policy. The model is a failure. Yet the GOP continues to promote it, only because government isn't popular. Yes, they continue to promote it, along with crap science and some pretty stupid personal vituperation aimed at the president. Basically, they're sort of a joke, and it's evident when you watch them on stage. You've got another slightly sociopathic, hick Texan who pontificates like someone who hasn't set foot off his damaged front porch. You've got the slick businessman, Romney, who is very articulate and a decent debater and looks like a million bucks, but lacks a personal identity. He can't connect with people because of this. Another major problem. Don't get me started on the borderline psychotic congresswoman. And you've got the pizza delivery man in a suit. Yea, it's basically like a circus. Good entertainment but hardly solid candidates. Back in 08 you had about 6 guys on the other side who all would have made good presidents and who had credentials to boot.
If it came down to a solid one on one debate then the GOP should really push Rudy Giuliani. That man can fucking debate.
Perry is getting owned in the debates. It's embarrassing to watch. Cain is going to flat line very soon; the man hasn't studied a single issue outside of the economy and it shows. He's got less than zero when it comes to foreign policy, immigration, middle east conflict etc. He's dead meat.
Dead Winter
STAHP
Republicans tend to bury themselves because they're simply out of touch. Democrats are usually spineless ninnies but they tend to at least know what they're talking about. A Democrat doesn't even need to be at a debate for the Republican to embarrass him/herself. Romney seems like the logical choice simply because he can speak and chew bubble gum at the same time and has at least a modicum of charisma.
Lord Foul
I don't spank men
Yea, it's true. Nothing will change. The USA is in trouble. The major problems can't be fixed in any one term or even two terms. Policies would have to be in place for 10 or 15 years and allowed to run their courses without interference for any discernible change. That won't happen.
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
I'm certainly not religious, but responding to an earlier comment, I had a chance to read a few books on molecular biology that managed to completely and utterly decimate Darwanism's theory of evolution, using points he himself conceded would debunk his theories if realized.
I'm not educated and I don't know what to believe, but damn if what I read didn't make since.
I'm not educated and I don't know what to believe, but damn if what I read didn't make since.
You didn't read anything that dismantled Darwinism. It's irrefutable. Your creationist/ID propaganda is just that. I'd suggest throwing it in the rubbish bin. Michael Behe can kiss my ass.
Oh, and it's not hard to figure out what to believe. 100% of reputable scientists in the scientific communities in geology, biology, and genetics agree on current theories, save for the occasional rogue (usually a Christian, Jew or Muslim). If any of these ID theories were valid, the scientific world would embrace them and not shun them. They're not valid for a reason: they don't work. Also, citing Darwin is pointless. The man lived before the era of genetics, and much has happened since 1859. Darwin didn't get it all right because he simple didn't know. How could he have?
Don't let yourself be brainwashed.
Oh, and it's not hard to figure out what to believe. 100% of reputable scientists in the scientific communities in geology, biology, and genetics agree on current theories, save for the occasional rogue (usually a Christian, Jew or Muslim). If any of these ID theories were valid, the scientific world would embrace them and not shun them. They're not valid for a reason: they don't work. Also, citing Darwin is pointless. The man lived before the era of genetics, and much has happened since 1859. Darwin didn't get it all right because he simple didn't know. How could he have?
Don't let yourself be brainwashed.
Also worth remembering that people in general interpret evolution to be slightly different than what it really is. It's significantly easier to dismantle the popular idea of evolution than it is the real theory.
people usually picture a giraffe trying to reach a branch for food, but the branch is too high. The animal keeps trying, fails, keeps trying and eventually grows its neck an extra inch to reach it. That's exactly what evolution is not.
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
You got me, that is what I thought it was.
And yeah, I wasn't saying I believed Behe's stuff, just that he made some good points.
And yeah, I wasn't saying I believed Behe's stuff, just that he made some good points.
Similar threads
