So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
I'll answer just two of your questions as the rest of them are completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
1. Do I think he has the right to speak his opinion? Yes, I do, as I said previously in this thread. Did you miss that post?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Why only two?
I will quote the original OP again and her words....
"How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him".
this is what the thread is about... bashing someone else's beliefs calling him a "this horses ass "
and basically insinuating his supporters should be embarrassed to be so.
As far as fitness to be on the committee it seems he qualified to be so...
met the conditions for being appointed perhaps based on the fact he is a Physician
not based on religious beliefs. I don't believe he was speaking to any government
committee when speaking of his beliefs in this article. Was that on his own time?
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
'The liar thing'?
This is what he said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
So now you're going to pretend that the above is a common statement and something that's 'tossed about freely' on a regular basis?
Seriously, do you really believe that, or are your constant efforts to change the subject and make shit up simply a result of your desperation to come out on top in this 'debate'?
Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do I believe that? Do I believe that scientists are lying when they say that the World is 4.54 billion years old? No, I don't believe that they're lying. Why would I?
Yes, the word liar we are hearing daily in the media...
have you tuned in?
No, not do you agree but do you believe this man believes that science is lying
and that science has a motive to do so.
Let him speak his opinion, you do.
Do you believe in hell?
I do not, so if someone said to me that my Mama was born in hell
and that person really believed that, I'd respectfully chuckle to myself
and thinkidiot. I might even roll my eyes if no one was looking
You can not come here now and claim you could possibly be offended by this man,
not after words you have spoken to others... really?
This is another bashing thread towards those of religion, when by now one would
think the bright stars of MT would let people believe what they will,
speak what they want and if someone thinks they are an idiot for it so be it,
not much of a discussion, just bashing.
This man was voted into office, he has supporters, others believe as he does,
he was found suitable for the committees he's been on.
He did not take his opinion to the floor of Congress, he was speaking on his own time.
So most don't agree with him including me but we can understand
and defend his right to believe what he chooses.
Let's remember too it is opinion not fact :fp:
One would think that would be the end of story. Kind of a boring story too.
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
We know Georgia voters! Proud people! I would say people know exactly
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
Is this the guy that really lost it? I can see why they are saying that :?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
We know Georgia voters! Proud people! I would say people know exactly
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.
Exactly. People probably voted for him in large part because he's a Christian - NOT because he opposes science. They probably never thought about his views on science. (Since when do we have to ask candidates about that?) But most Christians believe in science, so saying people voted for him because he's a Christian says nothing about their knowledge of his anti-science stance.
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
You may be right with your assumption _.
"Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and occupies a seat in Congress so staunchly Republican that local Democrats are not even bothering to oppose him, added that a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament informs how he governs. "
This is a bit of a worry though.... what were we saying about 'educated'/ignorance/feigned ignorance? Quite shocking poll (though, as with all polls, need to see what the scope of it was):
"Regardless of how they dovetail with mainstream science, the Congressman’s comments views may strike a chord with many right-leaning US voters. A recent Gallup Poll suggests that 46 percent of Americans think God made humans within the past 10,000 years, while only half the nation believes in evolution"
The whole poll is quite interesting. The breaking down of these figures by education, etc.
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
You may be right with your assumption _.
"Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and occupies a seat in Congress so staunchly Republican that local Democrats are not even bothering to oppose him, added that a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament informs how he governs. "
This is a bit of a worry though.... what were we saying about 'educated'/ignorance/feigned ignorance? Quite shocking poll (though, as with all polls, need to see what the scope of it was):
"Regardless of how they dovetail with mainstream science, the Congressman’s comments views may strike a chord with many right-leaning US voters. A recent Gallup Poll suggests that 46 percent of Americans think God made humans within the past 10,000 years, while only half the nation believes in evolution"
The whole poll is quite interesting. The breaking down of these figures by education, etc.
Do they show trends over time? Like I said before, I swear this nonsense is worse than it was when I was a kid in the South with a Southern Baptist upbringing.
Do they show trends over time? Like I said before, I swear this nonsense is worse than it was when I was a kid in the South with a Southern Baptist upbringing.
Depends how long ago you were a kid in the South!
Yep - the first graph shows the yearly trend since 1982. Started off at 44%, peaked at 47% (after a couple of ups and downs) but was never lower than 40% (last year).
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
Is this the guy that really lost it? I can see why they are saying that :?
no, but every one of those is the platform that this man subscribes to. do you see a problem with that?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
We know Georgia voters! Proud people! I would say people know exactly
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.
Exactly. People probably voted for him in large part because he's a Christian - NOT because he opposes science. They probably never thought about his views on science. (Since when do we have to ask candidates about that?) But most Christians believe in science, so saying people voted for him because he's a Christian says nothing about their knowledge of his anti-science stance.
He's a Fundamentalist, I'll stick with the fact they knew very well where he was coming from
and liked it.
But it doesn't effect his job anyways. None of this does.
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
Is this the guy that really lost it? I can see why they are saying that :?
no, but every one of those is the platform that this man subscribes to. do you see a problem with that?
I think this fellas opinion, though he has a right to voice, it is not mine...
Is it yours?
don't laugh at my momma ????
that's what was funny..the guy was an idiot....but a funny idiot he's such a jack off I didn't take anything he said serious, it reminded of old old Eddie Murphy stand up comody
who cares what this guy believes ?..it's what you believe that matters to you right ? life goes on.
The people who he represents from his position of power should care what he believes. But maybe because he happens to be a Republican you don't care what his beliefs are.
Godfather, if a Republican was running for Governor of your state and he believed that women are lizards, Muslims should be hung from trees, and Ted Nugent should be made Secretary of State, would you not care about what he believes, and vote for him anyway?
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
This is a pretty disturbing trend amongst the republicans. It is fine to think what you want, say what you want, but public policy must not be based on one group's religious views in a pluralistic society.
Plus, the anti-science and education thrust is putting our children way behind other nations academically, which will not help us in industry and technology that will help our economy in the future.
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
This is a pretty disturbing trend amongst the republicans. It is fine to think what you want, say what you want, but public policy must not be based on one group's religious views in a pluralistic society.
Plus, the anti-science and education thrust is putting our children way behind other nations academically, which will not help us in industry and technology that will help our economy in the future.
Is this not opinion? this is not fact :?
Never fear opinions and really common sense will rule as long as people are not color blind
and if one is a political leader & has a seat on science committees or whatever the hell it is & they truly believe the earth is only 9,000 years old they should be excused from their seat of office leadership & they should be asked to turn in their certificates that hang on their office walls as well as be expected to be kicked repeatedly in the groin until the earth's birthday of 9,001 years.
and if one is a political leader & has a seat on science committees or whatever the hell it is & they truly believe the earth is only 9,000 years old they should be excused from their seat of office leadership & they should be asked to turn in their certificates that hang on their office walls....
Comments
and if people can remain respectful threads don't get locked.
Do you like to blame others? that is really funny stuff
Why only two?
I will quote the original OP again and her words....
"How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him".
this is what the thread is about... bashing someone else's beliefs calling him a "this horses ass "
and basically insinuating his supporters should be embarrassed to be so.
As far as fitness to be on the committee it seems he qualified to be so...
met the conditions for being appointed perhaps based on the fact he is a Physician
not based on religious beliefs. I don't believe he was speaking to any government
committee when speaking of his beliefs in this article. Was that on his own time?
Yes, the word liar we are hearing daily in the media...
have you tuned in?
No, not do you agree but do you believe this man believes that science is lying
and that science has a motive to do so.
Let him speak his opinion, you do.
Do you believe in hell?
I do not, so if someone said to me that my Mama was born in hell
and that person really believed that, I'd respectfully chuckle to myself
and think idiot. I might even roll my eyes if no one was looking
You can not come here now and claim you could possibly be offended by this man,
not after words you have spoken to others... really?
This is another bashing thread towards those of religion, when by now one would
think the bright stars of MT would let people believe what they will,
speak what they want and if someone thinks they are an idiot for it so be it,
not much of a discussion, just bashing.
This man was voted into office, he has supporters, others believe as he does,
he was found suitable for the committees he's been on.
He did not take his opinion to the floor of Congress, he was speaking on his own time.
So most don't agree with him including me but we can understand
and defend his right to believe what he chooses.
Let's remember too it is opinion not fact :fp:
One would think that would be the end of story. Kind of a boring story too.
■Ideological purity
■Compromise as weakness
■A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
■Denying science
■Unmoved by facts
■Undeterred by new information
■A hostile fear of progress
■A demonization of education
■A need to control women’s bodies
■Severe xenophobia
■Tribal mentality
■Intolerance of dissent
■Pathological hatred of US government
They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives. And they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban. And the American Taliban cannot survive if Dorothy Cooper is allowed to vote.
– Will McAvoy, The Newsroom
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The problem with the "people have a right to vote in the person who represents them" argument is that this guy's disbelief of science probably doesn't represent his constituents. But they probably never stopped to ask about that before they voted him in. They probably just voted for him because he's a republican. But, even for those who actually voted for him because of his ideas, I doubt the anti-science idea was part of his platform.
who he is and what he believes and they support him.
He is a Christian Fundamentalist unchallenged, we know who supports him
in his district, there are many.
This is not his first vocal moment. He has had his share. This appeals to many
whose Christian faith is important to them, even those who are not Fundamentalists.
Exactly. People probably voted for him in large part because he's a Christian - NOT because he opposes science. They probably never thought about his views on science. (Since when do we have to ask candidates about that?) But most Christians believe in science, so saying people voted for him because he's a Christian says nothing about their knowledge of his anti-science stance.
You may be right with your assumption _.
"Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and occupies a seat in Congress so staunchly Republican that local Democrats are not even bothering to oppose him, added that a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament informs how he governs. "
This is a bit of a worry though.... what were we saying about 'educated'/ignorance/feigned ignorance? Quite shocking poll (though, as with all polls, need to see what the scope of it was):
"Regardless of how they dovetail with mainstream science, the Congressman’s comments views may strike a chord with many right-leaning US voters. A recent Gallup Poll suggests that 46 percent of Americans think God made humans within the past 10,000 years, while only half the nation believes in evolution"
The whole poll is quite interesting. The breaking down of these figures by education, etc.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold- ... igins.aspx
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02896.html
Do they show trends over time? Like I said before, I swear this nonsense is worse than it was when I was a kid in the South with a Southern Baptist upbringing.
Depends how long ago you were a kid in the South!
Yep - the first graph shows the yearly trend since 1982. Started off at 44%, peaked at 47% (after a couple of ups and downs) but was never lower than 40% (last year).
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and liked it.
But it doesn't effect his job anyways. None of this does.
Is it yours?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
that's what was funny..the guy was an idiot....but a funny idiot
Godfather.
that is hysterical
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQOTXR9CEM
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
This is a pretty disturbing trend amongst the republicans. It is fine to think what you want, say what you want, but public policy must not be based on one group's religious views in a pluralistic society.
Plus, the anti-science and education thrust is putting our children way behind other nations academically, which will not help us in industry and technology that will help our economy in the future.
Never fear opinions and really common sense will rule as long as people are not color blind
Intelligence isn't everything in what determines a good leader, but I bet there's probably a positive correlation.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
And so they should...
Now, now Chadwick - let's not over-react
but they all lie.
that's a given.