Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

_

redrock wrote:

_ wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

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.

redrock

_ wrote:

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).

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i see the trend here...

■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?

pandora

_ wrote:

pandora wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i see the trend here...

■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?

chadwick

Godfather. wrote:

chadwick wrote:

http://youtu.be/HUODkd9_8-E
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!

this one was better,I laughed all the way thru it

Godfather.

ooop's this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FUWyxmW ... re=related

how is this funny? this dude is a fucking idiot

Godfather.

chadwick wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

chadwick wrote:

http://youtu.be/HUODkd9_8-E
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!

this one was better,I laughed all the way thru it

Godfather.

ooop's this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FUWyxmW ... re=related

how is this funny? this dude is a fucking idiot

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

Godfather.

chadwick

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

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?

fuck yes
that is hysterical

BinauralJam

Godfather. wrote:

chadwick wrote:

http://youtu.be/HUODkd9_8-E
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!

this one was better,I laughed all the way thru it

Godfather.

ooop's this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FUWyxmW ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQOTXR9CEM

rollings

I always thought evolution was from yield

chadwick

pandora wrote:

not for you moonpig for the other lady


please do us both a favor then and don't have it

you are a trouble maker, pandora.

grooveme

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i see the trend here...

■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.

pandora

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

not for you moonpig for the other lady


please do us both a favor then and don't have it

you are a trouble maker, pandora.

where's your wink ... you are the queen of trouble

pandora

grooveme wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i see the trend here...

■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

rollings

I think that those who are running for any kind of politicial office should be given IQ tests and the test scores revealed to the public.

Intelligence isn't everything in what determines a good leader, but I bet there's probably a positive correlation.

rollings

an "opinion" of something really stupid. ...is still.....really stupid

chadwick

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.

redrock

chadwick wrote:

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....

And so they should...

chadwick wrote:

.... as well as be expected to be kicked repeatedly in the groin until the earth's birthday of 9,001 years.

Now, now Chadwick - let's not over-react

pandora

I'd rather have lie detector tests

rollings

pandora wrote:

I'd rather have lie detector tests

but they all lie.

that's a given.