House Science Member Says Earth is 9,000 years old by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
-What kind of COUNTRY--

The kind that only elects Republicans or Democrats and nobody else. Not a lot of competition out there, see?

---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 1:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

This is the only possible response I can make to that.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 1:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
The earth is about 9,000 years old, according to U.S. House Representative Paul Broun (R-GA), who is also a physician and member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of Representatives. “There are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth, ” Broun said in a videotape of the Sportsmen’s Banquet held on September 27 at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “I don’t believe that the earth is but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/05/house-scie
nce-member-says-earth-is-9000-years-old/
He's on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for gawd's sake!! Of course, he's a Republican from Georgia...

Text of his statements:
Quote:
BROUN: God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.

What kind of world are we living in--What kind of COUNTRY--that a representative of the government who is on the Science Committee can believe...much less SAY...things like that?!?!

Then there's my own reaction to all those poor dead deer behind him...but I won't go into that!

Totally mental!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 1:32 PM

WISHIMAY

http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-1755140
39.html

coo-coo coo-coo coo-coo
I think humanity came from a pit of hell...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 4:10 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

A Georgia right-wing tea-bagger conservative believes crazy, disproven whacked-out bullshit?

Say it ain't so!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, but he forgot to add the most important part... it's also FLAT!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:54 PM

JONGSSTRAW

And the hits just keep-a-comin'!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/06/us-usa-politics-arkansas-idU
SBRE8950FU20121006
Boy that's really somethin' special!

It's really gone beyond the pale in recent days. One idiot douchebag Republican after the next opening his stupid trogladyte mouth and saying un-imaginable things. Every turn I take I see things which just make me shake my head in utter amazement. A few of the many examples...

- A month away from the election and Sean Hannity is interviewing The Donald. What are they discussing? How the publisher of Obama's book deleted the "original" foreward that supposedly said "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia." Are you f'ing kidding me? Hannity going thru his Obama acquaintance diatribe about Wright, Ayers, Dorn, and Pflager AGAIN....kill me now, please!

- Newt Gingrich being interviewed by David Gregory for his opinion on the status of the election race. How dare that fat twat have the f'ing nerve to ever show his face in public again, let alone have an opinion that any breathing American would give two turds about.

- David Vitter saying in an interview that the EPA is dangerous to America. Well I guess if their agents won't blow you for a $20 I could see how one might feel that way.

- John McCain giving on-air advice to Romney about his campaign. Reminds me of the advice John Wilkes Booth gave to Lincoln.

I start to think about the Speaker of the House John Boehner. What a complete zero! What a total lost in the clouds buffoon. Golden Boy makes Al Franken seem like John Adams and George Washington put together. I think about Pelosi too. All five feet of her and she bitch-slapped Bush and Cheney like the incompetant amateurs they were. She was extremely effective, got her business done, and took no prisoners along the way.

Then I watch The American President for about the 20th time. One line is ringing so damn true it hurts. When Michael Douglas says "Rumson's (REPUBLICAN) problem isn't that he doesn't get it; it's that he can't sell it." Pow, zoom!

OK, I feel better now.

Hmmm, better than Reuben's.
..One more.
Ben!
..My last one.
Okay.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:55 PM

HKCAVALIER

And what is up with the army of dead deer behind him? That in a church???

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:22 AM

Yeah, Jongsie, I saw the "slavery was really a blessing for black people" guy's story hit my facebook feed on Friday. I kind of thought it almost had to be a story culled from The Onion, but sadly, it's real.

I don't know where they keep dredging up these people and voting them in (Texas sure as hell isn't innocent in that regard, either, not with electing Perry THREE FUCKING TIMES and sending that goddamned moron Louie Gohmert to the House with his "terror babies"...)

People keep saying they want a viable third party in this country. I'd settle for a viable second party!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 3:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What kind of world are we living in--What kind of COUNTRY--that a representative of the government who is on the Science Committee can believe...much less SAY...things like that?!?!

A country with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free elections?

Although I totally disagree with what Rep. Broun says, I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing his beliefs, we have much bigger problems.

Quote:
Then there's my own reaction to all those poor dead deer behind him...but I won't go into that!

Yum? All natural organic meat not produced by agrobusiness. What's not to like?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 3:50 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing his beliefs, we have much bigger problems."

So, do you think creationism should be taught in science class? More to the point, do you think an elected official's RELIGION should play a part in how PUBLIC POLICY is framed?

"All natural organic meat not produced by agrobusiness (sic). What's not to like?"

Assuming they were butchered and eaten of course. But this wouldn’t be your first, or even biggest, unsupported assumption.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What kind of world are we living in--What kind of COUNTRY--that a representative of the government who is on the Science Committee can believe...much less SAY...things like that?!?!

A country with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free elections?

Although I totally disagree with what Rep. Broun says, I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing his beliefs, we have much bigger problems.

I don't think Niki is saying CAN as in being allowed to. Of course he is allowed to.

We are all wondering how he can say that, and not be afraid of being voted out of office ASAP. What kind of country do we have that an elected official can say those things fearlessly? Maybe even with pride?

It is ultimately an indictment of our citizenry. He's just a symptom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing his beliefs, we have much bigger problems."

So, do you think creationism should be taught in science class?

Now where did I say that? Or even suggest it? Hmmm. Let's review what I wrote. Nope. Never said that.

Quote:
More to the point, do you think an elected official's RELIGION should play a part in how PUBLIC POLICY is framed?

Don't see where I said that either.

Looks like you're making the unsupported assumption that belief in personal freedom of speech and religion translates into mandated inclusion of religion in education and government.

Quote:
"All natural organic meat not produced by agrobusiness (sic). What's not to like?"

Assuming they were butchered and eaten of course. But this wouldn’t be your first, or even biggest, unsupported assumption.

Not an unsupported assumption at all. I know lots of deer hunters and they butcher and eat every deer they kill, except for the ones they donate to programs like Hunters for the Hungry, which give the meat to foodbanks (over 400,000 pounds in Virginia alone in 2010). When I hunt antelope, I surely keep every scrap I can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't think Niki is saying CAN as in being allowed to. Of course he is allowed to.

I'll wait for Niki's reply on that.

Quote:
We are all wondering how he can say that, and not be afraid of being voted out of office ASAP. What kind of country do we have that an elected official can say those things fearlessly? Maybe even with pride?

A country where the folks who elected Rep. Broun care more about what he does in Congress than what his personal beliefs are?

For example, there's this guy.

"I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. That's what I strive to do. That's what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith."

Would you elect someone who considered public service as a way to express his Christian faith? A faith based on sacrifice to achieve salvation? Do you expect Barack Obama to be voted out of office?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Geezer

Shall I remind you of what you posted?

"A country with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free elections?

Although I totally disagree with what REP. Broun says, I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow HIM to believe or SAY THINGS LIKE THAT, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing HIS BELIEFS, we have much bigger problems."

You are defending his right to say things like that AS A PUBLIC SERVANT IN THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS DUTIES. You are defending his right to bring HIS RELIGION into PUBLIC POLICY.

"I know lots of deer hunters and they butcher and eat every deer ..."

Shall we discuss THOSE SPECIFIC DEER on the wall, the ones Niki commented on and to which you responded with your usual ASSumptions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I think that if we ever reach the point where the COUNTRY doesn't allow him to believe or say things like that, or allow the folks in his district to elect him while knowing his beliefs, we have much bigger problems."

So, do you think creationism should be taught in science class?

Now where did I say that? Or even suggest it? Hmmm. Let's review what I wrote. Nope. Never said that.

That's because it was a question, not a statement.

Will you move on to second grade reading skills someday?

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

You are defending his right to say things like that AS A PUBLIC SERVANT IN THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS DUTIES. You are defending his right to bring HIS RELIGION into PUBLIC POLICY.

No. I'm defending his right to say those things as a personal expression of his belief. Should politicians not have, or be able to state, their personal beliefs?

Now when President Obama says something like, "I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.", do you worry that he's bringing his RELIGION into PUBLIC POLICY?

Quote:
"I know lots of deer hunters and they butcher and eat every deer ..."

Sall(sic) we discuss THOSE SPECIFIC DEER on the wall, the ones Niki commented on and to which you resopnded (sic) with your usual ASSumptions (sic).

Any evidence that they were not butchered and eaten? Any evidence that there are any great number of deer killed by hunters and not eaten? Given that pretty much all deer that are killed by hunters I know (and that's a pretty good sample), even for trophies, are butchered (Who'd want to throw away several hundred dollars of meat?) I'd have to say you're making a poor assumption based on no data and invalid preconceptions (yet again).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:04 AM

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

He's got a valid point.

That's probably why you hate him so much.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

So busy acting persecuted, he still can't answer a question.

Chickenshit.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:39 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

He's got a valid point.

That's probably why you hate him so much.

AND THE TAG TEAM'S BACK IN ACTION!!!!!!

Why would I hate Story?

Pity, maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

But back on topic.

Kiki. I get the sense that you think that Rep. Broun should not be allowed to hold office because of his religious beliefs.

I wonder if you feel the same way about Pres. Obama, who says his public service is a way to express his Christian faith?

Mike, Story, you can chip in too.

Be nice to hear from Niki on this as well, since she brought it up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
A country where the folks who elected Rep. Broun care more about what he does in Congress than what his personal beliefs are?

Hmm, you don't think his personal beliefs on evolution coming from the pit of hell might affect what he does in his Congressional committee on Science, Space, and Technology?

Or how he might vote on an education bill where evolution might be an issue?

I think his personal beliefs here go beyond "we need a savior" and Jesus is awesome. They hold direct implications on policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

He's got a valid point.

That's probably why you hate him so much.

AND THE TAG TEAM'S BACK IN ACTION!!!!!!

Why would I hate Story?

Pity, maybe.

Typical Geezer, point out he's a coward, and he whines that more than one person noticed.

You're as big a joke as whozit or rappy. A coward with a big mouth, but not enough character to back his ideology.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:53 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Geezer

As he stated in his little speech "IT TEACHES US HOW TO RUN PUBLIC POLICY". That is what you are defending. OOPS.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But back on topic.

Kiki. I get the sense that you think that Rep. Broun should not be allowed to hold office because of his religious beliefs.

I wonder if you feel the same way about Pres. Obama, who says his public service is a way to express his Christian faith?

Mike, Story, you can chip in too.

Be nice to hear from Niki on this as well, since she brought it up.

You keep expecting US to answer your questions, when you don't have the balls to answer the ones posed to you?

Fuck off.

When you grow a spine, we can talk.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As for what I meant by my remark, CTTS nailed it. I can't help wondering how any kind of sane country wouild ELECT someone to our governing body who holds such extremely anti-science opinions, and how a responsible, governing body can put such a person on their SCIENCE committee. Of course he's got the right to believe what he does, and say it, write it, scream it to the heavens...Geezer was just deliberately "misunderstanding" what I was saying.

And I'm not gonna let him jerk my chain like he is the rest of yours; it's patently obvious what he's doing and not worth anybody's time. The simple fact is that people who hold such extreme, unscientific and ignorant views do not belong in a responsible government where their views unquestionably WILL affect decisions they make in governing. They can't help it; it's impossible to believe as he does and make objective, logical decisions..about SCIENCE of all things!

There is no comparison with Obama who, yes, is instructed by his faith, as are so many of our representatives, but that doesn't mean he rejects science, which this man obviously does. As Kiki also pointed out, he says himself that his beliefs "teach us how to run public policy" and as CTTS noted, "hold direct implications on policy". Ergo, he intends his beliefs to decide how to GOVERN. That's a far cry from freedom of speech.

This man is in the same class as those quoted by Jong:

Quote:
his self-published 2009 book titled "Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative," state Representative Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro, Arkansas, writes that "the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise."

Hubbard, a retired teacher and Vietnam veteran who was elected to the statehouse in 2010, also wrote, "Wouldn't life for blacks in America today be more enjoyable and successful if they would only learn to appreciate the value of a good education?"

His book also says that blacks "are likely much better than they ever would have enjoyed living in sub-Saharan Africa."

...or this one:

Quote:
Charles Fuqua of Batesville, Arkansas, is currently seeking a House of Representatives seat. His e-book "God's Law: The Only Political Solution" came out in April on Amazon.

"I see no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States," he writes in his book, according to The Arkansas Times newspaper.

These people do NOT belong in a body which is writing our laws, period. Can someone who believes slavery was a BLESSING, even in only one context, objectively write laws about African-Americans, education, or civil rights? Very doubtful. Can someone like the other be trusted to objectively write laws about Muslims, given his belief in such a "solution"?

We have many, many people in our governing bodies who don't belong there...Michelle Bachman among them...and if America were a more rational country, they wouldn't BE there. They are no doubt representational of a what a small minority believe, but their beliefs are irrational and this is not a country intended to be represented by a small minority of irrational people.

There is a point beyond which a person's opinions, irrational yet strongly held, should exclude them from being part of a rational governing body, in my opinion.

I have no doubt Geez will come back with some argument or other which is as specious as those he's already made, but I'm not about to get into a pissing contest with him by "debating" questions about which he is not, as I see it, debating, but merely yanking your chains.

p.s. While I agree with Jong about a few of the people he listed, I happen to think Newt Gingrich and John McCain have every right to express their opinions and give advice, whatever my opinion of them or that advice may be. So do Hannity, The Donald and Vitter; however, I would lump them in the other category and not want any of them in a responsible government either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
A country where the folks who elected Rep. Broun care more about what he does in Congress than what his personal beliefs are?
Hmm, you don't think his personal beliefs on evolution coming from the pit of hell might affect what he does in his Congressional committee on Science, Space, and Technology?

Or how he might vote on an education bill where evolution might be an issue?

I think his personal beliefs here go beyond "we need a savior" and Jesus is awesome. They hold direct implications on policy.

Exactly. Sure, he's able to hold office if the dipshits in his district are stupid enough to elect him, which they quite clearly are. But should he be serving on a SCIENCE committee? Should we have people making recommendations about laws regarding science who do not believe that science exists, or is real?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Kiki asks a question, Geezer pretends its a statement so as to dismiss it, then proceeds to ask a series of questions of Kiki, clearly expecting to be shown a courtesy he was not willing to give himself.

Amazing.

Ah, yes. Sir Story to the rescue. Well, Kiki does need some help.

He's got a valid point.

That's probably why you hate him so much.

AND THE TAG TEAM'S BACK IN ACTION!!!!!!

Why would I hate Story?

Pity, maybe.

Yes, any time more than one person disagrees with the old-timer, it MUST be a coordinated effort. It couldn't possibly be that two separate people think Geezer's a dishonest fool.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:57 AM

MAL4PREZ

Maybe I ought to join a local church and use my atheistic scientific rational thought process as a guide while I rewrite their Bible. (Of course, to make the analogy complete, the congregation would HAVE to obey my new rules, as these asshat politicians would force their religion-based laws on me.) I'm sure Geezer would fully support my endeavor.

Just like he must support leaders in other countries who create legal systems based on their religion belief systems. You know, like Sharia Law.

Really, I wish we could throw all these Baggers together in the southern states, put up a fence, and let them have their Teabagwhackistan with Christsharia law. Let's see how non-intrusive their Pope-lead, sex-obsessed govt turns out, how clean their environment and free their market with no regulations to hold the corporate monsters in check. Let's listen to them howl when they no longer get financial aid from the blue states, and watch their middle class be reduced to serfdom. And of course, they won't make advances in science and technology because physics, math, and engineering aren't written in the Bible.

Who knows. It could be kind of fun to have a backwards medieval feudal state as a neighbor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

As he stated in his little speech "IT TEACHES US HOW TO RUN PUBLIC POLICY". That is what you are defending. OOPS.

No. I'm defending his right to say that. I'm defending his constituents' right to elect him because of, or in spite of, him saying that. I'd do the same if he was referring to Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book instead of the Bible.

If Pres. Obama can say "I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith", I don't see why Rep. Broun can't say the Bible teaches us how to run public policy. I disagree with both of them about the concept of religion in public policy, and I'd campaign against either one if I thought they were going to try to put it there, but I wouldn't deny them the right to their opinion or the ability to campaign based on it.

So once again, are you saying he shouldn't be able to run for office because of his beliefs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Hmm, you don't think his personal beliefs on evolution coming from the pit of hell might affect what he does in his Congressional committee on Science, Space, and Technology?

Or how he might vote on an education bill where evolution might be an issue?

I think his personal beliefs here go beyond "we need a savior" and Jesus is awesome. They hold direct implications on policy.

More than President Obama saying "I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith."?

And, as noted, if his district elects him to implement those things in public policy, that's their right. It's your right to elect someone who believes in evolution, or global warming, or the Flat Tax, etc. So? You want to say what policy people can and can't support?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:13 AM

And he STILL doesn't find the nerve to answer the question posed. Priceless.

And, in more Teapublican/American Taliban news:

Arkansas GOP Candidate Charlie Fuqua endorses the death penalty for "rebellious children."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candid
ate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html

But no, we shouldn't critisize anyone in office (or running for office) for adhering to barabaric notions based on old fairytales. Unless they're Muslim, of course.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The simple fact is that people who hold such extreme, unscientific and ignorant views do not belong in a responsible government where their views unquestionably WILL affect decisions they make in governing.

Depending on who's deciding what's extreme, unscientific and ignorant. Consider the Progressives and eugenics as an example of liberal, scientific, and intelligent decisions in governing - and the results.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And, as noted, if his district elects him to implement those things in public policy, that's their right. It's your right to elect someone who believes in evolution, or global warming, or the Flat Tax, etc.

Hmmm... no, I don't think it's a peoples' right to elect someone who's going to enforce religious beliefs as a matter of public policy. I believe that was decided a while ago and written into.... (rummages among some moldy old documents) .... the Constitution.

There is a REASON why the Founding Fathers specifically did not mention god, and banned the idea of a public religion, and that was the countless wars fought over how their collective invisible friend "really" wanted to be worshiped and what that invisible friend "truly" demanded. The leading FFs were deists. If they believed in anything, it was enlightenment (that WAS the Age of Enlightenment, if you recall). They would be horrified that anyone so retrogressive would be in office.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:26 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And he STILL doesn't find the nerve to answer the question posed. Priceless.

Since you won't stop whining about it...

"So, do you think creationism should be taught in science class?"

No. In comparative religion, possibly.

If Rep. Broun wants to push for creationism to be taught in science class, or his district wants him to, that's their right. My right is to push back. But it's not my right to deny them their voice in the matter.

"More to the point, do you think an elected official's RELIGION should play a part in how PUBLIC POLICY is framed?"

Why not? I expect that the education, philosophy, political outlook, biases, prejudices, likes, and dislikes of politicians and of their electorate and contributors will play a part in how PUBLIC POLICY is framed, so why not their RELIGION as well? I know I expect the folks I vote for to reflect my opinions in PUBLIC POLICY.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:32 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I'm defending his constituents' right to elect him because of, or in spite of, him saying that. I'd do the same if he was referring to Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book instead of the Bible.'

Then you would be wrong. The Bible is religion, while Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red Book are political discourse.

Your entire attempt to defend the use of religion in framing public policy is worse than mistaken, it's unconstitutional. The Constitution being, yanno, that thing you swore to uphold and defend.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
And, as noted, if his district elects him to implement those things in public policy, that's their right. It's your right to elect someone who believes in evolution, or global warming, or the Flat Tax, etc.
Hmmm... no, I don't think it's a peoples' right to elect someone who's going to enforce religious beliefs as a matter of public policy. I believe that was decided a while ago and written into.... (rummages among some moldy old documents) .... the Constitution.

Well, Hallelujah!!! Someone finally figured it out.

His district can elect him to try and implement pretty much any public policy they want - re-institute slavery, allow quartering of troops on the people in time of peace, deny the franchise to women, make worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the official American religion - but he still can't do stuff that's prohibited by the law of the land (Unless he can get a Constitutional Amendment passed, of course).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I'm defending his constituents' right to elect him because of, or in spite of, him saying that. I'd do the same if he was referring to Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book instead of the Bible.'

Then you would be wrong. The Bible is religion, while Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red Book are political discourse.

All three are belief systems.

Quote:
Your entire attempt to defend the use of religion in framing public policy is worse than mistaken, it's unconstitutional. The Constitution being, yanno, that thing you swore to uphold and defend.

See my response to SignyM above. They can elect Rep. Broun to do anything they want. That's their right. Whether he can actully do any of those things depends on their Constitutionality, which I have understood all along.

That's why I have no problem with folks electing a Rep. Broun - waving the Bible, Das Kapital, or the Little Red Book. I know that there are Constitutional protections in place to prevent the things you'd ban by decree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And, as noted, if his district elects him to implement those things in public policy, that's their right.

Of course it is their right. You are deliberately ignoring all the posts where we say his right to speak and believe, and their right to elect is NOT in dispute.

Quote:
So? You want to say what policy people can and can't support?

I want to say what policy people SHOULD and SHOULDN'T support. Just get the word "can" out of this argument, because "can" is a given.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 9:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Das Kapital (have you read it?) is an economic theory which attempts to analyze the flow of money under capitalism. But there is no god in it, and no appeal to the supernatural. If people choose to "believe" in it... as some "believe" in Ayn Rand... that doesn't make it a "belief system".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

And just to wind you all up a bit more, consider your wish that the Bible not be used to create public policy.

Note that once you get past the religious mumbo-jumbo, there's some pretty good ideas in the Bible.

Don't murder, steal, lie, covet, cheat on your spouse. Take care of your parents. Feed the poor. Help the sick. Treat folks the way you want to be treated (of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass, but it's a good idea for most other folks

). Now that we know about refrigeration and proper cooking, ham and shellfish should be okay, but back then, they were pretty dangerous.

Then again, there's some pretty good ideas in other holy books, once you take the "Holy" part out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:05 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't murder, steal, lie, covet, cheat on your spouse. Take care of your parents. Feed the poor. Help the sick. Treat folks the way you want to be treated

Do you really need a 2000 year old collection of fables to tell you all this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And just to wind you all up a bit more, consider your wish that the Bible not be used to create public policy.

Note that once you get past the religious mumbo-jumbo, there's some pretty good ideas in the Bible.

Don't murder, steal, lie, covet, cheat on your spouse. Take care of your parents. Feed the poor. Help the sick. Treat folks the way you want to be treated...

None of which are to be found in the GOP platform, of course.

Quote:

(of course, for Story that'd mean going around trying to screw guys in the ass, but it's a good idea for most other folks).

Homophobe much? Hey, at least now we know why you hate Story so much...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't murder, steal, lie, covet, cheat on your spouse. Take care of your parents. Feed the poor. Help the sick. Treat folks the way you want to be treated

Do you really need a 2000 year old collection of fables to tell you all this?

Especially when all that stuff was old hat before that book of fables was written?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I'm defending his constituents' right to elect him because of, or in spite of, him saying that. I'd do the same if he was referring to Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book instead of the Bible.'

Then you would be wrong. The Bible is religion, while Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red Book are political discourse.

All three are belief systems.

Quote:
Your entire attempt to defend the use of religion in framing public policy is worse than mistaken, it's unconstitutional. The Constitution being, yanno, that thing you swore to uphold and defend.

See my response to SignyM above. They can elect Rep. Broun to do anything they want. That's their right. Whether he can actully do any of those things depends on their Constitutionality, which I have understood all along.

That's why I have no problem with folks electing a Rep. Broun - waving the Bible, Das Kapital, or the Little Red Book. I know that there are Constitutional protections in place to prevent the things you'd ban by decree.

So free-market capitalism is a religion?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And, as noted, if his district elects him to implement those things in public policy, that's their right.

Of course it is their right. You are deliberately ignoring all the posts where we say his right to speak and believe, and their right to elect is NOT in dispute.

Well, no. I keep insisting that it is the right of his district to elect him, and his right to speak and believe. That's all I've been saying. You may have noticed that there are a bunch of folks here arguing with me about that. If they agree with me, why are they doing that?

Quote:
Quote:
So? You want to say what policy people can and can't support?
I want to say what policy people SHOULD and SHOULDN'T support. Just get the word "can" out of this argument, because "can" is a given.

Do you mean you want to be able to express an opinion about what policy people SHOULD and SHOULDN'T support? That's fine with me. You can do that at the ballot box in about a month. "I want to say..." comes across a bit like "I want to dictate what policy people SHOULD and SHOULDN'T support".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 10:13 AM