"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries."
What I don’t understand is how people like this think parents AREN’T teaching their kids about faith and how their faith defines the creation of the universe. Like, is EVERY child a Christian? No. So, then, why should we be teaching something in school that is based on faith when there are so many different religions? Isn’t it just easier to teach the thing that is based in science and is an observable fact and leave the faith guidance up to parents?
Since when did a person’s religious education become something EVERYONE was responsible for teaching? Like, just be a parent and talk to your kid about your religious believes and stop whining about how it’s not taught in school. There’s a reason it’s not and it’s not because little Suzy is an oppressed Christian, it’s because there are other kids in her class who aren’t and ALL of them are entitled to receive a scientific education that doesn’t force them to learn about the book of genesis.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch: conservatives who oppose President Obama will “soon become the ‘new [n-words]’.”
Mr. Klayman warns in his World Net Daily column that conservatives who oppose President Obama will “soon become the ‘new [n-words]’.”
That column, titled “God has a bigger plan” starts out:
Many times in the history of the world, God has destroyed His people and started anew when they strayed from His word. Just ask Noah what the flood was all about! This time, even with the floods of Hurricane Sandy and the re-election of the President Barack Hussein Obama, God has spared us for the moment. Instead God has sent a dire warning and encouraged We the People to rise up, in His name, to restore His kingdom.
He claims had Romney won the election:
many among the flock would have been lulled asleep and deluded into thinking that a Moses had appeared to deliver us out of the Egyptian-like bondage we find ourselves in – thanks to our “Mullah in Chief” and his growing voter hoards of socialists, communists, anti-Semites, anti-Christians, atheists, radical gays and lesbians, feminists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, anti-Anglo whites and others who last Tuesday cemented his destructive hold on the White House and our country.
He goes on to say that, “uneducated and lazy morons, goons and thugs who want to dismantle all our Founding Fathers conceived of and fought for.”
All before finally saying:
“With no racial slur intended, but only to employ the same lingo used sarcastically by many of Obama’s supporters to describe their past plight, if we do nothing and simply look to future elections to restore the nation, we will soon become the ‘new [n-words]’.”
He goes on to rant about how he’s going to form a “Citizens Grand Jury” and indict the President and Vice President for treason as well as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for upholding the ACA, calls of civil unrest and talks a whole lot about how Obama winning the election was a sign from god that “we” must rise up against the “bondage and slavery Obama and his rising tide of supporters have in store”.
What you are seeing here is someone flipping out that white christians just might be losing some of that privilege.
This guy has a SERIOUS case of diaper rash.
I have no words…
5 Conservative Explanations for Romney’s Loss
From Ben Adler’s latest.
1. Romney was too moderate.
“As I wrote would happen, Mitt Romney tried to blur lines with Barack Obama. He did not defend social conservatism, but let those attacks go unanswered. He did not articulate strong fiscal conservatism and he never repudiated Romneycare, thereby failing to make any credible attacks on Obamacare.” —Erick Erickson, RedState (11/12/2012)
2. The American people are a bunch of stupid, mooching jerks.
“The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.” —Bill O’Reily, Fox News (11/06/2012)
3. It was the media’s fault.
“I don’t believe the Republican Party has the ability to rebrand itself against the mainstream media machine that blatantly works to support this president and other liberals as well as the Democrats and works blatantly to try and tarnish the brand of what the Republican Party stands for.” —Herman Cain, Focal Point With Brian Fischer (11/07/2012)
4. We didn’t really lose.
“Obama won a smaller percentage of American votes in his reelection than in his win in 2008.America gave him less support after watching him govern for four years than when he ran promising hope and change. Normally a reelected president expands his margin of support.” —Grover Norquist, National Review (11/07/2012)
5. We only lost because of Hurricane Sandy.
“The president was also lucky. This time, the October surprise was not a dirty trick but an act of God. Hurricane Sandy interrupted Mr. Romney’s momentum and allowed Mr. Obama to look presidential and bipartisan.” —Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal (11/07/2012)
Despite constantly banging on about personal responsibility, many conservatives seem to have a lot of trouble accepting responsibility for their failures.
The US Electoral map resized to represent the population of each state.
I like this map because I imagine smashing the republican party and that’s a glorious feeling.
This is a great rebuttal to those people who look at all the vast, empty acres of red on the map and conclude that most of the country’s voices are being ignored if President Obama won.
Romney - Red & Obama - Blue
It’s a sad day when the majority of Americans voted for someone to be President and our voices got OVER-RULED.
Maybe after these 4 years y’all will understand that Obama was not the best choice for moving this country, ‘forward.’
It’s all the damn big cities
I wish people in cities couldn’t vote. They don’t understand what it means to be American. They don’t understand our principles, and they don’t understand our Constitution.
The heartland of America will save this nation, mark my words.
You’re wishing that more than half of the population of the country would lose their voting rights and be subject to the whims of a minority. Tell me how that reflects our principles or our Constitution, I would love to know.
Dear people who don’t know how county voting maps work.
Just because the red covers most of the map doesn’t mean that “most of the country voted for Romney”.
This sort of map measures what direction each county in America went.
There could be all of ONE person in that county; if they voted Romney, then it would be a giant red spot on the map.
This is why “most of the map” appears to be red. Because in counties where they were very few people, most of those people voted Romney. Not even all of them. Just most of them, making that county red.
I repeat: If a county has 100 people in it, if 51 people voted Romney, it’s a bright red.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR ROMNEY.
In fact, the majority of this country DID NOT vote for Romney.
Over 50% of voters voted Obama. Just because those spots seem to be scattered blue points doesn’t mean that it “wasn’t a lot of people”.
It means that those people are concentrated in those counties.
So basically: If 1000 people live in a large county, very spread out, and 1,000,000 people live in a very, very small county, very close together, but the small county voted Obama and the large Romney, it’s not “more people” because of the space the county takes up.
If 501 people voted for Romney, the county is red. It would take 500,001 people to make the eensy weensy crowded county blue.
That’s not “majority”.
Also y’all is dumb as fuck.
Reblogged because all of this information seems to be lost on more than a few….
i can’t believe mitt romney got arrested for possession of cocaine in college but then they LET HIM GO that’s the most ridiculous thing i’ve ever heard
The reluctance of the educational system - public and private - to grasp the Chinese nettle is a metaphor for a much wider problem: our ignorance about China and our failure to appreciate just how much it will change the world and transform our lives.
The great task facing the West over the next century will be to make sense of China - not in our terms but in theirs. We have to understand China as it is and as it has been, not project our own history, culture, institutions and values onto it. It will always fail that test. In truth such a mentality tells us more about our own arrogance and lack of curiosity than anything about China.
Let’s take one example. We assume that the nation-state, that long-standing and remarkably influential European invention, is more or less universal. True, China has called itself a nation-state for about a century. But 100 years is a mere pin-prick for a country that dates back over two millennia. Modern China emerged in 221. By the time of the Han dynasty - still more than 2,000 years ago - China’s borders already closely resembled those of eastern and central China today. China is very old, the longest continuously-existing polity in the world. And for more than 2,000 years, it was not a nation-state but a civilisation-state. In essence it still is."
imagine that you have a four year old and a really beautiful giant chocolate cake
and you put the cake in front of the kid and that’s it you dont give her any plates or any utensils you just sort of set the cake down in front of the kid and then tell her not to eat it
and the reason you tell her not to eat it is because she’ll get messy or she’ll eat too much and get sick but instead of telling her that you just sort of look at her and then go ‘yeah’ and walk away and leave her to her own devices
and then obviously the minute you walk out of the room she’s begins that cake i mean come on it’s chocolate and beautiful and yeah you told her not to eat it but you know what fuck that noise it’s a perfectly good cake why not
so she digs in but you didnt give her anything just the cake ( and what a beautiful cake it is ) so she just sort of digs in with her hands and she gets it everywhere and then eventually she’s eaten so much that she gets sick and you come back in a couple of minutes later and she’s there sprawled on her chair with cake all over her face and floor and feeling like she’s going to vomit and you shake your head at that four year old and go ‘i did all i could this is all her fault now’
that’s abstinence-only sex education
- Romney, 9.06 PM: we can't kill our way out of this
- Romney, 9.08 PM: my strategy is to kill the bad guys
"Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are unlikely to do it very well."
political scientist Michael Wolfe, quoted in Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007)
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) - Abortion never saves mother’s life; there is no such exception as life of the mother.
Abortion bans don’t need exceptions for the life of the mother because of “modern technology and science,” Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said Thursday.
“With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” of an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother, Walsh said after a debate with Tammy Duckworth, his Democratic opponent, according to the Chicago Tribune. “… There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
Walsh’s comments bring to mind Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin’s assertion that rape exceptions aren’t necessary in abortion bans because the female body can’t get pregnant in cases of “legitimate rape.” Akin’s comments have severely damaged his effort to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
In February 2011, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) spoke on the House floor about an abortion she had because the pregnancy was threatening her life.
Walsh, whose cable news appearances and tea party rhetoric have frequently drawn headlines, was trailing Duckworth 52 percent to 38 percent in September, according to the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. A We Ask America poll conducted earlier this week found a tiny lead for Walsh, 47 percent to 46 percent.
Why doesn’t the media call motherfuckers out on blatant lies like this. These motherfuckers say anything they want, and then the motherfuckers who vote for them repeat the same bullshit over and over - and I can’t believe this fucking tool is leading in polls.
I can’t even come up with the words to explain just how angry this statement makes me, how disappointed it makes me.
The idea that a man with no medical degree or concept of the possible pregnancy complications that can and DO happen that could kill the pregnant person gets to say something like this as nonchalantly and flippantly as he has is disgusting. The idea that he gets to say this as if he’s some kind of expert on the matter upsets me to no end.
What this quote is implying in a larger sense is that NO ONE should die, ever, because SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. Does he not realize that people die in childbirth all the time and science and technology still can’t save them? I mean, if people are dying in childbirth then they can most certainly die during a not full-term pregnancy, too.
I don’t understand why the media absolutely REFUSES to call these assholes out. I don’t understand why he is still winning against Tammy Duckworth. I don’t understand why he hasn’t burned just like Akin did.
It’s time that the ignorance these male politicians have regarding the female reproductive system needs to be punished. You don’t get to talk about stuff you have no fucking clue about and not face the repercussions of it.
Elected officials should ave to take a basic science test in order to hold office. Nothing big, no scary-ass equations or anything, but, like like, you need to know a few things about reality.
I think, at the very least, anyone who is appointed to committees that deal with science and technology should be able to prove they are scientifically literate; ie: knowing and understanding what a credible source is and how to determine if something is a reliable source, how to read a scientific study and interpret the results to be accurate based on certain parameters, and recognizing that evolution and climate change are real, tangible things.
You can’t expect to have a committee present accurate, efficient, and helpful legislation on climate change if half the people on it refuse to even acknowledge that it’s happening and in the process screwing over the rest of the country while we face the real and tangible effects of it with mass flooding, drought, tornadoes, blizzards, and severe hurricanes.
I also believe that EVERY politician elected to a public office like the House and Senate should be required to take and pass the same test we require people to take in order to gain citizenship. EVERY politician, maybe every time they are up for re-election and if they don’t pass it after a second try, they are ineligible to run in that election.
"An 80-year-old woman who remembers when the United States helped defeat the Nazis faces charges for tearing down posters of President Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache."