Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Nov 7, 2012.
This is why it matters what a politician thinks about science.
The Republican...theocratic (for lack of a better term) wing, is quite powerful and determined.
To quote Congressman Broun, "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 our 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.”
Good luck getting through that.
I should also mention Republican congressman Ralph Hall who has said that we shouldn't take action concerning climate change, because, (and I quote) "I don’t think we can control what God controls."
Naturally, Mr. Hall is the chairman of the House science committee.
Hearing things like that makes me crazy.
I almost had an aneurysm when I read Broun's comments.
So, if someone asks you why they should care about a politicians views on science... now you know why they should.
Unless you like having your scientific decisions being made by people who think the Earth is 9,000 years old, and that Charles Darwin is demon spawn.
I can't take it anymore.
Im willing to bet these people rant and deride sharia law yet have no idea they are promoting the same thing.
This is why PhD's in a scientific field should be required to be in the science committee. Real PhDs. Not one from those degree factories.
Honestly as long as the republican party is associated with people like this and things of this nature I wont vote for them.
Actually, the Republican party isn't associated with people like this... it is people like this.
Moderate Republicans are an endangered species.
Just look at Romney. He had to take Rick Santorum's positions just to be eligible to be their candidate.
Senator Richard Luger lost his job to Richard Moudrock (who then lost). Olympia Snowe is retiring...
Ok guys, enough religion mocking. Let's keep the topic on the Republicans.
I don't think being religious automatically means you're ignorant of science or other religions. I have a devoutly Christian coworker who holds a Bible study with her kids every morning before they go to school. But the thing is, she believes in separation of church and state (doesn't think there's ENOUGH separation in the US right now), and acknowledges that Christianity is not the only religion out there. Hence why we need separation of church and state.
If you're ignorant of other religions and science, that just means you're ignorant. If you're a politician, you're willfully ignorant, which is even worse.
The topic was on Republicans.
There is a difference between debate on a Party's positions and mocking them and posting mocking videos.
Not sure if you are including me, but for the record i wasn't mocking them. Their stance on this is a legitimate and pressing concern of mine and this being a thread regarding the party i thought it was within the guidlines. This is a big problem within the party so I would think it is very relevant to discussions about the party. If you weren't referring to me then ignore this post.
Thanks for the link.
God i love logic.
Im gonna post the article if thats ok.
Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders
...there are no words.
After last night's concession by West, the House will be 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats.
Still could change based on the results of the last 2 still going races, though.
Agreed, this is exactly why I cannot in good conscience vote for the Republican party, especially when I live in Tennessee, and Tennessee Republicans are all about representing "Tennessee Values" which is basically anti-gay, anti-Muslim, imposing Biblican morality on all of society because we're "Christians before Americans"...
Hats off to you, Sir. I live in a fairly Republican county but they're Northern Republicans. I think Southern Republicans (with all due respect to the Southern posters here) are quite a bit more hardcore.
Southern republicans, at least those of an older generation, in and around my state tend to be stubborn and stuck in their ways. And generally those ways are no longer socially acceptable in a modern progressive society.
Every time someone says "Progressive" I see some creepy religious universalist Quaker lunatic.
Lol i just mean moving with socially acceptable standards and morals and adhering to the known scientific facts of the time. You know, the opposite of antiquated ass backwardness.
Tho i would like to know why you connect progressiveness with quakers who unless memory fails are not considered progressive.
Actually it's 234 R 200 D with 1 seat left that most likely will go D. There actually is one more seat up for grabs but it's 2 Republicans going against eachother(which I counted as part of the 234 since it will be R either way)
Agreed. You give me a socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate, and I can probably get behind that.
Although I do think that I'm even fairly fiscally liberal as well, so I don't know lol. I'm not too in the know when it comes to economic issues. I know my stance on certain areas, but a lot of stuff I have to admit being uneducated on.