Hello, I’d like to add you to my professional network on Linkedin!
I wonder how many conservatives actually believe this versus how many just really like money.
You know, I’ve always said that I didn’t want to be given a job because I was a female, I wanted it because I was the most well-qualified person for the job.
Granted that was Rep. Blackburn explaining why she’s opposed to pay equity laws that would require companies to pay women the same as their male counterparts, and it’s entirely possible that she wasn’t given this job because she’s a woman, but it’s still been given to her in spite of a staggering lack of qualifications.
I have long suspected there are some people who don’t really believe things or understand what the word “believe” is supposed to mean in the first place, but realize that claiming to believe certain things buys social status and take advantage of that fact.
When asked what evidence would convince her of the reality of climate change, she showed remarkable self-awareness, answering “I don’t think you will see me being persuaded.”
That right there is the difference between being a skeptic and being a denier. Deniers usually aren’t so upfront about it, though.
The right has been getting increasingly worse at hiding their real attitudes and intentions over the past few years.
“I’m not a scientist” but I’m going to present my personal belief system as science (fact). Give her a few months, she’ll be tossing a snowball onto the House floor.
I wish the GOP would just admit that their platform is “Opposite of Obama”. They don’t seem to do anything else. Hell, their presidential candidates are even running against Obama like he’s trying to be reelected.
Attacking the current administration is a well-worn election time tactic.
They are a platform that hides their true agenda of favoring the wealthy and corporations behind fear mongering and reactionary opposition. Obama is just the latest focus for their smoke screen, it can be anything really, doesn’t matter what, so long as it keeps the sheeple fired up and ignorant that they are voting against their own interests.
We live in an age when the guy who has this fresco in his house…
…says stuff like “God is not a magician with a magic wand,” but where the GOP leaders who want us to remain dependent on dinosaur-juice-based energy flat-out refuse to believe in dinosaurs.
Attacking Obama, Pelosi, Reid, “Liberals”, etc. is a tactic to keep the rabble riled up and make it hard for the opposition to get anything coherent done. It’s worked for them, so they keep doing it, but it’s not the content. Tax cuts for the rich, preventing regulation of energy production and consumption that might interfere with profits, corporate welfare for their cronies, continuous wars to maintain continuous military-industrial business and maintain support for war-mongering politicians, continuing the big prison and police businesses and the drug war that supports them, all of those are core values for the Republican Party (and for not a few Democrats as well.)
Evolution Denialism is useful because it keeps a certain voting block showing up at the polls, but it’s even more useful because it makes it easier to sell Climate Change Denialism, which is the message the party’s Corporate Sponsors really care about.
If a Republican hired someone to do a job and then they refused to do it or even learn how to do it, what would their reaction be? Fire them, right? And yet they’re quite happy with politicians who refuse to do their jobs, or even learn about them properly, but still suckle from the government’s teat anyway.
She should be called what she is: a real “welfare queen”.
In comparison with the military-industrial complex, she’s at most a kid playing a welfare princess.
She’ll play well with the right-libertarians and unreconstructed capitalists and crackpot social conservatives of the GOP… wait, I mean essentially the entire GOP. Ain’t much left of the Rockefeller/Eisenhower wing.
To be fair to this zany lady, I also ignore the Pope’s pleas about climate change, not because I disagree with him but because he’s the freakin’ Pope. Leading a cult of human sacrifice says nothing about the veracity of one’s views on climate science. If he were to climatology what Georges Lemaitre was to physics, then it’d be reasonable to care about his opinion. He is not. I gather he knows a bit about psychology but is mostly interested in philosophy.
I think the important thing in the Pope’s case is that he has the potential to change the minds of some folks that do not trust science. It may also inspire other religious leaders to step forward to share concerns that they feared to share in the current religious climate. It is certainly better than the Pope saying God is all for fracking and hates solar power. There is no inherent reason why religious folks need to be against healthy climate policy. They could just as easily interpret being given domain over the planet as a sign we should take care of the place versus trash it.
Just imagine what we could accomplish if science people and faith people both agreed that the health of our world is more important than corporate profits?
I think you’re right, but I generally don’t voice that opinion because it seems extremely patronizing.
“Good thing [religious leader] happens to have the correct view on this issue, because there sure are a lot of devoted and/or credulous and/or ignorant people to whom the leader’s word is quite convincing!”
I like to think most Catholics are self-actualized enough to have opinions which don’t track the Pope’s word or official Catholic dogma. I like to think that.
I, too, would like to believe that.
The evidence, though. It’s not encouraging.