I read this as a sly reference to the No true Scotsman fallacy, which makes the rest of the post pleasingly ironic.
If you scroll up to my first comment on the thread and read past the first sentence you will see:
We also watched as the other side won an election promising transparency, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, whistleblower protection, on and on. Now, the dems control the military and are killing people without trial or hearing. They drop bombs on buildings where they suspect an associate of a known terrorist is located killing the innocent bystanders inside. They are going after people who provide evidence of governmental criminal activity. Both sides are quite radical. The problem is that when you affiliate yourself with a political party, you tend to ignore your own parties insanity.
You call shutting down a corrupt government over a political point radical - and it is. But I also think the extrajudicial execution of U.S. citizens is pretty radical as well.
Absolutely true. It’s called trolling. A recent study found that conservatives are willing to spend less if a product is labeled “Organic” or “Save the Earth.”
Yeah, it’s a shame we didn’t get Romney, he would have shut down all of those programs lickety split…
This is a big black eye for the Obama administration IMHO. He’s been far to willing to let the status quo remain, despite campaigning on Change. He hasn’t had the balls to stand up to the experts and say “No, even though you say this will let the terrorists bomb us again, it’s a horrible invasion of privacy and doesn’t seem to be working, you can’t do it anymore.”
One thing I can’t blame him on is Gitmo. That was pure congressional dickery at its finest to make sure it stayed open.
I moved 8 posts to a new topic: Gitmo, continued from “Republicans Against Evolution”
So I see you mentioning some people rejecting evolution because of the ones using it to attack religion, and some people accepting it because of the ones who promote it. That’s still the same thing; it doesn’t show the slightest hint that opponents of evolution might have had anything to do with politicizing it. So yeah, if that was part of your point, you said it very oddly.
And to repeat: there doesn’t seem to be any good indication that rejection of evolution has actually grown in in response to vocal criticism of religion. That’s a hypothetical; that fundamentalists have been attacking teaching of evolution for the last century is history.
I agree with all that you’re saying. I’m disagreeing with the idea that both sides are just as radical as they’ve ever been. There has been a shift in the Overton window, to the point where somebody like Nixon would probably fit better in the new Democratic party, in addition to a common rise in all the crap you mention.
Yeah, it may have been better to say that both sides are just as radical as the other and have always been. Which is not to say both sides have always been radical as today’s government but rather there is parity in the ‘radicalness’ of both parties and that this parity has remained unchanged.
Turkeys, to be precise.
One would hope.
And what, leave all of the prisoners in Cuba? Or are you thinking of just shooting them all? What Congress did was block any and all funding that would move prisoners out of Cuba, and any funding that would house them in alternate facilities. It’s extremely effective, there’s basically nothing the administration can do about it.
another thing they have in common. they’re made of peeeeeopleeeee
why blame ideology at all? blame idiocy.
I think this represents that 1/3 of Americans are getting left behind, and ironically it’s the folks who read those “Left Behind” books.
Are those books still a thing? I tried to read one years ago when they were suddenly popular for some reason, but the writing was just so horrible. They made Dan Brown look like Maya Angelou.
It’s not if your whole point is to mock idiots.
There are persons who confuse “god’s hand” in Evolution (a supernatural claim having nothing to do with science) with being a Creationist. That’s the fault of the Wedge Strategy.
There are plenty of idiots who state those “extreme views” you claim are a minority, and parroting those views in a mocking manner is the only sane way of dealing with shameless anti-intellectuals.
Reagan did it too. He directed his Surgeon General to study “post-abortion syndrome” - the supposed negative mental health effects of having had an abortion. Except that the research showed that no such thing existed - the most common emotion after having had an abortion was relief. So Reagan suppressed the study and wouldn’t allow it to be published.
How do I know this? Got it from the horse’s mouth - I interviewed C. Everett Koop when I was a young journalism student and he spoke at my university.
You’re making a big assumption about what my party is, there. I can tell you that I’m sure as hell not a Democrat. Maybe somewhere between a Green and what they used to call a left-wing libertarian before the libertarians became a neutered republican cheering section. The Democrats, with a very few exceptions, luckily including my Senator, are every bit as corrupt and just about as totalitarian as the Republicans. That said, I think your comparison is either disingenuous or myopic. As individuals, they might believe this stuff, but in general, the Democratic party does not have pushing anti-scientific bullshit as nearly as large a part of what it cares about and is working for as the Republicans do. Even among your examples, the one where they were actually pushing a policy (prop 37), it was not a bad law (it wasn’t going to outlaw GMOs, jus t require them to be labeled), even if that guy was supporting it for stupid reasons,most of the people who supported it did not believe that guy’s bullshit. With the Republicans, OTOH, climate denial and creationism are large matters of party policy.
There’s only so many times I can post this, but it never stops being relevant.
I think that means that evolution denialism has grown by 11% among Republicans and shrunk by 3% among Democrats…
I do wish people would stop calling these people skeptics though, as this is less an example of honest questioning of established opinion and more the stubborn refusal to examine evidence calling someone’s own opinion into question. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to be a skeptic of evolution or parts of it, but I really don’t think that this is what we’re looking at.
It would, wouldn’t it. I’m asleep, clearly…