True Stupidity: Sarah Palin On Evolution

joobz said:
Further, it sets a horrible precedent. Simply that just because people want to believe something, that it gets more face time than what we know to be true. What other aspects of education could fall towards that?
Teach the holocaust denial theory along side the real history?
Teach timecube along side physics?
teach stork theory in sex ed?
Click to expand...
Indeed. "Teach the controversy" is an entirely untenable proposition.
 
Towlie said:
I'm solidly behind the "teach the controversy" philosophy. They should teach children the controversy between those who accept evolution and those who don't, with balanced representation from both sides. Then they should immediately proceed to teaching the controversy between those who believe that God exists and those who don't, also with balanced representation from both sides.

I'd love to hear what the conservatives have to say about that idea.
Click to expand...

At what age? My children still believe in Santa Claus. You can argue evolution, clearly the more logical more proven argument, to you are blue in the face, and one charming young evangelical can win opinion in a 4th grade class simply by answering every question with "well god works in mysterious ways, and this is one of them."

TAM:)
 
My real point is that if my suggestion was made to a group of "teach the controversy" conservatives to teach children the atheist controversy alongside the evolution controversy, I'll bet we'd be treated to the most flagrant and hilariously hypocritical 180º flip-flop imaginable.

It's an idea of mine that I haven't seen suggested before.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why are these people always about teaching the controversy about evolution and not the holocaust or the germ theory of disease?
Click to expand...
Because those aren't phenomena that have the potential to be identified as miracles and attributed to God if they can only discredit the annoying scientific explanations that are getting in their way.

I've seen miracles all around me, stop and look around its all astounding, water, fire air and dirt, ******* magnets, how do they work? I don't want to talk to a scientist, ya'll MF lying and getting me pissed...

-- Insane Clown Posse
Click to expand...

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
leftysergeant said:
Rarely does the Arctic Twit say anything with which I agree. There are just times when she seems a little less guanophrenic than at other times. Now, if she could just give the same low-key, well-thought-out answers to the same question every time, she might even pass for a rational adult.



Have you already forgotten that senile old git from California? He had people feeding him lines since sometime back in the sixties when he started getting paid to make pro-capitalist tv spots. The puppet masters needed somebody on whose loyalty they thought they could depend. A second-tier actor was just the man they needed. Would the American public think that the charming man they had seen on the idiot box every week when they were young would lie to them?

(Bloody right he would, if he got paid enough for it.)

The PNAC vetrerans who were handling the presidential race for the GOP needed another tool as pliable as McCain, but preferrably better-looking and more charming to beguile the public, and perhaps get some of the male voters by their glands.

Phyllis Schlafley would probably have been more to their liking politically, but who would even want to look at her. They might have listened, but could they have avoided noticing that she is bat crap crazy?

The GOP has, for at least the last thirty years, stood as a monument to the triumph of form over substance.
Click to expand...

But I think we can all agree she is guanophagic.
 
leftysergeant said:
the Arctic Twit
guanophrenic
senile old git from California
the idiot box
bat crap crazy
Click to expand...

I see you've raised the level of your discourse a bit since last time. You've only reference to human waste twice. That's an improvement. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I see you've raised the level of your discourse a bit since last time. You've only reference to human waste twice. That's an improvement. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Human waste? :confused: You must be thinking of Batman.
 
Bill Thompson said:
This shows true stupidity

Not what you would expect, right? This shows how freaking stupid the left wing press have been and how arrogant and foolish they really are to have dragged this poor woman through the mud and have painted her as an idiot. They should all loose their jobs.
Click to expand...

They are no more freaking stupid, arrogant or foolish than local, resident JREF liars who said the same things about Palin before the election. It's called smearing the opponent with whatever you can come up with and it is a Saul Alinsky style tactic used by the left wing.

Why, this thread illustrates more of said tactics.
 
While it is fun to "smear" Palin (although she provides, or has provided enough material to smear her self a dozen times), the bigger picture is the prospect of her running the most powerful country on earth (and adjacent to the border of my country). that prospect is truly, HONESTLY, scary.

TAM:)
 
Pardalis said:
Yes, I was precisely talking about Batman. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's the most witty joke I ever came up with, but I at least expected you to understand it. I guess I'll have to explain it to you:

Words beginning with "guano" and phrases like "bat crap crazy" might refer to the waste of bats, but they do not refer to human waste.
 
mhaze said:
They are no more freaking stupid, arrogant or foolish than local, resident JREF liars who said the same things about Palin before the election. It's called smearing the opponent with whatever you can come up with and it is a Saul Alinsky style tactic used by the left wing.
Click to expand...

Why is it a smear? She was asked her position on having Creationism in schools and she provided it. The question is relevant. Her response was not manipulated in any way. Why do you consider it a smear?



and it is a Saul Alinsky style tactic used by the left wing.
Click to expand...

Well, I am glad that it is a left-wing tactic and not a right-wing tactic otherwise I can only imagine the awful things that would have been said about Obama in the months leading up to the election (or today).
 
Ladewig said:
Why is it a smear? She was asked her position on having Creationism in schools and she provided it. The question is relevant. Her response was not manipulated in any way. Why do you consider it a smear?





Well, I am glad that it is a left-wing tactic and not a right-wing tactic otherwise I can only imagine the awful things that would have been said about Obama in the months leading up to the election (or today).
Click to expand...
Too true!!!:D:D
 
Ladewig said:
Why is it a smear? She was asked her position on having Creationism in schools and she provided it. The question is relevant. Her response was not manipulated in any way. Why do you consider it a smear?
.....
Click to expand...
Let me be clear. ;)

What I am referring to are the comments by JREF posters in the September - November 2008 timeframe relative to Palin. Any and all smears without a shred of factual basis were used in attempts to discredit her.

These specifically included made-up stuff about her being anti-evolution.

Granted, a lot of such comments are and were made by people who were not the sharpest tools in the shed, unfortunately that only makes the lying more obvious.
 
mhaze said:
Let me be clear. ;)

What I am referring to are the comments by JREF posters in the September - November 2008 timeframe relative to Palin. Any and all smears without a shred of factual basis were used in attempts to discredit her.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak to those. However, I will concede that many of the Christine O'Donnell comments found here are closer to the smear-end of the spectrum than the thoughtful- analytical-comment end of the spectrum.

These specifically included made-up stuff about her being anti-evolution.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that saying that Creationism has a place in classrooms is not anti-evolution?

Granted, a lot of such comments are and were made by people who were not the sharpest tools in the shed, unfortunately that only makes the lying more obvious.
Click to expand...

And this adds to the discussion in what way?
 
I think the Wasilla Hillbilly was making a reference to the Boston Tea Party: December 16, 1773.

I'm sure her handlers made sure she had the date written down somewhere.

CNN%20Palin%27s%20Crib%20Notes%20Same%20As%20Obama%27s%20Teleprompter.jpg
 
T.A.M. said:
I thought this was funny, and telling, from Palin today, while touring with the teabag express...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/19/3042646.htm?section=justin
Quote:
"We can't let up. We can't get cocky about this. No dancing with the neighbours yet, OK? We can't party like it's 1773, not yet."



I actually saw a clip of this, with this quote in it, on MSNBC earlier today.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
When I saw this, I immediately thought of the Boston Tea Party. Which was 1773.

Please explain how and why this quote illustrates some presumed ignorance or something funny about Palin. I'm genuinely curious here, there is some kind of disconnect...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom