My God, you are an idiot.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Can't we smart people just secede? Or let the dumb people secede and just keep the money.

Didn't Perry suggest that?

[Cletus Miller]

Didn't realize he called his California house "Gitmo".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Can't we smart people just secede? Or let the dumb people secede and just keep the money.

There's too much money to be made off the dumb.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is the 38% number correct? I hope my cutting posts here showing that there are gaps haven't been the cause of the general public rejecting evolution, which is a theory Less, a strong theory, but still a theory. The scariest thing about the current right wing is the rejection of science, but they will never actually run the country. The saddest thing is the "intelligent" people who aren't really understanding the science, and that gaps do exist, and that it's okay gaps exist and write something that real educated people must find vapid on its face. Sad all around.

The problem is "theory" to the common Fox News viewer and "theory" in scientific discourse have far different meanings. To the dim trailer trash who are excited by imbeciles like Bachmann, theory is a negative descriptive. To a scientist, in context, it is a way of describing a process the evidence supporting the existence of which is so overwhelming Dawkins is justified in arguing the thing is beyond dispute when writing to a general audience.

To the unschooled, or willfully ignorant, general public who misunderstand and abuse "theory," evolution is properly categorized as "fact."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

To the dim trailer trash who are excited by imbeciles like Bachmann, theory is a negative descriptive.

One need only hear the tone with which the average Fox News presenter says, "theory" with a barely-controlled eye-roll to understand that this is exactly what is being communicated.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One need only hear the tone with which the average Fox News presenter says, "theory" with a barely-controlled eye-roll to understand that this is exactly what is being communicated.

None of this will change until Ailes dies. He's a paranoid madman who believes know-nothingism is the lamentable, but necessary last bulwark against an onsalught of moral relativism.

Thankfully, this is not a far off event.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

None of this will change until Ailes dies. He's a paranoid madman who believes know-nothingism is the lamentable, but necessary last bulwark against an onsalught of moral relativism.

Thankfully, this is not a far off event.

You be getting a visit from Fox News Security.

Also, I do not think they will have any trouble replacing him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The problem is "theory" to the common Fox News viewer and "theory" in scientific discourse have far different meanings. To the dim trailer trash who are excited by imbeciles like Bachmann, theory is a negative descriptive. To a scientist, in context, it is a way of describing a process the evidence supporting the existence of which is so overwhelming Dawkins is justified in arguing the thing is beyond dispute when writing to a general audience.

To the unschooled, or willfully ignorant, general public who misunderstand and abuse "theory," evolution is properly categorized as "fact."

Hank, are you OK? If you won't rise to this bait, something must be wrong.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You be getting a visit from Fox News Security.

Also, I do not think they will have any trouble replacing him.

Ailes is irreplaceable. It's his magic touch - his feel for the Angry Ohioan in all disenfranchised white Americans - that keeps the know-nothing audience.

Murdoch's the genius behind the salacious headlines that bring in normal viewers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hank, are you OK? If you won't rise to this bait, something must be wrong.

And rebut it how? Sometimes I'm more than mainly - some would even say entirely - correct.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And rebut it how? Sometimes I'm more than mainly - some would even say entirely - correct.

You are entirely correct, certainly.

What does that have to do with Hank's ability and willingness to respond, probably by calling you stupid and adding to his own personal scorecard?

[Adder]

Cantor says that he can't use his credit card to fix his car because his hours have been cut back at work and he can't cover all of his existing expenses right now. Nevermind that he will be fired for not showing up for work because he doesn't have a car.

The brilliant thinking of the "fiscal conservative" mind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You are entirely correct, certainly.

What does that have to do with Hank's ability and willingness to respond, probably by calling you stupid and adding to his own personal scorecard?

no. once I realized you took biology for Liberal arts majors freshman year at enormous state university I decided i really had too strong an opponent here to make the argument anymore

[Gattigap]

Perry is Closer to the GOP Nomination Than You Think, Bitches.*

Once Labor Day has passed, there will be five debates, in quick succession, on the GOP presidential candidates' calendars. These will be important tests for Perry. If at the end of two or three, it's clear that he's every bit the equal of Mitt Romney on matters of policy and politics, then the Perry juggernaut becomes all but unstoppable. Romney's "I'm the only electable one" argument will vanish and the party's base will nominate one of their own. If Perry stumbles badly in the debates, Romney's campaign gets a second wind.

Knowing that the only things standing between Perry and the GOP nomination are a couple of "good enough" debate performances, the GOP "establishment" faces a choice: they can cross their fingers and hope for the best or mount a sustained negative campaign to destroy Perry with the party's base. It is likely that, after Labor Day, a sustained negative campaign against Perry will be launched.

The sewage flood-gates have already opened, to some degree. For the past few months, Washington bureau chiefs of major news organizations have been inundated with rumors of Perry's alleged personal indiscretions and peccadilloes. And virtually every major news organization has some kind of "investigative team" looking into allegations of "pay to play" and other forms of corruption. If all that that amounts to are some negative articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times, Perry won't be harmed. It will take something serious, something big and proven to bring him down.

* Last word not technically part of the article title, but might as well be.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Perry is Closer to the GOP Nomination Than You Think, Bitches.*








* Last word not technically part of the article title, but might as well be.

wow, great post, and scary.
does it matter who is nominated? Yes, because he/she will likely be the next president.