"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Jay,

A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution?


Only in America...

I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.


I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.


Bertie

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Only in America...

Freedom is wonderful, isn't it? And painful too.


I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.

Science and technology chops aren't (and shouldn't be) qualifications for
political leadership in this country.

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
than yet another stinkin lawyer.

We need leadership, not lawyers

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bertie,

I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.


That, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too? ;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge


That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.


It is actually.


Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too? ;-)


Not a bad idea.

I reckon I should get about ten votes. At least one for not reading the
enquirer, one more for reading intelligent newspapers and eight for
watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.


Bertie

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge

That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bertie,

I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.


That, too.


That was just a city, not the entire country.

Matt Whiting wrote in news:Lv5gj.1377$2n4.31288
@news1.epix.net:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bertie,

I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.


That, too.


That was just a city, not the entire country.


First a city, then a state...


Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in news:cv5gj.1376$2n4.31050
@news1.epix.net:

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge

That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.


All science assumed by scientists to be suspect all the time.

It;'s idiotic to imagine that any scientist would say any more than
"this is what it looks like to us now"

So, what you have just said, if I were to parasphrase, is "science is
proving that science is wrong"

What the moron ID and creationists are saying is "we have decided what
science should tell us and we will keep harangueing them until they do
so"



Bertie