Idiot leftists can’t get past their stupidity to actually discuss issues.
Mitt Romney appeared on Univision’s “Meet the Candidate” event on Wednesday evening to talk about issues of importance to Latino voters, including immigration, education and foreign policy.
There he made statements such as….
“My campaign is about the 100 percent of America,” Romney said in a refrain he would repeat four times during the 45-minute event.
“I know I’m not going to get 100 percent of the vote, and my campaign will focus on those people we think we can bring in to support it,” he said. “But this campaign is about helping people who need help.”
Romney, 65, was also pressed on the hot-button issue of immigration by Univision anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas at the BankUnited Center Field House on the University of Miami campus.
The candidate emphasized that he would expand legal immigration and said that he wouldn’t aggressively pursue undocumented immigrants living in the United States.
“I am not going to be going around the country and rounding them up,” he said.
He also criticized President Obama for not taking up an immigration overhaul bill during his first year in the White House, a promise he made to Ramos during the 2008 campaign.
“When I’m president, I will actually do what I promise, I will put in place an immigration reform system that resolves this issue,” he said.
“I believe people make their own choices as to whether they want to go home and that’s what I mean by ‘self deportation,'” Romney said. “People decide if they want to go back to their country of origin and get in line legally to be able to come to this country.”
But Romney appeared before a partisan Republican crowd here at the BankUnited Center. When Ramos grilled him on “self-deportation,” the crowd let out an audible groan.
“I have some friends, apparently,” Romney said.
So from that and much more, what was the reaction?
But thousands of bloggers, Facebook subscribers and Twitter users across the country focused more on the candidate’s complexion than on his message.
Some called it an orange spray tan, others labeled it “brownface,” but the conjecture was the same. Social media platforms were abuzz on Wednesday with the insinuation that the GOP candidate had somehow darkened his skin before coming on Univision’s forum. The accusation was reported on by The Huffington Post, Gawker and Wonkette, among others, receiving thousands of comments on the sites combined.
These people are bat$hit crazy and have no business participating in the election process. They’d be too stupid to put a mark by the appropriate person’s name would have to have someone else read it to them.
To ABC’s credit, they actually asked the makeup artist, Lazz Rodriguez, who applied powder and concealer to the candidate’s skin that night. The verdict?
“When he walked in, I remember thinking, ‘Wow this is tanner than I thought he was,’ but I think he’s just been outside a lot lately for his campaign,” Rodriguez noted. “It was definitely a real tan.”
Their idiocy is an embarrassment to this nation. They are worthy of contempt and scorn.
Unemployment, national debt, nations across the globe are protesting the U.S., people are dying in the protests and a U.S. ambassador was just murdered. Fast and Furious has more questions than answers and these buffoons are going to worry about Mitts tan.
h/t TownHall
suyts space 
A war of attrition against reality.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
‘These people are bat$hit crazy and have no business participating in the election process.’
They got the government they deserve in 2008. And unfortunately, they don’t appear to have gotten smarter since.
OT
Harvard Divinity School claims Jesus had a wife. But it is not possible he did. He cannot already be married. He is waiting for the Bride of Christ after which will be the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. If he was married he could not be wed to the Bride of Christ. Simple, isn’t it Harvard.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/harvard-publishing-claim-jesus-wife-17294695#.UF61dqO1mAA
Nag Hammadi, 1978, BBC, The Lost Gospels
There’s supposed to be the lost book of Enoch too. It’s very, very odd to me that some people want to spend their energy on these apocryphal writings and not on the scriptures themselves. Talk about barking down the wrong trail while running up the wrong tree!
Yes. I look at it as the Will of God. If he wanted us to have the “lost books”, we would have them.
The two things that are the easiest things to see as valid from scripture are the two things that are rarely, if ever, mentioned, even in almost all Christian churches. That’s very odd to me.
The two things:
1) Love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:36-40
“If he wanted us to have the “lost books”, we would have them.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
There is a quote from Jude in the New Testament that is not taken from the Old Testament:
“Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
I have always wondered where that came from. But I have always been leery about the sources people have claimed it is from. Maybe some day it will be the will of God I find out! 🙂
One day, AAM, one day. All will be known.
The book of Enoch is not lost; it is just not part of the Biblical canon.
http://www.neilixandria.com/index.php/Book_of_Enoch
What is and is not part of the canon has been decided by the church. They had their reasons for their choice. As the BBC video tells, there were 20 or more Gospels so they picked a few ones to end arguing and formation of splinter movements.
A consensus decision; declared as truth. No holy intervention there.
“I have always wondered where that came from. ”
That is from the book of Enoch.
Dirk, of course, those men were divinely inspired. Again, if God wanted it in our canon, it would be there.
I may attempt to read the book of Enoch some day. But I have seen scholars and rabbi’s say the modern version is not valid. I would rather read the oldest available writing of Enoch, if it has survived since the time of Jude. But I’m deeply leery.
And I do think the 66 books are of God. Seem likes God could control what was approved as valid. And if they were not valid he would have already made it clear to those that love him that the 66 chosen was an incomplete selection.
There are many ancient writings. One should be careful when reading them. It can take a person down a horrible path.
Recall all that is necessary for salvation. The rest is only there for you to maintain your faith and assist you in your journey on earth.
AAM, I wouldn’t worry about it. People have been trying to portray Christ as something other than what he was since he walked the earth. It’s a fourth-century papyrus.
Just as fake as the Shroud of Turin.
Well, I’d say the motivations behind the two are very different.
And you’re also a “climate scientist?”
Do you think that talking about religious scripture disqualifies a person? But your ilk thinks anyway that anyone who is not a climate scientist by your own definition is disqualified, so why should we care for your opinion of who’s qualified?
Hint: James Hansen has no degree in climate science…
Hint – Most of the posters in this group have nothing to do with science. Those who unquestionably believe everything in the “scriptures” also disqualify themselves as scientists. Scientists seek to understand the world around them not subscribe to a predetermined set of beliefs and deny any evidence to the contrary. Evolution, yeah!?!
Don’t you find it funny when the “climate” deniers have almost the same uniform set of political beliefs. It’s like they’re not really interested in science per se, but rather finding scientific justification for their predetermined belief that man does not affect climate.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
>>
ThePhDScientist says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Hint – Most of the posters in this group have nothing to do with science.
<<
Except for your dubious moniker, neither do you.
Jim
ThePhDScientist says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I have plenty of peer-reviewed publications, yet I believe the scriptures are God-breathed. So should I contact ACS, Elsevier, Wiley, etc. and tell them to put an asterisk by my name showing I’m not a scientist, or should I contact those publishers and request that all my papers be retracted? How do you suggest the co-authors react?
-Scott
Yeh, and the many before. I wonder what science looks like if we invalidate all science worked by Christians? Even in the last 50 years.
“Don’t you find it funny when the “climate” deniers have almost the same uniform set of political beliefs. “
===================================
Ph, you are confusing political with theological. More, if you’d spend time understanding skeptics, you’d know your assertion is entirely incorrect. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why this blog exists.
While many of the regulars here are not conservative Christians, I thought it important to allow commentary for such a group.
Here is what you don’t know. Many who comment on this blog are not Christians. Some are not what you would define as “conservative”. (It varies from country to country). And, many have good science backgrounds. But, these are all different considerations.
If you wish for a climate discussion, I say bring it. I think it’s a dead issue, but I’ll still play, as will many others, here.
“Hint – Most of the posters in this group have nothing to do with science.”
How do you know?
Haha Suyts you’re funny “a dead issue” – except that NO ACTUAL SCIENCE supports your assertion. Again you confuse the blogosphere with science. And actually one could easily do a simple survey of the posters on this blog, ranking their various comments on political, social, and climate change issues and you’d find that you’re VERY VERY wrong – posters here area a homogenous bunch of conservative, faithful, anti-science, deniers!
I’m not sure what assertion you’re referring to, but, yes, it’s a dead issue. If you want actual science which supports skeptical positions that man isn’t hotting the world up to our impending doom, there’s over 1000 peer reviewed papers stating exactly that. Go here.
It is true most here are what one could call conservative. Faithful? If by that you mean Christians, I think it’s about an even split with the common commenters. Maybe more Christians than non. Everyone of them are pro-science. None of them deny anything other than the unwarranted fantastic claims made by leftist ideologues posing as scientists.
As I told you previously there are more papers published on cold fusion than by climate skeptics. Do you believe cold fusion as well?
And what do you make of the fact that 99% of posters here have a conservative ideological agenda? Coincidence….I think not!
Of course, it isn’t a coincidence. Many, if not most of the commenters here knew me from other blogs. I started the blog, in part, because I thought conservatives, engaged in the climate discussion, should have a blog with a larger breadth in subjects than just climate. Many skeptic blogs confine themselves to a very narrow list of topics. I recognize the climate issue to be not only about science but also a socioeconomic issue. So, when readers saw that I had a blog which allowed for a broader discussion, some of them began to regularly read here.
ThePhDScientist says:
September 26, 2012 at 5:44 am
“And what do you make of the fact that 99% of posters here have a conservative ideological agenda? Coincidence….I think not!”
Of course not. In both cases, the ability to think logically is a necessary prerequisite. And like I did many times before, I suggest you take a course in logic; you won’t regret it.
“And what do you make of the fact that 99% of posters here have a conservative ideological agenda?”
PhD
I am curious what you mean by that. If you mean pig headed and won’t listen to reason I think many are guilty of that at times including you and maybe even me. If you mean many of the posters here are conservative yes that is true but does not mean they are pig headed. When you said that cutting the deficit is more risky than my comment “Print baby Print”. I think you are being pig headed on this particular issue. If you can give an example where this worked in history then let me know. Starting point has to be Gov with 100% to GDP debt and at least 25% held by foreigners. Not sure how it will happen but at some stage foreigners will loose faith in your dollar (I hope slowly as a rapid collapse will not be good).
With the climate issue I have only one question and that is Why will the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increase significantly instead of forming clouds? Maybe you can find a paper that proves such a theory rather than assumptions used in modelling. If you can find such proof I might be willing to listen to other aspects but if you can’t then I do not trust them and I suppose you can continue to call me a denier.
And Scott yes I think it wise that you should put an asterisk next to your publications because I would never trust the findings of any scientist that unquestionably believes anything. It goes against our very nature of what it means to be a scientist.
When I do a single experiment and I see an appropriately sized band on my Western blot do I unquestionably now believe I have the cure for cancer? If I was a fool maybe…
Scott I’m guessing you’re not in the “hard” sciences?
I believe he’s an atmospheric chemist. But, you’d have to ask him.
Oh I thought maybe theologian? 😉
ThePhDScientist says:
September 25, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Ok, I’m glad that’s established. But a point of clarification – should there be asterisks next to Newton’s Laws of Motion? What about when I report a force using the unit “Newton”? Should we note whenever we’re working with capacitance that its unit, the Farad, is named after a believer in God? Should textbooks have fine print concerning the ideal gas law because it was built upon Boyle’s Law, and Robert Boyle was a devout Christian? What about Galileo? James Maxwell? I could go on and on.
No, you shouldn’t unquestionably think that. But you don’t seem to understand the differences between history, theology, philosophy, and science. Somehow I don’t think you seriously question that FDR lived or that Djibouti exists, even if you never saw FDR or have been to Djibouti.
I’m formally trained as a chemist, and my focus was in measurement of atmospheric chemistry. The only “harder” science out there is physics. It’s clear from your comments that you’re not a physicist, so somehow I don’t think you’ll continue to pursue this line of thought.
-Scott
“And Scott yes I think it wise that you should put an asterisk next to your publications because I would never trust the findings of any scientist that unquestionably believes anything. It goes against our very nature of what it means to be a scientist. ”
If you were a scientist you would have said that you never TRUST findings. (Trust means unquestionable belief; so you would show unquestionable belief into the findings of someone only if that person shows NO unquestionable belief – meaning that person is a scientist but YOU are NOT as you have unquestionable belief in his findings…)
Now! Your job title might well be scientist, but you have not understood what the job is about.
“Ok, I’m glad that’s established. But a point of clarification – should there be asterisks next to Newton’s Laws of Motion? What about when I report a force using the unit “Newton”
Oh Scott what a pitiful argument. In fact Newton being an excellent observer and scientist would strongly believe the findings of Darwin, would look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution and conclude that a literal, unquestioning interpretation of the Bible is pure foolishness!
No, you shouldn’t unquestionably think that. But you don’t seem to understand the differences between history, theology, philosophy, and science.
LOL I think it is you who doesn’t understand much of how the world works. So your point is science should be questioned but theology should be followed with unquestioning devotion? Silly, silly!
Clearly you’re not a very clever scientist if this is the way you think. Are you actually working in research – I suspect not…
Scott I wasn’t around 4.5 billion years ago but I’m pretty confident that’s about how old the earth is. Certainly I’m confident it’s far older than the 6,000 years or so that a literal interpretation of the Bible would put it at.
Ph, you really don’t know much about belief in God, do you?
Dirk this is one argument you should stay out of. Your point their is just dumb.
I know a lot about Suyts. In fact many studies have shown atheists tend to have a better knowledge of whats actually in the Bible than Christians do! Go figure?!?
Knowing what is written in the Bible, understanding what is written in the Bible and belief in God are all very different things.
But, seeing that you’re an expert in Theology and science, I take it you’re aware that a Catholic priest is the one who came up with the “Big Bang” theory. Odd he wasn’t excommunicated or anything.
Of course then there’s Max Planck who asserted, “Religion and Natural Science”, stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.”
You’re getting a lot of asterisks pretty quickly.
Suyts I know it’s hard for you to understand, not actually being part of the scientific establishment or having ever done any high-level scientific research. However, the idea that a scientist takes an unquestioning belief in these types of matters is truly scary.
As I’ve said before wise (yet religious) scientists such as Francis Collins of the NIH look at the data and evidence free from emotion. Collins sees the overwhelming evidence for evolution and questions his beliefs. He comes to terms with the discrepancies and his scientific mind but believing the evidence for evolution but assuming a higher power *could* have set such things into motion. This is at least a respectable position for a scientist.
Too look at all the evidence and then simply deny it is completely silly! Maybe not to professional deniers and laymen, but certainly to scientists!
Ph, that’s fascinating. You assume I haven’t undergone the same questioning. Every Christian does. One day I’ll write about my beliefs as to the origin of man and the earth. But, not for today. We can just state that your assumptions of my interpretations of the Bible are incorrect. And, you’re assumptions of me in general are pretty far off. I’ve never known a person to “look at all the evidence and then simply deny it“. I’m not sure why you would ascribe that to anyone who comments here.
Max Planck believed in evolution – not Genesis!
You’re confused in your thoughts. You think to believe in evolution means one can’t believe in God. That’s incorrect.
No sorry my unscientific friend. We were referring to “unquestioning belief”….
So when Max Planck stated “you must have faith“. He was discussing a different faith. Got it.
Actually we were talking about Scott (the supposed scientist) not you the guy who really doesn’t know anything about science.
Any time you want to hop into my area of expertise, just get froggy.
Clearly, I can’t speak about Scott’s beliefs.
Looks like you’re all having fun down here. I’ll throw you this: how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one PhDS? I for example don’t see a contradiction with the geological apparent age of the Earth and the biblical timeline. But I am aware that I do not understand the biblical timeline nor what it exactly means. For example what does the biblical term “man” (adam) mean? How you read the Bible rather crucially depends on this nontrivial question.
Now same goes for the geological record, evolution and all that. Our scientific estimation of the age of the Earth is actually an interpretation of the evidence. And an act of faith that the interpretation is correct. That is no different from the act of faith in believing the Bible. What you suffer from though is an inadequacy of imagination in your very linear interpretation of the Bible and of the power of God. God is not just a big human in the sky.
I should add that I’m a Christian, a hard scientist and I mostly vote to the right (though not always).
How you read the Bible rather crucially depends on this nontrivial question.
Indeed.
Bruce buddy that’s the dumbest false equivalency argument I’ve ever heard. One can with a fair degree of certainty predict the age of the earth. There are actual physical laws that radiometric dating must follow. A belief in the biblical age of the earth – by any of the literal believers – is simply fantasy. Please don’t give me the bogus argument that maybe those theologians are wrong on their estimated time line. Maybe instead of 6,000 they really left off 6 zeros on the end? LoL So yes this is just like the science of radiometric dating. LOL LAUGHABLE!
We know an apple falls from the tree and we assume gravity. But we can’t see gravity. We can’t see God, but we know in our heart he is there. SAME THING RIGHT?!! LOL
Found an interesting graph related to Romney’s 47% quote.
Tax revenue per capita vs federal spending / capita.
Notice the new unsustainable trend begun under Obama (2009 onwards)
http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/06/23/the-united-states-unsustainable-fiscal-trajectory/
“The reason why the U.S. tax collections are at a depressed level, despite no longer being in recession, are the tax cuts President Obama has implemented during his time in office. Beginning with the President’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit, and the later Social Security payroll tax cut, which reduced the taxes paid by people making less than 110,100 per year (in terms of 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars).”
So Romney was exactly right. Obama has freed an entire class of people from contributing and therefore created his own class of dependants. As intended, this did nothing to help the US economy but accelerates its downfall, and might be enough to ensure his reelection even though he’s an impostor and even his fans know it.
There is of course the possibility that even his dependants are now scared so shitless that they’ll stay home during the election.
Yeh, I thought about using that graph, but I don’t like the form.
And you’re arguing taxes need to be raised. Thank you!
Raising taxes at this moment would be foolhardy. If you want to see what happens to an economy that does that during a debt crisis look at Greece or Spain.
PHD dude, are you voting for Obama? Your lack of logic indicates that this is highly probable.
LoL no no I believe that 5 trillion dollars of unpaid tax cuts will actually lower the deficit! Lack of logic. LOL
BTW Looks like those swing states are slipping away from Romney!!!??? Too bad! 😉
Lol, don’t believe the hype. Much of the polling seems to over estimate Dem participation.
Or you mean doesn’t include Republican voter suppression of Democratic voters, in particular elderly and minorities? 😉
Oh, you mean the efforts to ensure the people voting are legal and not brain dead?
Oh so you bought into that conservative myth that has no science behind it. Why am I not surprised?!?
I think the science on this issue and in this blog as been adequately demonstrated. Are you going to continue with your leftist meme or address reality?
Failure to Specify Dorm Room Numbers!!! LOL Oh tea baggers you’re such a sorry pathetic species!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ohio-voting-fight-20120927,0,811761.story
Are you going to continue with your leftist meme or address reality?
Well there’s so much tea bagger meme here you should be thanking me. Don’t you liek a little “fair and balanced” LOL
Ph, you know, I do like a little balance. While I disagree often with what you have to say, I’m very glad you come by from time to time. Sometimes, but not often, you cause me to pause. I just wish you’d focus a bit more. 🙂
>>
ThePhDScientist says:
September 26, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Scott I wasn’t around 4.5 billion years ago but I’m pretty confident that’s about how old the earth is.
<<
If you were, you’d be an awfully old troll by now. Don’t you get tired of doing same thing for billions of years and not accomplishing anything of value?
Jim
ThePhDScientist says:
September 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Pure conjecture on your part, and there’s no real way to know for sure. I notice you didn’t address the others on my list or even answer my question about them.
I never said theology should be followed with unquestioning devotion. Nice straw man followed by an ad hominem. I don’t see why you can’t manage to argue without those.
Again, you have no idea of what I do and you’re very, very wrong. As a matter of fact, I do work in research – my position is a research scientist at a public university. I’m still in my 20’s and have 13 peer-reviewed publications, 9 of which I’m first author on. My h-index is 6, which is pretty good for an exact science like chemistry, especially considering my first publication was only 5 years ago. My first-author h-index is 5, which is higher than a lot of people ever get for their entire careers. I have two submitted patents, and several more papers on the way.
As for being clever, I don’t know if I am or not. My boss certainly thinks I am, as my biggest breakthrough came less than 2 years into my graduate research where I came up with a solution to a problem that had been long-standing in my field…since 1989 specifically (18 years). The cool thing is that once I came across the mechanism in that 1989 paper (one that people had been plagued by for the entire 18 years but was new to me since this was a new area for our research group), it took all of about 5 seconds for me to come up with a unique solution, and the result is an instrument that has a S/N ratio about 50x than the nearest competition. Now I’m not sure if that’s clever, but all the visiting professors/speakers/etc that came through the lab after we published that sure seemed to think so.
From your posts it seems like your worldview can’t imagine a theist being a “clever” scientist. But my worldview is quite similar to those I mentioned earlier, so either they aren’t “clever” and need asterisks too, or you need to reconsider how you view the world.
-Scott
Very nice.
Not really.
I’ve put a lot of effort into avoiding posting my qualifications as an anonymous commenter on these types of blogs and am disappointed I did so here. I’m a firm believer that qualifications shouldn’t matter and just content. I guess I broke the seal here because of (1) it being an emotional response, and (2) to try to show how distorted Ph.D.’s worldview is. He’s thoroughly convinced that someone’s theistic views keep them from doing good science. In my experience, atheists and what I would call “science believers” (the ones who have made science their religion) seem to suffer from that just as much if not more so than the theists.
-Scott
Scott, if you wish, I can remove that comment, though, it would be much like shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
Nope, what’s done is done. I do my best to try to stand by my actions, even if I was mistaken to perform those actions originally. Most people will never read this thread anyway. I will also note that another reason I try to avoid talking about my credentials is that my previous employer was VERY involved with CAGW alarmism, and my current employer also is a bit like that, just considerably milder. It’s quite possible my contract wouldn’t be renewed if people knew that I was a lukewarmer.
-Scott
I expected as much, but I thought I’d offer seeing that I’m partly responsible. I’m a little defensive when it comes to the quality of commenters here. I think person for person, this is a high quality blog. One of the things that keeps me posting is that I get to see other people’s insights and learn from them. I’m also very appreciative of the fact that in most cases, (this one may be different) that people can disagree here w/o getting into a flame war.
“Most people will never read this thread anyway.”……. Oh sure, now it’s like that! 🙂
Scott – after what happened to Nick Drapela, I think you’re right to be careful. I’m in the same boat as both the contracts I’ve got at present have this issue, so am circumspect but not paranoid.
I know. I’m sorry it happened that way.
If it makes you feel better, I’ll ignore your qualifications especially if I think your content is off. 🙂
Seriously though, one of the things I’ve been most impressed with in this “skeptical journey” is how so many do ignore the titles and focus on the content.
I came across the mechanism
Nice, Scott, but please don’t tell me you’re an organic chemist too?! I did my PhD in organometallic chemistry, though I went off to play in inorganic thereafter. Pays better, heh.
My most fun publication came from an article I found dating back to 1862. Its amazing what you can find, when you dig – the problem is that textbooks are constrained by the thump factor. After about 4″ thick they get too big, so the editor throws out all the old chemistry to make room for new stuff. So everyone forgets the old which is no longer in the textbooks.
Hi Bruce,
Sorry, I don’t do synthesis. I’m analytical with a focus on instrument and method development. The “mechanism” in this case was the reason for instrument failure…in this case tied to a unique but still simple application of Ohm’s Law. Our instruments kept being limited by the same problem, and I saw that all the current literature was plagued with similar issues. Going back to the seminal work on the subject, they plainly stated the mechanism of failure, but no one had found a good way around it. I wasn’t smart enough to have figured out the mechanism on my own (and honestly should have found it in the literature months before I did), but I came up with remedy in just seconds. Honestly, I don’t ever expect to come up with a quantum leap quite that good ever again, LOL.
But I agree with you that the older the literature, the better it is. It’s amazing how some of the really good, original old stuff isn’t cited at all even if it’s used daily now.
-Scott
Bruce says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Just for the record, I will say that Bruce’s sentence applies to me too. I will add that, as a chemist, I see a distinction between physics/chemistry vs the other “hard” sciences. I used to just assume that the “hard” sciences were those two until I saw the other things that were included in that label. Thus, I’ve recently started using the term “exact science” to differentiate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_science
I will also point out that my mom’s side of the family (including her) were all democrats and some of them even run on the democratic ticket for local offices. I was pretty much apolitical in high school and undergrad. So what made me lean right? The biggest factor was the extreme persecution I received in grad school in my group, particularly in the months leading up to the 2008 elections. They just railed and railed on me not because I was a right-winger, which I wasn’t, but simply because I wasn’t a hardcore liberal. It actually took me a long time to figure that out even. It’s still something that I don’t understand.
-Scott
It was a strange phenom in 2008. It’s as if they expected everyone to simply anoint Obama. And if you weren’t prepared to do that, you sucked.
I didn’t watch the nomination process a lot because I was sure it would be Hillary. Then out of nothing, Obama was the nominee. And when I first saw the socialist agitprop posters I thought they were a parody. I couldn’t imagine anyone would be stupid enough to elect a guy marketed like Stalin, Mao or Hugo Chavez. And only after Obama’s election did I see pictures of his cultist followers – including those 100,000 idiot Berliners who showed the guy unconditional devotion as if Hitler had arrived in the Volkspalast.
I expected bad things to happen from that moment on, and I have not been disappointed.
And I expect still much worse to come. In the proto-Kalifat, not primarily in the West.
‘Exact science’ is rather good. That gets filed in my brain for later. Thanks!
>>
ThePhDScientist says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Actually we were talking about Scott (the supposed scientist)
<<
Ah pH, you’re projecting again.
Jim
Suck it Jim 😉
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You shouldn’t act sophomoric pH. People might think you really don’t have a degree.
Jim