Submitted for your consideration: 1. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the scientific community's overwhelming acknowledgment of evolution. Instead, these Far Right ideologues abide by the beliefs of the relatively very few and unremarkable proponents of alternative theories, who lie on the fringe of the scientific community. 2. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss scientific community's overwhelming acknowledgment of climate change. Instead, these Far Right ideologues abide by the beliefs of the relatively very few and unremarkable proponents of alternative theories, who lie on the fringe of the scientific community. 3. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the idea that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, even though the historical evidence and the most notable economists and experts in matters financial readily acknowledge that, for all intents and purposes, tax cuts do not in fact pay for themselves. Instead, these Far Right ideologues profess an alternative theory relying on an indoctrinated belief with no meaningful basis in historical fact. 4. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the notion of separation of church and state, even though the overwhelming historical evidence clearly states otherwise. Instead, these nuanced Far Right ideologues propose to delve into the minds of the founding fathers and what they were supposedly thinking at the time rather than what they had actually said and written. And so, against this background, the question is: Are these Far Right ideologues smarter and more intelligent that all of the various renowned experts in their related fields, or are these Far Right ideologues well and truly pathologically delusional?
This question is one reason why I wanted Santorum to actually carry the day. The American people need to see the raw and uncut version of this. That would be Santorum. Mittens, they know he is just blowing smoke. His record indicates he is a moderate at the very least. In fact, most dems are fairly comfortable with Mittens that I know of. That is why dems are voting for Santorum when they can. I want this debate put in front of the American people once and for all. Mittens is pretty much Obama lite, which is why the GOP base HATES him.
Neither. Their position is quite consistent: 1. Widespread belief in evolution undermines belief in God, and so undermines passivity, and so threatens the status quo, ie. profits for the few. 2. Belief in climate change implies doing something about it, which threatens profits for the few. 3. Belief that tax cuts don't pay for themselves could lead to tax increases, which threaten profits for the few. 4. Keeping the church involved in legislating means keeping belief in God front and center, thus preserving passivity and protecting the profits for the few.
A very insightful post. But I would think that most of the Far Rightsters who toe the line are surely oblivious to your insight because, by definition, "most" are not the few to whom you refer. Therefore, the majority among them either knowingly sacrifice their own interests for their financial betters, or they are useful idiots mindlessly spewing pablum prefabricated by those few who hold the rest of them in no regard. Perhaps I should have been more specific by referring to the majority of like-minded Far Right ideplogues. Thoughts?
They are the "Ninety Nine Percenters", protecting wealth they think they'll have one day "not far off".
Ah, yes. You refer to Daniels's and Rubio's "haves and soon to haves." A carrot can be a delicious and healthy snack except when it's illusory. Meanwhile, the Right's glorification of, and fascination with, the rich, which they themselves are not, is not unlike the young TV viewers' fascination with celebrity, which they themselves are not. Wouldn't you say?
Oh yeah, the soon-to-haves, forgot about that line. All you need is faith. ; ) To be fair, like you and me they <del>think</del> feel their worldview will save them.
You illustrate how spewing the commie party line confuses fiction for truth. 1. Evolution. There is very little chance we evolved by random chance. The current model most scientists use is directed evolution. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one. In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic, in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption. 2. Climate change... earth warms before it accumulates C02 - so there is no proof C02 is causing warming. That is just guess. And it should be so stated. 3. I have just shown you that 4 tax cuts, including Carnegie, Mellon and Regan tax cuts were followed by tax revenue gains. 4. The constitutions was set up to allow people the freedom to practice or not practice religion. Your last point does not make sense. But, what we do know is that the Federal Govt has no right telling a Church to distribute baby killing drugs...abortafacients.
Just plain dumb(low IQ). Ignorant (limited education). Deluded, by self and others,( ie the Church and Fox News). One could argue that some gullibility is needed also, but that would probably be covered by the first two. Growing up in the southern US has something to do with also. So I suppose we should include environment. The other interesting thing is that it may actually due to the type of brain they have. Structural differences in the brain determines quite a bit about how an individual sees the world and conducts themselves. Just like most homosexuals are the way they are because of their physiology. So maybe we should cut them some slack.