GOP Failure Watch Part III

Committee appointments are assigned to individual members of Congress by each party's leadership based on a combination of political clout, interest, and seniority.

 

Clearly, not on the results of a science test.

 

Congressman Caveman's appointment was certainly no accident. He's there to torpedo anything he can that resembles progress but doesn't fit into the Evangelical worldview...

 

In a single weekend GOP members attacked science, endorsed slavery and justified death penalty for rebellious children:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html?ref=topbar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/loy-mauch-arkansas-slavery_n_1948717.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...s-children_n_1948490.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Seriously, if you vote for the GOP don't come back complaining about the outcome, you're asking for it....

 

The rest of the developed world watches in amazement, as the GOP in 19 of the other G20 countries would have only a fringe existence.

I can't explain it to my global coworkers, I try but I cannot.

 

But England is largely two-party (prior to the rise of LibDems), and the Tories were never like this. To me, while having two parties may well be a factor, it's more a function of U.S. geography. A big danged country, with a big danged interior population that is isolated and nativist. Same for Russia, although Russia has it even more so.

 

So, this Arkansas GOP says'rebellious children' should face the most extreme consequences. LAter on...

"On his campaign blog, Fuqua highlights his service on the Children and Families Committee while a member of the Arkansas Legislature in 1997. He also describes liberals and Muslims as the "anti-Christ" and says he believes they are conspiring to create a "bloody revolution."

So, its the same. His ideal of a Christian-Patrimony has the right to ascendency, children and non-christians are one and the same. All owe allegiance to his theologically based hierarchy. This guy is absolutely Taliban. What we need is a codified name for these Christer Sharia types.

 

How about "Republicans"

 

Congressman Caveman reminded me of this:

 

Easy answer, Evangelical Christians.


Roman Catholics may be anti-abortion (anti-contraception) but they tend to be ok on the Evolution science front (eventually).



Europe is way more secular than the USA, compare the USA with other “anti-science” countries and we rate next to Turkey or Saudi Arabia, and not next to European countries.

 

Rick Scott gives out meningitis hotline, one digit mistake leads callers to phone sex operator instead

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...he-republican-rep-is-on-record-on-slavery-too

I have to comment on this one...Wehrmacht=Marxists????

 

Now all of those Southies can shut the ******** up about the Civil War not being about slavery.

 

How many of those marxists were Republicans?

And how many in the US were reading Karl Marx in the 1860's-1870's?

 

Update: Hubbard godwins the debate in a letter which, sadly, can't be linked to. , but you can read an excerpt here.

 

New GOP stance on rape: Don't blame the woman, blame God!

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-ca...ancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

 

I'm sure that Turkey is ahead of us.

 

Not quite.

That's the reason why Turkey is still not allowed to enter the EU.

The EU is no Christianity club. But it's the club that has outsourced the religious wackos to America.

 

I would turn this on its head and ask my fine, republican friend:

If abortion were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

or how about:

If homosexuality were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

or how about:

If people going hungry, or the sick being unattended were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

Oh wait . . .

 

You might want to check this one out.

 

Yeah, I thought about that as I was hitting "post." I'm Catholic, so I don't have a good grip on scripture. Paul ripped on homosexuals, but Jesus not so much, correct? I do know that abortion never comes up in the new testament, and I'm fairly certain that both Jesus and Paul spent a bit of time talking about the poor and the sick.

 

Maybe that was just something that sort of went without saying? We don't have many conversations about whether or not it's okay to set puppies on fire because it's wired into our society that setting fire to puppies is a bad thing. Maybe buttsechs was as bad to folks in 33ad as puppy pyromania is to us now.

Please keep in mind that in the real world, we shouldn't be basing our policies on what anyone says in the bible.