And those religions should tell their followers to not use any. However, the problem is those people want to tell other people to live by their bullshit fantasy rules.
Are you a fucking idiot? His birth certificate is posted online.
You have been lied to. Go to the person who told you the bullshit lie about Obama’s birth certificate and show them that link.
No, it doesn’t. Science education should be about science.
Let me lay it out for you, because I get the idea that haven’t thought very hard about this.
The Big Bang is the most likely way our universe expanded according to our best scientific evidence. At some point in the future we may find different, but we should teach children about science as it is currently understood.
Genesis is a made up story that has zero evidence backing it up. Really. No evidence at all. None. Really.
Read that previous line again. Okay? We shouldn’t teach made-up stories as science, because science is about evidence, and not stuff that is made up. Can you understand that?
Also, we aren’t a Christian nation. Whoever told you that lied to you.
Where do you people come from? The man is a US citizen, and even if he hadn’t been born in Hawaii his mother was a US citizen so he is as well.
Still I wonder why you don’t know he DID. :rolleyes:
Just one more obtuse Republican, I guess.
Seems that denial of these poll results is strictly partisan. I guess I should not be surprised. But these results are perfectly in line with what we have been hearing from Republicans for well over a year now.
These are just a quick search. None are complete polls, but all demonstrate a similar set of beliefs, held by a similar group of people. The latest poll seems simply confirmation, not contradiction.
I do not suggest that this is either exhaustive or definitive as regards actual Republicans and their beliefs. But it sure seems to be indicative, and requires more refutation than a hand wave.
OK, well now we have a genuine crazy in this thread to entertain everyone. Yee-haw.
The point remains that it is ridiculous to accept the results of this survey as representing all Republicans because we have no info about how the list of self-identified Republicans was created or how survey participants were selected from that list.
In other words you’ll assume that the a professional polling company is cooking the books to make your side look bad. And you’ll do this with no evidence of malfeasance, purely because you don’t like the data.
And you’ll do this to argue that Republicans aren’t actually immune to facts.
Fuck, *you *make your side look bad. 
If Fox didn’t tell him, how would he know?
Welcome back.
I would have phrased the Obama/Palin question differently, for one. Something like, “Who do you believe is more qualified to be president, Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, or are they equally qualified?” and switching the two names.
Or, for some of the other questions, saying something like, “Which best describes your view on the statement, gay men and women should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military: agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly?”
I think Research 2000 has a good track record of accuracy, but the questions seem to be posed in a black-or-white way that can elicit emotional reactions.
I don’t think the criticism that the poll “unfairly” picked more men and Southerners to bias the result is a good one. Men are more likely to be Republicans, at about a 10% greater rate than women are likely to be Republicans, so of course polling only Republicans is going to result in more responses from men than women. Same holds for geographical distribution: of course you’re going to get more responses from Southerners than New Englanders if you’re only polling Republicans.
ETA: I’m not entirely convinced the poll is accurate, but I am not immediately willing to disregard it, either. There seems to be something in the water that a lot of Republicans are drinking lately that makes them go to Tea Parties and listen to crazy things without question.
Any sentence that begins that way is presumptively the work of an idiot.
No, it already looks bad. He just blends in. The phrase ‘indistinguishable from noise’ also comes to mind.
What? I didn’t say anything like that at all, and I don’t assume that. I’m just reading the facts we have and pointing out those we don’t. Also, since I’ve never voted Republican, they aren’t “my side.”
From the Kos page:
This gives us all the methodology except for the source of phone numbers for self-identified Republicans, but unless someone wants to say they just made the names up, I see no reason to doubt it. They were randomly selected from a list of self-identified Republicans, Research 2000 is a legit polling company, and the methodology and MOE is sound. I don’t think attacking the accuracy of the results is going to be a winning or convincing strategy here.
One thing that should be noted, though, is tht less than a quarter of voters are willing to self-identify as Republicans these days, so these results probably represent the hardiest of the most hardcore.
And it’s not like we’re not hearing a lot of the same crap from the mainstream of the party – Palin, Bachman, “you lie,” birthers, deathers, “socialist,” all that crap, and talk radio is absolutely chock full of this shit. The loonies are running the asylum over there.
Well lah-tee-dah, aren’t we ruggedly independent?
This is entirely untrue. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that, were the ‘Tea Party’ a recognised political entity, and were a snap election announced tomorrow, they would claim 23% of the vote, beating the Republicans into 3rd place on a mere 18%.
They’re far from a “tiny minority”. There are tens of millions of these people.
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
DtC, the problem is that you and others are acting like there is one master list kept by god of “selfi-identified Republicans” and the pollsters here pulled from that list. You are assuming facts not in evidence on both counts. The list could be of those that crank-called Kos and said they were Republicans (just to give an absurd example).
This is a responsible polling company. They are going to use a legit list. Their reputation and livelihood depends on legitimacy, and they work for any and all political interests.
I have a brother-in-law who works for a polling company (including a lot of commissioned political polls). Their stock in trade is accuracy, not in stacking results. A company that cooked the results would not stay in business.
Me too, and she believes some really nutty shit. Probably the most succinct way to express this is that she argues that Rush Limbaugh is a credible source, untainted by bias.
For another data point my dad likes Glen Beck. I hate Idaho sometimes.
