Those witless dolts at the mall may very well be picking the next president

AS the sounds of "Mandy" hit you in the spine and you suddenly realize that you AREN'T endlessly mindlessly listening to Christmas music being piped in at you in every public setting we all need to realize that those organisms you recently had to encounter while following the prescribed cultural spendingfest of this month will indeed be voting 315 days from now.

Honestly, anyone who would even consider voting for a rethug at this point is either a hardcore fundie or a deluded idiot.

no matter who is chosen. When you realize that 53% of the people in this nation don't believe that evolution is fact, you know we are in for a lot of trouble in the next election. God help us if Hucklebee wins the nomination.

People forget Evolution is the best explanation of known facts NOT a fact in itself. Thus people can reject "evolution is fact" and still understand it and accept it as the best explanation of how we became what we are.

Furthermore Arthur Doyle, in one of his books about Sherlock Holmes, show Holmes NOT knowing that the earth revolved around the Sun, for believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth was good enough for his work. Doyle was making a point, even intelligent people do NOT need to know everything correctly, as long as what they are depending on is good enough to do they job. In the case of Holmes, his work was detection, it did not matter to him if the earth went around the sun, or the sun around the earth, all it matter was the sun rose in the east and sat in the south at certain times each day. The variation of the day was important, but which object was revolving around the other is NOT.

One last comment, under present theory the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun. The Sun and the Earth revolve around each other (i.e. around a common center). The problem is given that the Sun is so much larger than the Earth, the "Center of Gravity" of both is much closer to the Sun then the earth (Thus the oval shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun). To be accurate the Earth only appears to revolve around the Sun, in fact both revolve around a common center.

So if you want to show people as dumb and uneducated that is fine, it is the quickest way to get them to stay dumb and uneducated. If you hit someone, he will not say "Thank you I was wrong", instead he will jump back up and try to hit you back (or if he can't still reject what you wanted to teach him by the hit). Telling people that they are dumb for rejecting evolution is like hitting them, it will NOT change their minds, instead it will make it HARDER to convert them.

I always like telling people to read St Paul's acts and letters in the Bible, to learn HOW to convert people. He NEVER insulted anyone he was trying to convert, he even tried to show they beliefs were compatible with Christianity (For example in once went into a Pantheon, where all gods were worships and pointed out the altar to unknown gods as how the Greeks of that City were already worshiping God even before Christ, thus St Paul was telling them they past practices were worshiping of God, and converting to Christianity was just fulfilling that previous practice). My point here is simple to convert people NEVER insult them, look for common ground as St Paul did.

Thus your statement as to evolution shows that you do NOT want to convince these people to vote Democratic, you want to show them you are superior to them (Which is NOT a way to convert anyone to anything). You hold them to be to ignorant do to their rejection of evolution and refuse to look at the points many of the same people agree with the Democratic Program. Many of these people reject evolution, not do to any rejection of the theory itself, but its use by Social Darwinists to reject social programs starting in the 1800s. Social Darwinism is a rejection of Christianity, and that rejection is what causes most people to reject Social Darwinism AND evolution.

What should we do? Personally I would reject ANY mention of Evolution. Instead look at what these Fundamentalist Christians (Who are most likely to reject Evolution) agree with the Democratic Program. Do they support a colonial war (Ir aq is such a war)? Most will NOT. Do they believe we should help the poor? Christ himself said we must do that, thus Fundamentalist must support such aid to the poor (I know the most famous Fundamentalist preachers reject Government funding of such aid, but most church goers do NOT). I would concentrate on Christ Beatitude from his Sermon on the mound to show why the Democrats are more in line with Christ then the GOP. The Sermon on the mound is the heart of Christianity. Reject any of them you reject Christianity and even the most right wing Fundamentalist will not do so:

The Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02371a.htm

You can use these Beatitudes to get Fundamentalist to support Democratic Candidates, something the Economic Conservatives can NOT do and maintain they policy of low taxes for the rich.

most scientists do think evolution is a fact, but there is legitimate debate and continuous discovery about the nature of evolution. Evolutionary theory is about the mechanisms of evolution, not about whether or not evolution occurs. Go over to Internet Infidels http://www.infidels.org/ and do a search and I'm certain you will find plenty of evidence to support my contention. You also might want to look at their sections on science and skepticism, philosophy and creation and evolution. Very educational and informative

The rules of Logic are quite strict. If you can not prove the theory of evolution as "Fact" via the Rules of Logic, then it can NOT be a "Scientific Fact". Most scientists may accept Evolution as "Fact" but that is not the same thing as proving evolution is "Scientific Fact".

Under the rules of Logic if you A, then you have B and C, but the reverse is NOT true, if you have B and C you may NOT have A. Thus if you have a Murder, you have a something that can kill someone and a dead body. But you can have a dead body and a something the can kill someone and still not have a Murder (i.e. someone died of a heart attack while carrying a gun). Now in the law we do NOT require absolute proof, so for example we have a body and weapon and the weapon was used on the body that is enough to get a conviction in most cases (Through in cases where the weapon was used on the body AFTER it was dead from a heart attack would NOT be murder). Thus in the Law we do NOT require absolute proof of a Crime. In Civil Cases the burden of Proof is by preponderance of evidence in most cases (I.e. more likely then not), in Criminal Cases the burden of proof is beyond a Reasonable Doubt (While unable to prove absolutely, the doubts that exists are not reasonable given all of the evidence of a case). The Theory of Evolution would survive any attack under either legal requirement. The problem is to be a "Scientific Fact" the evidence MUST be shown under the Rules of Logic NOT the Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Logic is HARDER then the Rules of Evidence.

Thus applying the Rules of Logic to the Theory of Evolution, the theory fails. Basically if Evolution is fact, then we have the fossil record we have, but merely having the Fossil record does NOT prove the Theory of Evolution as "Scientific Fact".

Thus most Scientist may accept the Theory of Evolution as FACT, it may even meet the burden of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but under the Rules of Logic neither is enough. Please note most Scientists Theory do NOT meet the Rules of Logic and most people also do not meet the rules of logic, but if you want to call something "Scientific Fact" it must do so or otherwise it stays a theory, for a theory acknowledges that it may be false, highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible.

Anyway, the thrust of my comment was to attack Fundamentalist based on their rejection of Evolution will NOT get them to vote Democratic. You should look at where we agree with them NOT where we disagree with them. You can sit in your Ivory Tower and look down on those poor peasants, but if you want the support of those poor peasants you must talk to them and such talk has to be on some common ground. Thus I would avoid evolution and concentrate on ending the War in Iraq AND helping the poor. Helping the poor and ending the war is something even people who reject evolution for religious reasons will support.

It always strikes me as odd that people supposedly in favor of democracy call the people idiots.
That is the standard belief system of dictators and technocrats who think the experts should be in charge and that the people can not be trusted.

...Dems to be elitist snobs, too.

NGU.

It's not cowardice in Congress. It's the knowledge that the corporate media would turn these people against the Democrats in a heartbeat if legislators aggressively pursued impeachment or and end to the war. In looking at those "witless dolts," you're looking at the real reason for Congress' reticence on these issues.

...and paid the political price. The Dems in congress ARE cowards for not seriously looking at impeachment. The public would support it much more than they did in 1997. There'd be no price to pay.

Many of those witless dolts are probably as smart or smarter than you or I. Many are probably as aware or more aware than you or I.

I realize that being thrown in the middle of a sea of humanity in a setting like a mall can be a discouraging experience, but that's because it doesn't show people at their best as individuals.

I know I know I was just trying to make a point and do it in a (hopefully) funny crumudgeon way.

He wants the credit for it.

I think (and random surveys have shown this) that most of your "average" people don't know who their Congressional representatives are. Most people simply don't want to involve themselves in politics, as is shown by the traditionally lackluster turnout we see on election days.

ability to answer general knowledge questions and it's almost a guarantee they will fall flat on their asses when it comes to knowing anything about current politics/politicians.

JQ Public isn't interested. How else could chimp have made it close enough to steal. Millions didn't vote and millions who did weren't paying attention.

Sure, it's easy for young people to get excited when you have celebrities getting you all pumped up. But when it comes time to vote, how many of these people are actually going to go stand in line to vote? Especially when those lines can be quite long. There's always something better to do. :sarcasm:

And we make ourselves look stupid when we assume that it does.

NGU.

that they weren't paying attention.

...you were supporting the "witless dolts" comment. My bad. Mia culpa.

:toast:

NGU.

If I'm not exactly hogwld about Manilow, I'm not exactly famous for my appreciation of Ms. Lee either.

Come November, I'd like to hear victory music.

Real loud.

congress last year? And what have they gotten so far? You want to win in '08? Because you will need some of these "witless dolts" to vote for your candidate.

were staring at you thinking 'look at that witless dolt at the mall'.

and I am going to help elect the next freakin' president!!!

because just being there is going to stress you out so much that you're gonna ACT like one anyway

ignores "the people," and how democracy is supposed to embody government by the people (that's literally what "democracy" means), and then we turn around and sneer at all those people who are supposed to be the government? If all those mindless sheep at the mall aren't worthy of picking a president, who are the "elite" that should be making that decision?

What a crock.

ME, dammit. Things would go much, much better if people would just do as I say.

Thankfully the Founding Fathers didn't set us up as a true democracy. In a true democracy, majority rules, no matter what.

Also, nowhere in the Constitution will you find where it grants people the right to vote for President.

Congrats! You think like the BFEE!

I hope you were being sarcastic. Do you honestly want "majority rule" in this country? What happens if the majority in this country decides they want to institute Christian rule?

Also, can you tell me where in the Constitution it guarantees people the right to vote for President? I agree this is something that needs to be addressed, but as it stands now, that guarantee does NOT exist. Rather, the Constitution leaves it up to the individual states to vote for President, which is where the electoral college comes from. So far, every state has seen fit to allow its citizens to vote for their electors. But don't try and tell me that there is a constitutional right to vote for president when there is none.

They're like zombies doing the "mall walk", that is walking at half the speed of everyone else, six abreast with a blank stare surveying the store signs, oblivious to everyone else that wants to get the hell out of there but are stuck and piling up behind them.

Aaaarrrgghhh!

...one of THEM.

:P

who, when interviewed about their choice of candidate, will say something like "Well, I like that Fred Thompson fella--he seems Presidential. But I also like that John Edwards fella--he seems like he's for the little guy." Different parties, different platforms, divergent philosophies and policies, but for the shallow idiot, it doesn't matter. I see this sort of reply all the time, and it drives me batty.

guy who'd gladly remove what little of a social safety net we have in this country, and people, who apparently don't know any better, get behind it.

just because he looks good on TV. Our frontrunners don't.

bush did not need to be the smartest person in the room as long as bush was liable enough to have a beer with and that is all. I hope this election people will understand the importance of knowledge and experience. HRC seems to have the one ingredient and that is APTITUDE.
Obama in so many ways reminds me of bush. Bush could talk hours on in about one subject and the same about obama. When he is one to one he stumbles in his answers and comes across not fully prepared whereas HRC one to one can respond to any subject matter and give an answer that is understandable.

HRC talks to people....Obama talks down to people as though they were a bunch of hicks....

Ben David

Name one subject Bush could go on about for hours. Name one subject Bush could teach to college students.

Yeah, they're almost similar. One's an accomplished student, teacher, community activist, and legislator, a devoted husband and Christian, who came from humble beginnings to be elected to the US Senate in a landslide. The other is a mean, ignorant, arrogant ne'er-do-well who would be living in a box if he hadn't been born into the largest criminal family in history.

Well-reasoned :thumbsup:

perhaps you are one of those witless dolts you criticize. How could an unbiased observer differentiate?

Do you want a test for voting privileges, something that would only allow intellectual philosopher kings such as yourself and those who hold your personal beliefs to vote?

Democracy for the elect, as chosen by underpants.