you would have to be stupid to think that oil could ever run out. Basic science says "energy can neither be created or destroyed." Duh. Oil can't run out. And if it did they would just go out in the desert and make more.
on one hand you have Romney quoting a 1/2 a sentence to try and make it look like Obama is saying that you have to have gov. help when Obama was clearly talking about roads and bridges and anyone with half a brain knows it. On the other hand you have Romney saying his family got government support to get on their feet. Its like on one hand you have people freak out that obama's dad was born in another country, and here you have romney who has a dad born in another country. He's an anchor baby, his dad was born in a mexican cult polygamy camp. You couldn't make this crap up if you wanted to.
Romney told Fox News, "My dad's dad was not a polygamist." He added, "My dad grew up in a family with a mom and a dad and a few brothers and one sister. They lived in Mexico and lived a very nice life there from what I understand and then when he was five or six years old there was a revolution in Mexico. They escaped. I believe they went to El Paso first, and were helped by the government to get on their feet and then his dad went around the country, Los Angeles, I think Idaho, Utah, went broke more than once. My dad had a very tough upbringing."
were helped by the government to get on their feet
His dad born in Mexico; in a polygamy compound. Chased out of the country. Romney's an anchor baby, Mexican parents got US government assistance.
you know good and well that he was talking about roads and bridges.
I just want to get one thing out of the way:
"Good move by the scouts. There have been too many instances of homosexual sexual predators infiltrating boys organizations."
So, if Penn State hadn't let in gays, then we wouldn't have had to worry about this whole Jerry Sandusky thing, right? Because he was a married guy with kids.
That's the thing. Homosexuals don't molest children. Child molesters molest children. And most child molesters act like they are typical heterosexual guys. Most of them find their victims through girl friends and family and stuff like that.
They aren't going to wear a sign around that says "Hey, I'm a child molester."
If someone is trying to infiltrate the scouts to molest boys, asking them "are you gay?" isn't exactly going to weed them out.
The scouts would do a lot better keeping out child molesters by letting it be known that if you molest a scout we'll take you out and cut your balls off.
This kind of thinking is a smoke screen. It isn't about keeping molesters out, it is about "I think gay people are icky and I don't want that kid with two moms to be around my kid."
Some folks will admit that but others will try to come up with excuses - I prefer the ones that just admit it.
And Sir Baden Powell was as gay as twilight. Please.
A lot of this comes from the lds, frankly. The lds has take over scout leadership at the national level. The lds preaches against gays because they want their followers to have as many kids as possible to grow their church. The lds church picks the leaders in the lds scout chapters so they shouldn't be able to impose their views on other chapters who may not agree but there is too much lds leadership at the top of the scouts. Local chapters should be free to decide who they include, based on what they know about a person and the person's actions, not a small group of rich men imposing their view on everyone else. I don't want to say that all lds people are anti-gay, I'm saying the institution is. That's just a documented fact.
So yes, a group can decide to be bigoted if it wants, but people in the group who don't want to be bigoted shouldn't have to accept a bunch of bigots telling them they have to be.
I think it is a great thing to be skeptical. We should all think critically and evaluate information carefully. A part of that is considering the source of information, being skeptical of both "sides,' and considering our own personal biases.
Consider this thought experiment.
Imagine for a second that none of us had ever heard of global climate change; the idea didn't exist.
Then one day you read this announcement:
"Today President Obama announced a new program to generate revenue to pay for slavery reparation, union pensions for police, firefighters and public school teachers, spanish-language and muslim history programs in public schools, ACORN voter registration efforts, and public health care, including abortions, for low-income immigrant women. The initiative will be funded by a daily release of 14,961,682 metric tons of carbon each day. A scientific study, published in Mother Jones, funded by the ACLU and Moveon.org, and conducted by top sociology and women's study professors at Berkeley, demonstrated that the release of only 14 million tons of carbon each day will have no impact on the environment. According to researchers "the earth is really big, man, and people have been on it a long time. There's no way we can have any impact on it - it isn't like it just magically popped in to being in a week a few thousand years ago or something. Besides, if we mess it up evolution will take care of everything in a few hundred million years anyway. No worries."
Would climate change deniers feel the same way? Would they take it for granted that releasing 14 million tons of carbon each day would have no impact whatsoever? Or would such an idea seem like a preposterous, stupid notion?
there would be no republic party without heartless idiots
They looked at the locations of "stores" on google maps to do the "study."
So if there was a lottery ticket and beer selling convenience store with barred up windows in an area then it was marked as a food store.
No need to have fresh produce or meats or anything like that. If you could get a bag of chips there was a food store.
Sure enough, there were "food swamps" not "food deserts."
That is a lesson in inability to look at the window and see the real world.
The shame is, something as basic as making it easier for poor people, for elderly people, disabled people - people who have a hard time with transportation that those of us lucky enough to drive - to make it easier for them to get groceries has to be politicized. The first lady said that nutrition is important, so that means that some folks have to be so narrow minded that if she said it they have to make it out to be a bad thing.
Some people will get too wrapped up in thinking about politics as a football game where you either for one team or the other and that anything the other team says will make your team look bad that they can't remember good old fashioned common decency. It's a shame it really is. And they forget common sense too.
Now replace schools signs posting "political" messages with church's signs posting political messages
50% of the US population has a below average IQ.
A majority never develop a completely internalized morality.
If you are standing on the North Pole, then Alaska looks way down south. CNN or NPR is the middle, it only looks left if you are starting from the extreme right. The pov is skewed.
Sudies consistently show that fox news viewers are less informed than others. Chicken and egg. Less informed viewers go there because it reinforces what they think they know and what they want to believe. Rinse, wash, repeat.
Look at the crazy right wing e-mails they send out - Obama born in Kenya, going to round up your gun, send you to fema camps, make you join a union, turn you gay, raise taxes and turn up spending and kill your grandmother.
But the truth is almost always the opposite. Constant lies, extremism. Idiots believe what they want to believe.
NPR doesn't have advertising, btw.