Thread: Energy Committee Chairman Candidate Says God Promised no More Catastrophic Climate Ch

http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/ener...h.html?rainbow

Why does idiocy get a pass in our society if it's religiously-based?

Even if you reject man-made climate change, the idea that we couldn't possibly harm or make it uninhabitable is simply wrong (nukes?). If this guy was citing the same garbage, but saying that his dog told him, instead of a four thousand year old book written by farmers, I can guarantee that he wouldn't be elected, and he'd certainly have been laughed off of stage.

It's not just sad, it's extremely dangerous. This guy is on the energy committee. This guy who thinks that the world is indestructible because a very old book told him so.

What is truly sad and scary is the fact that this fucking kook actually gets votes.

Hey look fellas....it's a circle jerk

Opps sorry to interrupt.

I read Juan Cole's blog you linked - though I haven't had a chance to watch the video. But I don't honestly think that this guy is going to "get a pass" if his ideas are that krazy and the basis for policy decisions. With that said - time will tell I guess and if it appears that he is, in fact - not assumption, basing policy positions on some half-cocked idea then I'll be right there with yall complaining about it.

But, to sit back here in the peanut gallery and claim that this guy, or that people of faith in general, are the only kooky (oh excuse me hawg said "fucking kook") people to be elected you've got to be kidding me and you're only fooling yourselves. You're all smarter than that.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Hey look fellas....it's a circle jerk

Opps sorry to interrupt.

I read Juan Cole's blog you linked - though I haven't had a chance to watch the video. But I don't honestly think that this guy is going to "get a pass" if his ideas are that krazy and the basis for policy decisions. With that said - time will tell I guess and if it appears that he is, in fact - not assumption, basing policy positions on some half-cocked idea then I'll be right there with yall complaining about it.

But, to sit back here in the peanut gallery and claim that this guy, or that people of faith in general, are the only kooky (oh excuse me hawg said "fucking kook") people to be elected you've got to be kidding me and you're only fooling yourselves. You're all smarter than that.

Well, nobody said that they're the only kooky ones, but, this guy is saying that his god promised him that the world couldn't be destroyed. I think that you'd be hard pressed to find someone in elected office who's saying crazier things than that without justifying it through religion.

Does it have to be only crazy things based off of a religious background? Or can it be crazy things in general. Harry Reid has said some crazy things, in the not so distant past, that have nothing to do with religion. Or maybe they are just stupid things. Maybe what this guy in the video said wasn't crazy maybe just stupid like Harry Reid stupid and not crazy like Moses and End of Days stupid. We have no shortage of stupid in this world.

As for his claim that God said the world couldn't be destroyed; well I guess it depends on the level of destruction and what the varying levels of "destroyed" are. Personally, I don't think that humanity can "Destroy" the Earth either. Can we make it uninhabitable? We probably can. We are, after all, the smartest creatures on the planet (and the known universe at this point) and specialize in finding solutions to vexing problems and attaining the unthinkable. So there is some truth to his claim in the overall physical totality of the planet. There is also truth in the counter-claim that the Earth being made uninhabitable is synonymous to its destruction. But, it all depends on what the definition of is is and which syLlAble gets the inFLUence

All in all, unless he starts crafting policy based on this particular belief, I think that this might be much ado about nothing.

So you are saying that we shouldn't call him a "fucking kook" because we didn't juxtapose his "kookiness" with another's "kookiness"?

Or is it just that you have a problem with me calling someone a kook because of his public proclamation that his god speaks to him and that his god says "Earth can't be destroyed"......? Yes, Harry Reid has the capability of saying stupid shit too, but he isn't part of the original post. So why bring him up? I know, because the kook in question is a Republican Congressman. I wouldn't begin the knee jerk wagon circling just yet to protect that nut, not if you want any credibility whatsoever.......

Originally Posted by hawgballs

So you are saying that we shouldn't call him a "fucking kook" because we didn't juxtapose his "kookiness" with another's "kookiness"?

Or is it just that you have a problem with me calling someone a kook because of his public proclamation that his god speaks to him and that his god says "Earth can't be destroyed"......? Yes, Harry Reid has the capability of saying stupid shit too, but he isn't part of the original post. So why bring him up? I know, because the kook in question is a Republican Congressman. I wouldn't begin the knee jerk wagon circling just yet to protect that nut, not if you want any credibility whatsoever.......

Hawg, first I have nothing to worry about as far as my credibility goes. It stands on its own because of how I post and the reasoning I use when I do. Second, my problem is not with you calling someone a kook based on public proclamations based on faith, it is because there never seems to be much airtime given to any "kookiness" other than that of religious people and/or Republicans. I am not, in any way shape or form, an apologist for (r), or (d), or (i), nor for that matter religious or not. If you've read some of my posts before it is more about the simple fact that perception is strongly biased and unfortunately many people are either unaware of the bias or willfully ignorant of it. I brought up Harry to simply, and accurately state that comparisons abound between those on the left to those on the right, to the religious and non-religious. I am a conservative person, however, I am not a (r) and have never been. I do not vote party line. I also do not think party line. Hell, tbh, I don't know what the (r) party line is on a great many things. I use logic and rationale, in all things. To end, I am not "knee jerk wagon circling" to "protect that nut" by any means. Simply made a point that I think his statement was more along the lines of "stupid" or misinformed than outright "kooky" and the connotations that come with. For that matter, the author of the blog that wicked linked probably has some "kooky" things of his own from a religious standpoint based on his chosen faith.

I could care less what this guys religious belief is, but as i said if he starts basing policy (or his official position) off of his religious position then I'll be complaining about just like you and others. I've gone on record in many other posts stating that Science and Religion do not mix. The two are, and ought to be, mutually exclusive in that they do not occupy the same "jurisdiction" as it were. One is something that can be tested/proven/known and the other cannot and relies upon belief and internal feelings.