This is the Republican Party

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...ell/?hpt=hp_t2

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Speaking at Liberty Baptist Church’s Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, he said that “a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.”

“I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” Broun said in the speech, which Liberty Baptist Church posted on its website via YouTube. “I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Scientists say that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that the universe dates back 13.7 billion years.

In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.”



That's called a Theocracy. A United States Congressman is openly advocating that the government should be a Theocracy, and nobody else in his party finds that noteworthy.

If you're a fan of Christian Theocracy, feel free to vote for all of the Republicans on your ballot. Just remember that the bible says some pretty specific things about gambling, drinking, pornography, and premarital sex.

I think a few loons on both sides in the House of Representatives is fine; what concerns me is the man is a MEDICAL DOCTOR! Egads, does he put patients on an altar and prepare to sacrifice them unless god steps in (Abraham/Isaac for those that don't know)

Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
:lol2

progressive liberal's religion

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...i_01/broke.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun

---

That is hilarious. The fact that people like that can get jobs at McDonald's is surprising. The fact that they can be elected as US Representatives is scary.

But Obama can't be bothered to actually write the families of soldiers KIA. So he isn't some great alternative. Form letters? Really? Thanks Chief. Maybe too busy with Pirate Day? He did however find time to send Heavy D's parents a personal letter.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...marines-seals/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

But Obama can't be bothered to actually write the families of soldiers KIA. So he isn't some great alternative. Form letters? Really? Thanks Chief.

---

You think that's equivalent to a government official proposing that the US constitution be scrapped and replaced with a Theocracy? Seriously?

What the fuck is Obama supposed to say in those letters? He didn't know those guys. The soldier's commanding officer always writes a letter, because he can say something personal about his relationship with the dead guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

But Obama can't be bothered to actually write the families of soldiers KIA. So he isn't some great alternative. Form letters? Really? Thanks Chief.

---

You think that's equivalent to a government official proposing that the US constitution be scrapped and replaced with a Theocracy? Seriously?

What the fuck is Obama supposed to say in those letters? He didn't know those guys. The soldier's commanding officer always writes a letter, because he can say something personal about his relationship with the dead guy.

---

What that guy said was embarrassing and scary. He has no business having anything to do with the Government.

If he doesn't care, then that's fine. But don't send form letters pretending you do. If you can't be bothered to write the letter yourself, don't send it at all. Don't say how broken up you and Michelle are when you didn't even bother to write the letter yourself. Do you think that Dad's reaction isn't understandable? "I'm so sorry for the loss of your son. Me and Michelle are so broken up about.........whatever the fuck his name is. I couldn't be bothered to find out about your son's death personally. But please trust that I really am broken up about it." It's an asshole thing to do. Regardless if the guy in office has an "R" or a "D" next to his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

You think that's equivalent to a government official proposing that the US constitution be scrapped and replaced with a Theocracy? Seriously?

What the fuck is Obama supposed to say in those letters? He didn't know those guys. The soldier's commanding officer always writes a letter, because he can say something personal about his relationship with the dead guy.

---

What that guy said was embarrassing and scary. He has no business having anything to do with the Government.

If he doesn't care, then that's fine. But don't send form letters pretending you do. If you can't be bothered to write the letter yourself, don't send it at all. Don't say how broken up you and Michelle are when you didn't even bother to write the letter yourself. Do you think that Dad's reaction isn't understandable? "I'm so sorry for the loss of your son. Me and Michelle are so broken up about.........whatever the fuck his name is. I couldn't be bothered to find out about your son's death personally. But please trust that I really am broken up about it." It's an asshole thing to do. Regardless if the guy in office has an "R" or a "D" next to his name.

---

This is actually Standard Operating Procedure for all presidents, dating back to at least Roosevelt and including George W. Bush. I would imagine Woodrow Wilson and other American war time presidents did the same including Lincoln.

These have been strange political attacks in recent years (not going to some D-Day Memorial on D-Day, letters to soldiers, etc) where they are trying to hammer Obama for something presidents have always done, making it seem as if he is the first. It's a shame people are too lazy to look this stuff up themselves, and you think common sense would tell you that Roosevelt/Truman couldn't have written letters to every dead soldier's family in WWII, in fact the signatures on the letters are auto-pens or secretaries, he never even SIGNED them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

What that guy said was embarrassing and scary. He has no business having anything to do with the Government.

If he doesn't care, then that's fine. But don't send form letters pretending you do. If you can't be bothered to write the letter yourself, don't send it at all. Don't say how broken up you and Michelle are when you didn't even bother to write the letter yourself. Do you think that Dad's reaction isn't understandable? "I'm so sorry for the loss of your son. Me and Michelle are so broken up about.........whatever the fuck his name is. I couldn't be bothered to find out about your son's death personally. But please trust that I really am broken up about it." It's an asshole thing to do. Regardless if the guy in office has an "R" or a "D" next to his name.

---

This is actually Standard Operating Procedure for all presidents, dating back to at least Roosevelt and including George W. Bush. I would imagine Woodrow Wilson and other American war time presidents did the same including Lincoln.

These have been strange political attacks in recent years (not going to some D-Day Memorial on D-Day, letters to soldiers, etc) where they are trying to hammer Obama for something presidents have always done, making it seem as if he is the first. It's a shame people are too lazy to look this stuff up themselves, and you think common sense would tell you that Roosevelt/Truman couldn't have written letters to every dead soldier's family in WWII, in fact the signatures on the letters are auto-pens or secretaries, he never even SIGNED them.

---

Also, Obama is the first President to ever use a teleprompter...except for all of them since the invention the teleprompter.

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/u...549/reagan.jpg

imagine if Roosevelt had to write letters for every dead soldier that died in WWII. Obviously there was a lot more deaths, but they shouldn't be less important than todays soldiers right? He would be 24/7 and would have cought up sometime in 1950.

Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had to do it in Vietnam. What was that 60,000 soldiers? A personal letter to each.


it actually makes good policy. Maybe we wouldn't go to war so fast if the president was actually responsible for sending letters to each dead soldier.

Now, this criticism of Obama is of course, horseshit as no President sent letters for every dead soldier during a war, but since this war is "light" it would be "doable" by Obama. the only problem I can think of is who sets that "line" where it is decided that the president can't possibly spend the time for the letters to write each one personally instead of a form letter. Azzclown is what would your personal preference be for the "death" cutoff be? I mean how many dead soldiers a year would it be fair for the President to say: "This takes too much of my important time personally, and not suffer political backlash.

Remember, it wouldn't be fair to send them to some, personally and others not. Either all dead soldiers or none would get personal letters to their families.

Conservative media guys like Rush/Hannity who feed on this nonsense news, and obviously only want to create a narrative that "Obama doesn't care about the troops". Do you think Rush and gang would mind maybe a group letter for multiple fatalities such as a plane crash or a Humvee hitting an IUD would be acceptable? How about several killed in a firefight or suicide bombing?


2 serious questions for azzclown:

Since obviously the general point you are making by posting that link is that "Obama doesn't care about the troops".

Which shows least concern for the troops:

Refusing to buy them proper safety equipment such as body armor (GOP blocked the bill to save money)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...dy-armor_x.htm


and

George Bush and GOp opposing a long list of benefits for the troops. You see the troops are another group of workers to them they don't want top raise taxes for.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17...idows-benefits
g


PAY RAISE – Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index (ECI). The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money “that would otherwise be available to support our troop,” said OMB letter.

The White House will lose this one. Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived “pay gap” with civilians.

However, a Congressional Budget Office report released in late June suggests no such gap exists. When housing allowances growth and associated tax advantages are weighed, the pay gap for the enlisted force, which advocates say started in 1982, actually was closed by 2002. Since then, the military pay gap has become a “pay surplus,” even excluding improvements in special pays and bonuses, CBO says.

Military associations dispute the CBO findings and support congressional efforts to continue to special military pay adjustments. The House in May voted to sustain the string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012. The Senate bill deals only with the 2008 raise. When House-Senate conferees work a final compromise bill later this summer, the CBO findings could persuade conferees to adopt the Senate pay raise plan.

TRICARE INCREASES – Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the Bush administration. The OMB letter doesn’t reflect that air of compromise.

By not allowing the TRICARE fees and deductibles to rise as the administration planned, OMB chided, the Senate is adding $1.86 billion, again “funds that would otherwise be available to support our troops.”

RESERVE RETIREMENT – The Senate bill would lower the start of reserve retirement at age 60 by three months for every 90 days a reservist or Guard members is recalled after the change is enacted. The administration opposes this move, arguing it fuels growth in military deferred compensation and overall entitlement spending and will “only marginally” improve career retention among for Reserve and Guard members.

CRSC FOR ‘CHAPTER 61’ RETIREES

he Senate bill would expand eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to certain retirees forced by their disabilities to leave service short of 20 years. Only those disabled by combat injuries would be eligible. CRSC payments would be set by plugging into the usual retired pay formula the smaller number of years that disabled retirees have served.

The House voted to expand CRSC only to Chapter 61 retirees who served at least 15 years and have combat-related disabilities rated 60 percent or higher. House-Senate conferees will have to reconcile the differences. The administration opposes such “piecemeal changes to disability compensation,” said OMB, noting that several commissions are studying disability pay. Congress should await a comprehensive reform package.

Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel offered an amendment July 11 that would have assured active duty service members as much time back home as they spend deployed. Reserve component members would have been guaranteed a three-to-one, home-to-mobilization ratio. Republicans blocked the amendment from coming to a full Senate vote.

Hagel offered a second amendment to limit soldier deployments to Iraq to no more than 12 months and Marine deployments to no more than seven months. With 60 votes needed, the measure was defeated 52 to 45. Forty four Republicans and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted against it.

http://www.ptsdsupport.net/bush_opposes_troop_pay.html



or

Not writing letters personally when they are already dead.



Get real with who your party in fact is Azz, just like I must grudgingly admit I'm a Democrat now. You never once brought up any issues where Dems are fighting for more pay and benefits for soldiers. Not cause Dems are patriotic, soldiers are just another group of poor people the Dem's want to increase benefits for. I never saw you complain once about body armor upgrades the fiscally tight GOP were dodging for years.



The modern GOP doesn't give a shit about the troops. Reagan did. He pulled them out of Lebanon because he couldn't stand to watch them die for what he knew was an utter waste of time. Who do you think sent them to fight to begin with and who opposed it? If we really, really cared for the troops we would bring every last one of them home.

Can't we keep all this shit in one or two threads?

I lean conservative on a lot of issues, but the republican party does a great job at alienating me and many like me with all the religious fanaticism (among other things).

I remember being a kid and thinking that the president and congress must be the smartest people in the land...damn was I wrong.

I once had a guy tell me the earth was only 6000 years old and his "proof" was that when the guys stepped on the moon they didn't sink down in to billions of years of space dust...I asked him if he sinks down to his waist when he walks on the beach...and to please explain dinosaur bones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMBLE-BOT

Get real with who your party in fact is Azz,

---

My party? Where did I ever say I was a Republican? Because I criticize something the president does, I'm automatically a Republican? This is why nothing will ever change.

Why do you defend Obama by pointing out things that Bush did? Does that somehow negate what Obama does? My response had nothing to do with any president but Obama, yet 3 or 4 posters have already brought up other presidents as if it makes it less of an asshole thing to do simply because "that's the way it's done". None of those presidents campaigned on the "change" slogan. Keep deflecting his shortcomings by pointing out those of others, it really makes a lot of sense.