16 Comments

  1. Ahh c’mon now, it’s time to give this whole god stuff up, it’s getting ridiculous. You’re starting to make a show of yourselves.. well, a bigger show anyway. Poor bastards

  2. Regarding the quote “CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense”. I do not see the problem with that statement.

    Regarding the point of whether the “separation of church and state” is in the constitution you might wish to reference the wiki entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

    Regarding the fact of general relativity you might wish to consider that in order to make the theory match macro-celestial observations scientists have had to invent both dark energy and dark matter, neither which we can sense. Read also:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/
    What would be so unusual about a 100 year old theory being wrong or rewritten?

    Food for thought……………

    Rachel Maddow doesn’t know everything.

    Also Air America sucked and it failed, but what do I know.

    Idiot out

    1. Regarding the point of whether the “separation of church and state” is in the constitution you might wish to reference the wiki entry

      Derived from the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. American legal precedent is nothing if not clear on the subject.

      What would be so unusual about a 100 year old theory being wrong or rewritten?

      Nothing at all. But at what point does Discover cite John 4:46-54. as Conservapedia did? And do they ever conflate “relativity” with “relativism,” again, as Conservapedia did?

      Food for thought……………

      But alas, thin gruel indeed…

    2. Strawberry jam is also not a pollutant in the conventional sense, but if we started pumping several thousand million tons of it into the upper atmosphere each year we may also be screwed in the long run.

      Preserve for thought……

  3. The submission on Relativity shows the unreliability of the wiki-model encyclopedia more than anything–regardless of how “anti-science” many conservatives are.

  4. …Well. I just vised the wiki page and its “talk page.” There is someone who I believe knows about the subject having a back-and-forth with a first order moron. Funny, actually.

  5. The entry for Barack Obama claims that he is both socialist in his desire to take all the money and give it out equally, and the least charitable American alive.

    1. Oh there is a link to his birth certificate from Honolulu alongside the claim that he was born in Kenya.
      And he is Muslim who attends a radical baptist church.
      And….oh nevermind.

  6. While I agree with what Rachel says, I don’t see why she has to sneer at the people she’s reporting about. She loses respect from me. I can clearly see that these people are idiots. There’s no need for her to stoop to their level in reporting on them.

  7. Regarding the quote “CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense”. I do not see the problem with that statement.

    Whenever I hear a statement like that, I’m inclined to invite the speaker to wear a plastic bag on his or her head for the duration of the argument. My contention is that too much CO2 can be a bad thing.

  8. In the case of Joe Barton, evidently he did the plastic bag thing when he was young. He exhibits the brain damage to prove it.

Comments are closed.