• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

GOP: Autism is god's wrath on America

Alceste

Vagabond
Yes, I apologize...I missed it or I most certainly would have read it looking intently for a definition that is not clear that the title "goggle-eyed lunatic assessment tool" does not imply is there. Today 10:43 PM

Here it is again. Don't miss this opportunity to never be confused again.


OK, Sandy, here's a quick reference guide to help you determine who is a qualified statesperson and who is a goggle eyed lunatic. Make sure you print this off and keep it handy during the next election. Each Y answer counts as 1, each N is a zero.

THIS CANDIDATE:

a) in complete seriousness, mentions witchcraft, demons, or the wrath of God in the context of domestic or foreign policy discussions.

b) displays a profound and disturbing ignorance of human reproductive biology, for example by claiming that a woman can't get pregnant from a "legitimate rape".

c) uses vacuous, prejudicial, meaningless and / or inflammatory terms such as "feminazi", "lamestream media", or "terrorists" (to refer to peaceful political dissidents).

d) does not understand what is meant by commonly used phrases in political discourse, such as "the Bush doctrine"

e) denies the reality of climate change

f) denies the reality of evolution

g) thinks "the terrorists hate freedom", as opposed to hating American foreign policy.

h) uses his or her position of authority to persecute others due to insignificant personal vendettas.

i) considers Ayn Rand an inspired economic theorist: dismisses the arguments of real economists in favour of exclusively promoting her nutty fictional romance novel characters' vision of a perfect world.

j) literally rapes the words "agenda", "liberal", "socialist", "feminist" or "terrorist" to death in every speech and is overly, disturbingly fond of the phrase "cramming it down our throats" when discussing issues pertaining to homosexuality.

Scoring chart:

0 - 2: Not an American politician.
3 - 5: Qualified statesperson
6 - 8: the danger zone
9 - 11: Goggle-eyed lunatic
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
Sounds good to me. Maybe I'll send a donation.

tumblr_inline_mmc1yk3Gzu1qz4rgp.jpg
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I mean how dare an American exercise free speech

This isn't about free speech. It's about holding our law makers and political leaders to a standard. Of course people should be free to believe and speak as they wish, but if people say things that are ignorant, bigoted, irrational and unsubstantiated, it's fair to call their competency and integrity into question.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
This isn't about free speech. It's about holding our law makers and political leaders to a standard. Of course people should be free to believe and speak as they wish, but if people say things that are ignorant, bigoted, irrational and unsubstantiated, it's fair to call their competency and integrity into question.

Exactly. Pointing out that someone else's exercise in free speech is idiotic is also free speech.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
"Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are." -Andrew Cuomo

This hardly fits the claim you made. :shrug:
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Tea Party: "We hate big government."
Tea Party: "The government should regulate who can and cannot get married."
Tea Party: "The government should regulate what women can and can't do with their bodies."
Tea Party: "The government should regulate what drugs we can and cannot do."



Exactly. He made a statement that women are capable of making decisions about their body without government approval but then when I present evidence that says otherwise he claims it wasn't what he was talking about but then agrees with the tea party stance on restricting women's ability to make their own medical decisions...which in turn nullifies Rev's characterization of my position....because Sandy "does" in fact approve of the the techniques employed by many on the right....
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Since he hasn't answered you, I will. He's implying (without saying...to preserve the weasel option, you know) that correlation is causation between more abortion restrictions & the rise of the Tea Party.

That's not what I'm implying at all.


Therefore Tea Partiers are pro-big-gov, despite their claimed agenda otherwise.

Many of them are. That's no secret.


This is good technique for when criticizing a group for what they believe isn't so effective (especially when the group is diverse)....assign them a more easily attacked agenda.

What attack agenda? I didn't realize by presenting evidence to his incorrect statement was an attack.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Well, perhaps the Pope isn't pro-gun.

What...?......:areyoucra

What does that have to do with your assertion....

"Young women are completely in control of when they can become parents without any say so from the government or anyone else for that matter except in the case of rape."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's not what I'm implying at all.
Many of them are. That's no secret.
What attack agenda? I didn't realize by presenting evidence to his incorrect statement was an attack.
Thought bubbles don't lie! They let me see what you're actually thinking,
but express in language which suggests it, but is vague enuf to give
plausible deniability when weaknesses are pointed out.
I'm just here to help...watch those thought bubbles!
 
Last edited:

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
What...?......:areyoucra

What does that have to do with your assertion....

"Young women are completely in control of when they can become parents without any say so from the government or anyone else for that matter except in the case of rape."
Go back to your post where you asked for evidence and your confusion will be cleared up.

As to the evidence for the quote you just offered, have you ever been on a date where the woman just said, "No."
 
Top