Marco Rubio - just another GObP idiot

[Harry Dresden]

Rubio is a zero. He's dumb and homely with big ears. Not a winning combination...

here he comes.....right on cue.....one of the resident Bigots......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Pub candidates have to act STUPID for their base. They lose because they're heartless selfish bought off douchebags...

Frankie......your to Brainwashed to discuss this kind of stuff......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Half the GOP thinks it's 5600 years fcs...

its 6,000 Frankie.....God told me.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Pub candidates have to act STUPID for their base. They lose because they're heartless selfish bought off douchebags...

Franco, you really need to post some stuff that actually supports your assertions instead of just telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are idiots.

You say "change the channel" a lot and I watch CNN, MSNBC, and NPR. I get the same stuff as FoxNews but with a liberal slant instead of a conservative slant.

If you listened to just Fox and Rush your rep would be over a thousand.

See sig, last line especially.

See my book, search for "Guilty of Just Thinking, the series" at Barnes and Noble.com- it's all there LOL
tyvm

how do you explain the Lefties here with Rep over a Thousand then?.....Change the channel Frankie.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm just always right. Douchebag. LOL and good nite.

most of the Brainwashed amongst us feel the same way.....its what your told....

 

[Harry Dresden]

..so Frankie won....you beat this guy Frankie.....how many does that make now.....47?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Marco Rubio's GQ interview: a naked presidential pitch | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk
My God, the world is having fun at the expense of American Right Wingnuts.

im sure they have a good laugh too when you post your shit......

 

[Freewill]

Funny thing about that, I had drinks with two Scientists last month and I asked them both their opinions on the age of the Earth.

The PhD in Analytic Chemistry said it's hard to know for sure but the current vetted evidence says it's 4.5 billion years old. When I asked about the 6000 year "literal interpretation of the Bible" he said that it should be considered in context and with a grain of salt.

The PhD in Geophysics said that Carbon dating is the current method and that it puts the age of the earth at "just over 4.5 billion" and when I asked the same question he said, "Carbon dating is the linchpin. The fundamentalists don't believe in it and strangely enough they have a valid concern. But until it's been proven otherwise, this is what we're going with."

Then they turned the tables on me and asked me my opinion. I told them that I had always been taught 4.5 billion years and my amateur studies in Astronomy have confirmed this. Then they subjected me to a defense of my opinion and they both told me that my reasoning was as inconclusive as theirs.

It was an interesting evening and quite an insight into the process of Scientific "proof."


Now why is Rubio an idiot again? (outside of his political opportunism and you'll get no argument from me on that)

Did the geophysics guy really said that carbon dating could be used to go back 4.5 billion years? If so then why in the hell would you believe anyone so misinformed about his own science? This is a typical error that those who are not into science make so I am thinking you made up this conversation. At best carbon dating goes back only 70,000 years.

The real reason the age of the Earth is put at 4.5 billion years is because it HAS to be that old to support modern theory. There is absolutely no way to measure the age, except maybe with the decay of Uranium, in my opinon. Certainly carbon dating can't be used.

Did the geophysics guy really said that carbon dating could be used to go back 4.5 billion years? If so then why in the hell would you believe anyone so misinformed about his own science? This is a typical error that those who are not into science make so I am thinking you made up this conversation. At best carbon dating goes back only 70,000 years.

The real reason the age of the Earth is put at 4.5 billion years is because it HAS to be that old to support modern theory. There is absolutely no way to measure the age, except maybe with the decay of Uranium, in my opinon. Certainly carbon dating can't be used.

A very valid point. Gimme a few minutes.

Response from the Geophysicist (he's on Facebook right now):

"No you idiot, I said Radiometric dating! Google it."

So there's that.


But I noticed a couple of accusatory statements in your rant. Why, if you think I'm ignorant of some scientific principles (which I just demonstrated I am) would you think it's a bad thing to believe him even if he's misinformed? He's a Geophysicist, how am I to know whether Carbon dating is accurate? I would have no basis to know if he is misinformed of his own science or not.

I think you just disagree with my statement and therefore have to attack the source and exploit a flaw.

YOU said carbon dating. YOU said that this is what YOUR friend said. As I said, I would not believe what a geophysics said IF he had said that carbon dating was used to date the Earth. I then said you must be making it up, but more rightly I should have said you got it wrong I apologize for not doing so. I then pointed out that the only real way to measure the Earth's age is through Uranium decay. Which is what your friend is actually talking about. Do a google and you will see that uranium/Lead decay is what is used for radiometric dating is all about. So i am not sure why your shorts are in a knot. You innocently posted what you and a whole lot of others believe, which you now know not to be true. You can thank me for informing you next post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDfJU4z2E#t=9m](2/5) Sen. Barack Obama at CNN Compassion Forum - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ilia25]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact being taught in schools. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological or ethical question, pure and simple.

 

[Freewill]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began. Science sets the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years with life starting very soon afterwards at about 3.5 billion years. A billion being "relatively soon."

See what we have here is liberals wishing for everyone who is a believer to say that the world is only 6000 years old which for them is easy to attack, doesn't take a lot of thinking. When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack. Nothing Rubio said is deserving of the smear the left is putting on him. The only logical conclusion is they are trying to crush yet another minority.

 

[ilia25]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.

It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.

When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.

Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.

 

[Duped]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began. Science sets the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years with life starting very soon afterwards at about 3.5 billion years. A billion being "relatively soon."

See what we have here is liberals wishing for everyone who is a believer to say that the world is only 6000 years old which for them is easy to attack, doesn't take a lot of thinking. When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack. Nothing Rubio said is deserving of the smear the left is putting on him. The only logical conclusion is they are trying to crush yet another minority.

The libs know that austerity is at the brink which will aleinate Many of their low brow constiuantcy. They will slander rubio relentlessly, and anyone else who poses a threat to their power - and they are a bunch of racist assholes!

 

[Freewill]

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.

It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.

When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.

Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.

Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?



A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

 

[Stephanie]

HuffinPaint.

So, that it was on HuffPo, that proves that Rubio didn't say it?

You guys are pathetic. You can't deny that your candidates are idiots so you attack the source of the link.

Here's a few more links that quote him as having said this. You really gonna say all of them are wrong or lying?

STOOOOOPID.

Marco Rubio Interview - GQ December 2012: Politics: GQ

Marco Rubio Muses to GQ On The Earth's Age, Hip Hop, And His Best Friend - ABC News

'I'm not a scientist, man': Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is – Telegraph Blogs

Marco Rubio Not Sure Whether the Earth Was Created 'in 7 Days or 7 Actual Eras'| News | Towleroad


Quote of the Day: Marco Rubio Is Not a Scientist | Mother Jones

'I'm not a scientist, man': Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is : TomChivers

Marco Rubio, Flirting With Creationism, Says, ‘I

Rubio: Maybe Earth was created in 7 days because ‘I’m not a scientist, man’ | The Raw Story

Rubio Declines To Say How Old Earth Is: 'I'm Not A Scientist, Man' | TPM LiveWire

oh boy, another person for Luddy to hate on..what day is it and who will it be tomorrow?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact being taught in schools. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological or ethical question, pure and simple.

Obama saying that God made the Earth is not the same thing as Rubio saying it? Want to run that one by me again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.

It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.

When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.

Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.

Apparently we are reading two different threads, this is the OP of this thread.

Marco Rubio: Actual Age Of Earth Is 'One Of The Great Mysteries'

"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."

True that it has nothing to do with the GDP or economic growth but the last thing we need is another who can't make a decision or stand up to nutter creationists.

Rubio continued, refusing to take a stance on the planet's age, which scientists have long estimated at 4.54 billion years.

I'm not a scientist either but I knew that.

Oh yeah, that's right - I have an education and I read books (on such things as critical thinking) - both of which is against GObP/pubpot brainwashing.

 

[ilia25]

Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.

It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.

When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.

Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.

Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?



A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

Thanks for pointing me to the right part in the interview, I thought it was about abortion.

As for whether Obama said the same thing as Rubio -- I don't think so. Obama makes it pretty clear from the start that he does not believe that 6 days in the Bible mean literally six 24-hour days. Later he goes on to say that he believes in evolution and that he does not think that science is incompatible with Christian faith.

As an atheist I think his answer was pretty lame, I believe science makes any religion less believable, not more. But Obama was pretty clear that he accepts scientific view of the world, including Earth being billions years old.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.



Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.

Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?



A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

Thanks for pointing me to the right part in the interview, I thought it was about abortion.

As for whether Obama said the same thing as Rubio -- I don't think so. Obama makes it pretty clear from the start that he does not believe that 6 days in the Bible mean literally six 24-hour days. Later he goes on to say that he believes in evolution and that he does not think that science is incompatible with Christian faith.

As an atheist I think his answer was pretty lame, I believe science makes any religion less believable, not more. But Obama was pretty clear that he accepts scientific view of the world, including Earth being billions years old.

Rubio makes the same statement Obama did, yet you like Obama's more. Not much of an atheist, are you?

 

[ilia25]

Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?



A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

Thanks for pointing me to the right part in the interview, I thought it was about abortion.

As for whether Obama said the same thing as Rubio -- I don't think so. Obama makes it pretty clear from the start that he does not believe that 6 days in the Bible mean literally six 24-hour days. Later he goes on to say that he believes in evolution and that he does not think that science is incompatible with Christian faith.

As an atheist I think his answer was pretty lame, I believe science makes any religion less believable, not more. But Obama was pretty clear that he accepts scientific view of the world, including Earth being billions years old.

Rubio makes the same statement Obama did

No, he did not. Rubio said he does not know how old Earth is. Obama said that he believes in evolution and everything else that is science.