Scott Walker Goes for ‘Bland,’ Ends Up ‘Moronic’ on Evolution Softball

Is that right? Interesting take.

I'm going to suggest that you consider intellect when deciding between a pair of candidates. Basically, provided that neither is a sociopath, you want the smarter of the two to be the one elected.

Generally speaking, when America chooses the most intelligent person who is willing to do the job and who can survive our fucked up campaign process, we end up with decent results.

If the two candidates were to be Hillary Clinton and Scott Walker....and you chose Walker.....you'd be choosing the one with less intelligence. End of story.

By that logic, Jimmy Carter should have been the best president of my lifetime. The guy was a fucking nuclear physicist! Instead he's remembered as being kind of a pathetic failure.

I want the one who can achieve results and provide leadership.

If I were to go by leadership, Walker's tenure of Wisconsin has been a success. He took on the bloated bureaucracy and corrupt unions and won despite everything they threw at him.

Hillary- Well, you have he record at the State Department.... Well, uh, yeah.

The Democrats have in Hillary what the Republicans had with Romney in 2012. The candidate you really didn't want in 2008, you're not terribly enthusiastic about, but it's her turn. This is really stupid when the Republicans do it.

Ahhhh. Carter. Remembered as a pathetic failure. Reagan is remembered as being a huge success.

I'd vote for Carter over Reagan today without hesitation.

And....the Romney/Clinton comparison is pretty weak. They both lost primaries. To say that liberals are as opposed to Clinton as cons were to Romney is disingenous. Look at how many people joined the race against him. Clinton enjoys high approval ratings from liberals.

Finally....you might want to spend a few hours reading what those Wisconsinites who don't support Walker have to say about his record.
 
Ahhhh. Carter. Remembered as a pathetic failure. Reagan is remembered as being a huge success.

I'd vote for Carter over Reagan today without hesitation.

I wouldn't. Mostly because I remember my dad being out of work half the time when he was in, people siphoning gasoline out of our car, and things generally turning to shit on his watch. Carter was an awful president.

And....the Romney/Clinton comparison is pretty weak. They both lost primaries. To say that liberals are as opposed to Clinton as cons were to Romney is disingenous. Look at how many people joined the race against him. Clinton enjoys high approval ratings from liberals.

All of which she gets from... her husband. Not that she has anything on her own.

Finally....you might want to spend a few hours reading what those Wisconsinites who don't support Walker have to say about his record.

I have. And I can't get worked up because those union people are now being held to the same standard of work the rest of us are.
 
Why doesnt the media ask democrats these type questions?
They do. It's just that a reasoned answer isn't particularly newsworthy. Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base.
That's funny, I never hear Democrats being asked about it. Most libtards don't understand the difference between macro and micro evolution anyway so you will get sucked into that argument if you let them.

Here's the dirty little secret you degenerates don't want illuminated: every major candidate believes in a creator, and atheist doesn't stand a chance in a national election. So the discussion is really about semantics and to what degree god plays a role. Great discussion for philosophy or theology but it has zip to do with politics.
Once again, Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base. But I can appreciate why you would feel the need to construct a strawman to agree with you. Sure, a successful politician isn't going to insult a large group of what he would hope are his supporters and that's why it becomes a newsworthy story that Walker handled it in such a Palin-esk way.

Democrats, moderates and liberal-minded people are willing to accept others' faiths. Those who are spiritual believe that everyone worships something they could call God. It could be money, success, love, nature... any number of things. It would be the thing they revere most, the thing they give their time and effort and concern above all else. The way they live their lives.

That's the argument you don't want to get into, because it isn't about whether or not one can accept macro evolution, it's about whether or not you live up to the values you espouse. You see, we don't care if even in crisis, as Tillich taught, we test whether our God is the ultimate God, we care if the faith that guides you is worthy of respect. Atheists can accept the fact you've decided to ignore all the Gods worshiped by man but one, he just differs on that last one. He might also say the "will of God" is innately the thing that distinguishes us from the animals: our conscience, our shared sense of right and wrong. How that affects his choices is what's important. But if you choose to live your life according to biblical doctrine that's fine, but also just as equally important you not only live up to the values you claim to revere, but also to respect the values of others.

Now you wish to claim ownership of that magnanimous, accepting principle by letting Walker off the hook when he "punted." Why?
Because, "politics."

But here's the point.... and listen carefully... That's exactly the anti-science, anti-evolution, bigoted, 6000 year-old earthers who don't accept others' views he was pandering to. Get it now?
I got it. You're ignorant of facts. Rather than educating yourself you prefer to look down on others.

Most Americans identify themselves as religious, that includes liberals. And the left very definitely panders to them. Up until very recently all major Democrat candidates said they believed in traditional marriage, for example. Including obama. We know know that's a lie so why did they do it?

Furthermore, even most Christians believe in evolution. They just don't believe in a secular cause, few religious people do, left, right or middle. So it's a bullshit issue designed to smear the right. And people like you gobble it up and pass it around.
 
Yet another republican would be candidate messes up in London. Scott Walker drew laughter by refusing to discuss evolution. How embarrassing.

Scott Walker Goes for Bland Ends Up Moronic on Evolution Softball - The Daily Beast

Scott Walker wanted to avoid a Christie-like mistake during his trip to London this week. He failed.
LONDON — Governor Scott Walker was so determined not to make news during his trip to London this week, he made news.

A week after Chris Christie’s disastrous trip to London, Walker was desperate to avoid the kind of slip that cost the New Jersey governor any positive headlines back home.

“I’d rather be bland than stupid or moronic,” he said.

Sadly, he may have been all three.

He was attempting to bolster his foreign policy credentials by saying nothing at all, and during a question and answer session at a foreign policy think tank he refused to be drawn on whether he believed in evolution.

“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” he said, which was met by harrumphs in the audience at a foreign policy think tank. It was suggested that pretty much any politician on earth could manage to answer that one. Walker changed tack, but only slightly: “I like the evolution of trade in Wisconsin.”

The dullness did not end there.
<more>

Why the hell are American politicians catering to "London" in the first place? Who gives a crap what they think? Our future leaders need to focus on the wants and needs of US citizens. America first!!
 
Why the hell are American politicians catering to "London" in the first place? Who gives a crap what they think? Our future leaders need to focus on the wants and needs of US citizens. America first!!

The United Kingdom is an important business partner. The company I currently work for is headquartered in the UK< and it employs THOUSANDS of people in the United States.

Obviously Walker wants some of those jobs in his state.
 
Why the hell are American politicians catering to "London" in the first place? Who gives a crap what they think? Our future leaders need to focus on the wants and needs of US citizens. America first!!

The United Kingdom is an important business partner. The company I currently work for is headquartered in the UK< and it employs THOUSANDS of people in the United States.

Obviously Walker wants some of those jobs in his state.

I don't give a crap if the UK is a "business partner" or not. We're a sovereign nation and the UK doesn't dictate American policy. PERIOD!
 
I don't give a crap if the UK is a "business partner" or not. We're a sovereign nation and the UK doesn't dictate American policy. PERIOD!

No one said they should or did.

Then politicians of any stripe should campaign here in the USA ... not Europe.

They campaign in the UK to show "foreign policy experience" in some fashion. Even though doing television interviews over there and meeting a few of their low key politicians is hardly any real foreign policy.
 
He should have the courage to express his opinion – if he believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, he should clearly state it.
Why does everything have to be either black or white? He can believe that there is no inconsistency between religion and evolution but merely not want to allow the discussion during a trade trade mission to be derailed.

I personally know many (most) Christians who believe that evolution is part of "god's plan" and beyond that acceptance don't give it much thought.
 
Why doesnt the media ask democrats these type questions?
They do. It's just that a reasoned answer isn't particularly newsworthy. Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base.
That's funny, I never hear Democrats being asked about it. Most libtards don't understand the difference between macro and micro evolution anyway so you will get sucked into that argument if you let them.

Here's the dirty little secret you degenerates don't want illuminated: every major candidate believes in a creator, and atheist doesn't stand a chance in a national election. So the discussion is really about semantics and to what degree god plays a role. Great discussion for philosophy or theology but it has zip to do with politics.
Once again, Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base. But I can appreciate why you would feel the need to construct a strawman to agree with you. Sure, a successful politician isn't going to insult a large group of what he would hope are his supporters and that's why it becomes a newsworthy story that Walker handled it in such a Palin-esk way.

Democrats, moderates and liberal-minded people are willing to accept others' faiths. Those who are spiritual believe that everyone worships something they could call God. It could be money, success, love, nature... any number of things. It would be the thing they revere most, the thing they give their time and effort and concern above all else. The way they live their lives.

That's the argument you don't want to get into, because it isn't about whether or not one can accept macro evolution, it's about whether or not you live up to the values you espouse. You see, we don't care if even in crisis, as Tillich taught, we test whether our God is the ultimate God, we care if the faith that guides you is worthy of respect. Atheists can accept the fact you've decided to ignore all the Gods worshiped by man but one, he just differs on that last one. He might also say the "will of God" is innately the thing that distinguishes us from the animals: our conscience, our shared sense of right and wrong. How that affects his choices is what's important. But if you choose to live your life according to biblical doctrine that's fine, but also just as equally important you not only live up to the values you claim to revere, but also to respect the values of others.

Now you wish to claim ownership of that magnanimous, accepting principle by letting Walker off the hook when he "punted." Why?
Because, "politics."

But here's the point.... and listen carefully... That's exactly the anti-science, anti-evolution, bigoted, 6000 year-old earthers who don't accept others' views he was pandering to. Get it now?
I got it. You're ignorant of facts. Rather than educating yourself you prefer to look down on others.

Most Americans identify themselves as religious, that includes liberals. And the left very definitely panders to them. Up until very recently all major Democrat candidates said they believed in traditional marriage, for example. Including obama. We know know that's a lie so why did they do it?

Furthermore, even most Christians believe in evolution. They just don't believe in a secular cause, few religious people do, left, right or middle. So it's a bullshit issue designed to smear the right. And people like you gobble it up and pass it around.
To what facts are you believing I'm ignorant?
I suggest you read the reply to which you answered again. This time for comprehension. Then come back and explain exactly who is making a bullshit issue out of rightwing religious intolerance for issues like equal rights for others' religions, equality for gays and lesbians, women's choices for control of their own bodies, and the very real discussions of teaching reality-based over faith-based theories in education for both evolution and climate change.

You seem to be conflating the acceptance of anti-science of the religious right vs the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and educated public regarding evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity with that of conservative vs liberal political tolerance. I've tried to point to the difference. Yes, Obama took a politically expedient stance when he stated he believed in "traditional" definition of marriage, and only supported "civil unions," but that is typical of political rhetoric and quite obvious equivocation to anyone with common sense. (And BTW why the LGBT community was not riled) But specifically in this case, when a Republican can't make even an ambiguous statement suggesting support for the overwhelming scientific community, outside of the US, where the issue is not at all contentious, indicates EXACTLY to whom he's pandering.
 
Why doesnt the media ask democrats these type questions?
They do. It's just that a reasoned answer isn't particularly newsworthy. Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base.
That's funny, I never hear Democrats being asked about it. Most libtards don't understand the difference between macro and micro evolution anyway so you will get sucked into that argument if you let them.

Here's the dirty little secret you degenerates don't want illuminated: every major candidate believes in a creator, and atheist doesn't stand a chance in a national election. So the discussion is really about semantics and to what degree god plays a role. Great discussion for philosophy or theology but it has zip to do with politics.
Once again, Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base. But I can appreciate why you would feel the need to construct a strawman to agree with you. Sure, a successful politician isn't going to insult a large group of what he would hope are his supporters and that's why it becomes a newsworthy story that Walker handled it in such a Palin-esk way.

Democrats, moderates and liberal-minded people are willing to accept others' faiths. Those who are spiritual believe that everyone worships something they could call God. It could be money, success, love, nature... any number of things. It would be the thing they revere most, the thing they give their time and effort and concern above all else. The way they live their lives.

That's the argument you don't want to get into, because it isn't about whether or not one can accept macro evolution, it's about whether or not you live up to the values you espouse. You see, we don't care if even in crisis, as Tillich taught, we test whether our God is the ultimate God, we care if the faith that guides you is worthy of respect. Atheists can accept the fact you've decided to ignore all the Gods worshiped by man but one, he just differs on that last one. He might also say the "will of God" is innately the thing that distinguishes us from the animals: our conscience, our shared sense of right and wrong. How that affects his choices is what's important. But if you choose to live your life according to biblical doctrine that's fine, but also just as equally important you not only live up to the values you claim to revere, but also to respect the values of others.

Now you wish to claim ownership of that magnanimous, accepting principle by letting Walker off the hook when he "punted." Why?
Because, "politics."

But here's the point.... and listen carefully... That's exactly the anti-science, anti-evolution, bigoted, 6000 year-old earthers who don't accept others' views he was pandering to. Get it now?
I got it. You're ignorant of facts. Rather than educating yourself you prefer to look down on others.

Most Americans identify themselves as religious, that includes liberals. And the left very definitely panders to them. Up until very recently all major Democrat candidates said they believed in traditional marriage, for example. Including obama. We know know that's a lie so why did they do it?

Furthermore, even most Christians believe in evolution. They just don't believe in a secular cause, few religious people do, left, right or middle. So it's a bullshit issue designed to smear the right. And people like you gobble it up and pass it around.
To what facts are you believing I'm ignorant?
I suggest you read the reply to which you answered again. This time for comprehension. Then come back and explain exactly who is making a bullshit issue out of rightwing religious intolerance for issues like equal rights for others' religions, equality for gays and lesbians, women's choices for control of their own bodies, and the very real discussions of teaching reality-based over faith-based theories in education for both evolution and climate change.

You seem to be conflating the acceptance of anti-science of the religious right vs the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and educated public regarding evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity with that of conservative vs liberal political tolerance. I've tried to point to the difference. Yes, Obama took a politically expedient stance when he stated he believed in "traditional" definition of marriage, and only supported "civil unions," but that is typical of political rhetoric and quite obvious equivocation to anyone with common sense. (And BTW why the LGBT community was not riled) But specifically in this case, when a Republican can't make even an ambiguous statement suggesting support for the overwhelming scientific community, outside of the US, where the issue is not at all contentious, indicates EXACTLY to whom he's pandering.
Then I obviously comprehended your bullshit better than you did. I told which facts you were oblivious to, most people, including your enemies, believes in evolution, just not a secular cause. And I pointed out how the left panders to it's base with outright lies and gave an example. Those are facts. Don't like it? Tough shit.
 
They do. It's just that a reasoned answer isn't particularly newsworthy. Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base.
That's funny, I never hear Democrats being asked about it. Most libtards don't understand the difference between macro and micro evolution anyway so you will get sucked into that argument if you let them.

Here's the dirty little secret you degenerates don't want illuminated: every major candidate believes in a creator, and atheist doesn't stand a chance in a national election. So the discussion is really about semantics and to what degree god plays a role. Great discussion for philosophy or theology but it has zip to do with politics.
Once again, Democrats don't have to pander to an illogical, anti-science base. But I can appreciate why you would feel the need to construct a strawman to agree with you. Sure, a successful politician isn't going to insult a large group of what he would hope are his supporters and that's why it becomes a newsworthy story that Walker handled it in such a Palin-esk way.

Democrats, moderates and liberal-minded people are willing to accept others' faiths. Those who are spiritual believe that everyone worships something they could call God. It could be money, success, love, nature... any number of things. It would be the thing they revere most, the thing they give their time and effort and concern above all else. The way they live their lives.

That's the argument you don't want to get into, because it isn't about whether or not one can accept macro evolution, it's about whether or not you live up to the values you espouse. You see, we don't care if even in crisis, as Tillich taught, we test whether our God is the ultimate God, we care if the faith that guides you is worthy of respect. Atheists can accept the fact you've decided to ignore all the Gods worshiped by man but one, he just differs on that last one. He might also say the "will of God" is innately the thing that distinguishes us from the animals: our conscience, our shared sense of right and wrong. How that affects his choices is what's important. But if you choose to live your life according to biblical doctrine that's fine, but also just as equally important you not only live up to the values you claim to revere, but also to respect the values of others.

Now you wish to claim ownership of that magnanimous, accepting principle by letting Walker off the hook when he "punted." Why?
Because, "politics."

But here's the point.... and listen carefully... That's exactly the anti-science, anti-evolution, bigoted, 6000 year-old earthers who don't accept others' views he was pandering to. Get it now?
I got it. You're ignorant of facts. Rather than educating yourself you prefer to look down on others.

Most Americans identify themselves as religious, that includes liberals. And the left very definitely panders to them. Up until very recently all major Democrat candidates said they believed in traditional marriage, for example. Including obama. We know know that's a lie so why did they do it?

Furthermore, even most Christians believe in evolution. They just don't believe in a secular cause, few religious people do, left, right or middle. So it's a bullshit issue designed to smear the right. And people like you gobble it up and pass it around.
To what facts are you believing I'm ignorant?
I suggest you read the reply to which you answered again. This time for comprehension. Then come back and explain exactly who is making a bullshit issue out of rightwing religious intolerance for issues like equal rights for others' religions, equality for gays and lesbians, women's choices for control of their own bodies, and the very real discussions of teaching reality-based over faith-based theories in education for both evolution and climate change.

You seem to be conflating the acceptance of anti-science of the religious right vs the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and educated public regarding evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity with that of conservative vs liberal political tolerance. I've tried to point to the difference. Yes, Obama took a politically expedient stance when he stated he believed in "traditional" definition of marriage, and only supported "civil unions," but that is typical of political rhetoric and quite obvious equivocation to anyone with common sense. (And BTW why the LGBT community was not riled) But specifically in this case, when a Republican can't make even an ambiguous statement suggesting support for the overwhelming scientific community, outside of the US, where the issue is not at all contentious, indicates EXACTLY to whom he's pandering.
Then I obviously comprehended your bullshit better than you did. I told which facts you were oblivious to, most people, including your enemies, believes in evolution, just not a secular cause. And I pointed out how the left panders to it's base with outright lies and gave an example. Those are facts. Don't like it? Tough shit.

It's clear you either can't read or are simply stupid enough to believe you're smarter than everyone else. It's no wonder then, why you would run from my points and questions. We're talking about Walker here, and to whom he was pandering when he "punted," and it is you that can't handle it. The fact you don't understand Obama's equivocation is beside the point, however much it relates to your inability to grasp reality.

Besides, if you're going to attempt to beat up your own strawman to claim some kind of point, you might focus long enough to at least get your facts right. Yes, a majority of Americans believe in evolution, but a majority of them believe a "secular cause," as you put it. Here you go:

evolution2.jpg


evolution3.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's clear you either can't read or are simply stupid enough to believe you're smarter than everyone else.
I didn't say anything about me. Maybe you need to slow down and figure out what the words mean?

It's no wonder then, why you would run from my points and questions. We're talking about Walker here, and to whom he was pandering when he "punted," and it is you that can't handle it. The fact you don't understand Obama's equivocation is beside the point, however much it relates to your inability to grasp reality.
I answered that fairly well. You made an assertion that I disagree with, and explained why. Then I pointed out how the left does it and gave an example, i.e., lying about gay marriage to pander to their base. Since there's no law about evolution we need to worry about, it's far more important to focus on political issues than exactly what one may or may not think about evolution.

Besides, if you're going to attempt to beat up your own strawman to claim some kind of point, you might focus long enough to at least get your facts right. Yes, a majority of Americans believe in evolution, but a majority of them believe a "secular cause," as you put it. Here you go:

evolution2.jpg


evolution3.jpg
Those stats don't take in to account all those who believe God created the universe and set it in motion. They would consider the cause secular since to them it isn't being guided. Since only about 2% of the population is atheist the numbers can't be reflecting a secular cause, as in no theistic involvement. You simply googled 'guided evolution' and thought you hit the jackpot without really understanding what it meant.


Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion Public Life
Like the other major groups, people who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (16.1%) also exhibit remarkable internal diversity. Although one-quarter of this group consists of those who describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic (1.6% and 2.4% of the adult population overall, respectively), the majority of the unaffiliated population (12.1% of the adult population overall) is made up of people who simply describe their religion as "nothing in particular."
 
It's clear you either can't read or are simply stupid enough to believe you're smarter than everyone else.
I didn't say anything about me. Maybe you need to slow down and figure out what the words mean?

It's no wonder then, why you would run from my points and questions. We're talking about Walker here, and to whom he was pandering when he "punted," and it is you that can't handle it. The fact you don't understand Obama's equivocation is beside the point, however much it relates to your inability to grasp reality.
I answered that fairly well. You made an assertion that I disagree with, and explained why. Then I pointed out how the left does it and gave an example, i.e., lying about gay marriage to pander to their base. Since there's no law about evolution we need to worry about, it's far more important to focus on political issues than exactly what one may or may not think about evolution.

Besides, if you're going to attempt to beat up your own strawman to claim some kind of point, you might focus long enough to at least get your facts right. Yes, a majority of Americans believe in evolution, but a majority of them believe a "secular cause," as you put it. Here you go:

evolution2.jpg


evolution3.jpg
Those stats don't take in to account all those who believe God created the universe and set it in motion. They would consider the cause secular since to them it isn't being guided. Since only about 2% of the population is atheist the numbers can't be reflecting a secular cause, as in no theistic involvement. You simply googled 'guided evolution' and thought you hit the jackpot without really understanding what it meant.


Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion Public Life
Like the other major groups, people who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (16.1%) also exhibit remarkable internal diversity. Although one-quarter of this group consists of those who describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic (1.6% and 2.4% of the adult population overall, respectively), the majority of the unaffiliated population (12.1% of the adult population overall) is made up of people who simply describe their religion as "nothing in particular."

You didn't say anything about yourself when you said,"Then I obviously comprehended your bullshit better than you did" ?
Really?

And you disagreed with my assertion that Walker was pandering to the Republican base of religious bigots by punting, and explained why when you said Obama did it too? Are you shitting me? Talk about punting!

Additionally you once again proved you can't read for comprehension, grasping for the idea that "unaffiliated" or believers in a God-created universe were not included in "Percent of U.S. Adults", Bozo. You know, you can't just copy and paste some words and expect they will will mean what you want them to mean, but it is humorous to accuse me of "hitting a google jackpot" while attempting such a terrible bluff to provide a link thinking I wouldn't read it and see that it doesn't mean what you think it does.

All this really proves is why these are gotcha questions only for Pubbies- Because if a Dem replied something that stupid to such an airheaded question, you Bozos wouldn't know it anyway.
 
The fact remains, and you only continue to substantiate it-- The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in evolution, and by admitting he felt the need to evade such a soft-ball question, he's capitulating to the American, non-believers of evolution.
The graphs above clearly show who that is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top