Richard Dawkins Hits The GOP On The Head

Sundial

Class Warrior
Aug 1, 2011
1,231
110
48
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
 
he was great on hogan's heroes

tve4337-19670210-156.gif
 
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

You should provide links instead of just copying things from other forums.

Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact - On Faith - The Washington Post

By the way, Dawkins is wrong.

Again.

there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all.

Evolution is a theory that is accepted because it works. If someone proved that evolution does not fit all the evidence science would discard it in a heartbeat, and go with another theory that works. There is no more room for dogmatic beliefs in science than there is in anything else, and Dawkins insists on approaching the debate with the dogmatic belief that he has all the answers. The real problem with Dawkins is he set himself up as "The expert" on evolution, and the less educated public goes along.

Science is about doubt. Everything in science is up for debate, that is how it works. Even facts are debatable, and evolution is not a fact.

For the less educated here that will attack me for this, fuck off. I am not saying evolution, or something like it, did not happen. I am just saying that Dawkins is wrong when he claims there is no doubt about it being a fact.

For the ignorant that will praise me for this, you can fuck off too. Doubt is the one certainty in life, and the only thing you can be sure of is you will never have the answers. If your dod cannot stand up to the universe being a few billion years old than He is not really God. If you are not willing to question your beliefs you should not defend them.
 
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Apparently Dawkins hasn't payed attention to U.S. politics and noticed intellectual heavyweights like Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Algore, Anthony Wiener, Sheila Jackson Lee . . . . and the list goes on.
 
Dawkins' tone here of condescension and elitism is contrary to the democratic spirit. I do not mean here the Democratic Party, but the spirit leading to an advocation of democracy. This spirit is clear on a few things. One is that the everyday citizen is a better advocate for the people's rights and a better depository of the power to maintain those rights than any other. Whereas elitist intellectuals insist on their superiority in deciding what is best for the people, the people know full well that the most dangerous people on the planet are intellectual elitists. Now, the people may be wrong in their reasoning, and humble attempts to gently inform them of this can be needed at times, but where they are rationally less qualified to lead or choose their leaders, they are generally poetically and intuitively right. They rightly believe that it is more important to them and their rights to elect someone who has their heart in the right place than has their head on straight. Minds are easier to correct in good-hearted people than hearts are to correct in elitist prigs.
 
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Dawkins strikes me as another British liberal who just sits there tsk-tsking when the parade has passed his miserable little Island by.
 
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Who the fuck is Richard Dawkins ?
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PgHG-1tl0&feature=fvst]funniest family fued answers/bloopers - YouTube[/ame]
 
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Richard Dawkins? of the same element er crystals of David Ike and Noam Chomsky?

Remember when Ben Stein embarrassed him?

"crystals"

Really??
 
America has a history of periodically going through periods of KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

Americans have always had a heathy disrespect for intellectuals.

We generally don't want intellectuals for leaders.

Ideally what we need are folks who are leaders, first, but who are also intellectuals.

But NOW, during this period of anti-nllectualism, intellectualism is thought a flaw of character, rather than a benefit in leadership.

Hence we get people who think that folks like Palin, or Bachman can make good leaders.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top