WWTBAM Bored

Partisan splits among Democrats and Republicans aren’t exactly out of the ordinary — but a new poll shows one that’s widened in recent years.

According to a Pew survey released Monday, some 67 percent of Democrats believe in the theory of evolution — compared to 43 percent who believe the theory on the Republican side of the aisle.

If you’re doing the math, that’s a 24-point gap between the parties — and an increase from the 10-point difference the poll found in 2009, and the 13-point difference found in 2005. (Via Wikimedia Commons / Jose-manuel Benitos)

According to one of the pollsters, the results were a bit of a surprise. CNN quotes her saying: "I didn't expect to see that kind of shift. I think it basically fits with a pattern of growing polarization. And we see that on some other science issues."

The poll asked specifically if respondents agreed with the statement "humans and other living things have evolved over time," or "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." (Via The Huffington Post)

Poll respondents were then asked to self-identify with a political party. Sixty-five percent of Independents said they believed in evolution, by the way. (Via Fox News)

Full article: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/p ... ine/ncYrJ/

Bob Juch wrote:

The poll asked specifically if respondents agreed with the statement "humans and other living things have evolved over time," or "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

Apparently, the Republican respondents misunderstood the question. They thought the choice was "humans of your political party have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

I wish national news outlets would quit saying "independents" when they really mean "unaffiliated." I used unaffiliated in a conversation last night, and my friend said he preferred the term independent. I said I knew people preferred it that way, but that the only thing they were independent of was the process that puts candidates on the ballot. He changed the subject, and it was better that way. He'll still call himself independent, and I'll still think of him as unaffiliated.

SportsFan68 wrote:I wish national news outlets would quit saying "independents" when they really mean "unaffiliated." I used unaffiliated in a conversation last night, and my friend said he preferred the term independent. I said I knew people preferred it that way, but that the only thing they were independent of was the process that puts candidates on the ballot. He changed the subject, and it was better that way. He'll still call himself independent, and I'll still think of him as unaffiliated.

Unfortunately, when many people read polls like this, they interpret "independents" as "moderates." Bernie Sanders is an independent, but no one thinks he is moderate. One of the reasons I was so off in my feelings about the 2012 election was the fact that polls showed Romney substantially ahead among "independents." My feeling was that if he was doing that well among middle-of-the-roaders, he had to be doing very well overall. It turns out that a lot of tea partiers do not identify themselves as Republicans anymore (a lot more of them than Green-type liberals), so that in 2012 "independents" as it was used in election polls tended to be somewhat more conservative than one would think would be the case.

When someone like you uses the word 'Republican', I am sure you mean people like me. I no longer identify myself as a 'Republican'. I am a conservative, and the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils for me as things stand now.

That being said, I can tell you that information like you are presenting here is really pointless and offensive. From my view, this is not a political issue, and for the vast majority of 'Republicans' or conservatives, there are so many other issues that are more important than this it's silly.

You post this as just another way to denigrate or demonize those you disagree with. Sure, there are what you call 'Christian Conservatives' who would look at this as an important issue, and they are part of the conservative coalition, but they don't define it, as much as you and the media would like to portray that they do.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:. . . From my view, this is not a political issue, and for the vast majority of 'Republicans' or conservatives, there are so many other issues that are more important than this it's silly.
. . .

Flock and I agree 100% on this. What's depressing is that stuff like this generates so much printer's ink . . . er, I mean, computer electrons . . . when we could be paying attention to the important stuff.

I suspect that the more likely explanation is that a number of people who understand that evolution occurred have left the Republican Party and now consider themselves independent. I doubt many people have changed their mind about the existence of evolution. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: From my view, this is not a political issue, and for the vast majority of 'Republicans' or conservatives, there are so many other issues that are more important than this it's silly. Sure, there are what you call 'Christian Conservatives' who would look at this as an important issue, and they are part of the conservative coalition, but they don't define it, as much as you and the media would like to portray that they do.

Tell that to the voters of Missouri or Indiana or Delaware or Nevada or possibly Georgia this year if Paul Broun gets nominated.

Ronald Reagan turned the South red by appealing to the white majorities with a combination of conservative social stances and thinly veiled appeals to racism (the black "welfare queens" who were getting rich at the expense of hard working white folk). For quite a while the Republicans were able to keep these people largely under control while for the most part pushing their economic agenda. But now the chickens have come home to roost, and people like Flock don't like it.

I don't have time (for really) to paste in all the refs right now, but some radio program, likely NPR because this is of course me posting, recently did an expose on Ronald Reagan's
Welfare Queen; there really only was one, & she was a woman who the person interviewed in the piece says should have been tried on two counts of murder, as well as many counts of welfare & other kinds of fraud. Fake indentities, & crimes related to them, where the only things she ever was tried & convicted on.

A fascinating thing about this frightening woman was that she was able to convince people she was defrauding that she was whatever racial/ethnic group would make her the most profit. So while African-Americans got scurillously hit by Reagan as all being welfare frauds, the person cited didn't even represent herself as African-American all of the time.

I am not going to reply to the bigotry of the previous 2 posters. You just keep hold of your propaganda generated stereotypes of conservatives if it makes you feel better. And have a Happy New Year.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I am not going to reply to the bigotry of the previous 2 posters. You just keep hold of your propaganda generated stereotypes of conservatives if it makes you feel better. And have a Happy New Year.

Well I hope you're happy that your chickens came home to roost.

ghostjmf wrote:I don't have time (for really) to paste in all the refs right now, but some radio program, likely NPR because this is of course me posting, recently did an expose on Ronald Reagan's
Welfare Queen; there really only was one, & she was a woman who the person interviewed in the piece says should have been tried on two counts of murder, as well as many counts of welfare & other kinds of fraud. Fake indentities, & crimes related to them, where the only things she ever was tried & convicted on.

A fascinating thing about this frightening woman was that she was able to convince people she was defrauding that she was whatever racial/ethnic group would make her the most profit. So while African-Americans got scurillously hit by Reagan as all being welfare frauds, the person cited didn't even represent herself as African-American all of the time.

It was Slate and the article vindicated everything Reagan actually said about The Welfare Queen. The statement that she was the only one is leftist spin.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... llain.html

Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

I started the thread. The original post was to show that people who call themselves "Republicans" seem to be changing to religious conservatives and those who believe in science are not calling themselves "Republicans" anymore.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

frogman042 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

The idea that Humans know everything, and by implication that evolution is the last word in how the we came about, is preposterous. The same thing is true of Creationism. We just don't know, do we? We know what we know, and we know what works and what doesn't in our universe (up to a point), and what we know we have given a name to it and call it science. As for how we came to be here, it's what we choose to believe at this point. To point a finger at one viewpoint and call them stupid is bigoted, in my view.
I understand evolution and accept it, but I also think that it's also possible that maybe a higher power created the mechanism of evolution. I just don't know, and I probably will never know. But I'm not going to base my vote on it. BJ will.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

The idea that Humans know everything, and by implication that evolution is the last word in how the we came about, is preposterous. The same thing is true of Creationism. We just don't know, do we? We know what we know, and we know what works and what doesn't in our universe, and what we know we have given a name to it and call it science. As for how we came to be here, it's what we choose to believe at this point. To point a finger at one viewpoint and call them stupid is bigoted, in my view.
I understand evolution and accept it, but I also think that it's also possible that maybe a higher power created the mechanism of evolution. I just don't know, and I probably will never know. But I'm not going to base my vote on it. BJ will.

Um, where did you get the idea that I thought that humans know everything, nor did I bring up any idea regarding a higher power or not. Currently, the Theory of Evolution to explain how life is interconnected on Earth is very well established scientific principle, that works amazingly well both in explanatory as well as predictive power. It is hard to imagine that it is so wrong to the extent that it would be replaced by a scientific theory of separate creation of individual species. I'm not saying that that is impossible, but I am saying that it is highly unlikely given all the data that shows life is interconnected and that any theory of creation (from a scientific POV) would have to explain as why that is the case.


I don't recall calling a belief in Creationism 'stupid', I did say that there is currently no scientific support for it, and that there is currently massive amounts of scientific support from countless disciplines that support the theory of evolution. In addition to say that we can't know for sure what is the 'true' explanation and that everything we currently know may one day prove to be incorrect is just a cop-out. We do know that the current evidence is consistent with evolution and inconsistent with creationism.

Maybe our understanding how rainbows are formed is wrong and it is not light refracting and reflecting through water droplets but instead it is due to invisible, flying multi-colored unicorns when they are happy. We can't 'know' for sure so one idea is as valid as the other.

Like I said, I'm not sure why there is such a large number of people who reject evolution and are willing to accept so many other scientific theories (even if they have significantly less scientific support than evolution). I think it might have something to do with what I believe is a mistaken belief that accepting evolution somehow requires one to deny the existence of a higher power - which is not the case, anymore than accepting the current theory that electrons exists has the same consequence, but that is just my personal 'naive' assumption based on limited data. Maybe it is something else.

Do you accept that stochastic processes can be used to explain how numbered balls are selected in the lottery or is the order of the balls determined by a higher power? If someone wins the lottery and thanks God, does that mean that the order of the balls selected cannot be explained by natural processes or that if it can be described by natural processes, then that accepting that, you have to give up a belief in God?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yup, this post started as a swipe at 'Republicans' being... well actually I don't fully understand the gist of it. But the evolution thing really outrages liberals and makes them feel superior, so I guess that's why it was posted.

And now the liberals have gone and brought in racism and welfare queens.

I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

The idea that Humans know everything, and by implication that evolution is the last word in how the we came about, is preposterous. The same thing is true of Creationism. We just don't know, do we? We know what we know, and we know what works and what doesn't in our universe (up to a point), and what we know we have given a name to it and call it science. As for how we came to be here, it's what we choose to believe at this point. To point a finger at one viewpoint and call them stupid is bigoted, in my view.
I understand evolution and accept it, but I also think that it's also possible that maybe a higher power created the mechanism of evolution. I just don't know, and I probably will never know. But I'm not going to base my vote on it. BJ will.

It is all about thinking vs dogma.

frogman042 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

frogman042 wrote: Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

The idea that Humans know everything, and by implication that evolution is the last word in how the we came about, is preposterous. The same thing is true of Creationism. We just don't know, do we? We know what we know, and we know what works and what doesn't in our universe, and what we know we have given a name to it and call it science. As for how we came to be here, it's what we choose to believe at this point. To point a finger at one viewpoint and call them stupid is bigoted, in my view.
I understand evolution and accept it, but I also think that it's also possible that maybe a higher power created the mechanism of evolution. I just don't know, and I probably will never know. But I'm not going to base my vote on it. BJ will.

Um, where did you get the idea that I thought that humans know everything, nor did I bring up any idea regarding a higher power or not. Currently, the Theory of Evolution to explain how life is interconnected on Earth is very well established scientific principle, that works amazingly well both in explanatory as well as predictive power. It is hard to imagine that it is so wrong to the extent that it would be replaced by a scientific theory of separate creation of individual species. I'm not saying that that is impossible, but I am saying that it is highly unlikely given all the data that shows life is interconnected and that any theory of creation (from a scientific POV) would have to explain as why that is the case.


I don't recall calling a belief in Creationism 'stupid', I did say that there is currently no scientific support for it, and that there is currently massive amounts of scientific support from countless disciplines that support the theory of evolution. In addition to say that we can't know for sure what is the 'true' explanation and that everything we currently know may one day prove to be incorrect is just a cop-out. We do know that the current evidence is consistent with evolution and inconsistent with creationism.

Maybe our understanding how rainbows are formed is wrong and it is not light refracting and reflecting through water droplets but instead it is due to invisible, flying multi-colored unicorns when they are happy. We can't 'know' for sure so one idea is as valid as the other.

Like I said, I'm not sure why there is such a large number of people who reject evolution and are willing to accept so many other scientific theories (even if they have significantly less scientific support than evolution). I think it might have something to do with what I believe is a mistaken belief that accepting evolution somehow requires one to deny the existence of a higher power - which is not the case, anymore than accepting the current theory that electrons exists has the same consequence, but that is just my personal 'naive' assumption based on limited data. Maybe it is something else.

Do you accept that stochastic processes can be used to explain how numbered balls are selected in the lottery or is the order of the balls determined by a higher power? If someone wins the lottery and thanks God, does that mean that the order of the balls selected cannot be explained by natural processes or that if it can be described by natural processes, then that accepting that, you have to give up a belief in God?

Sorry I quoted your post. I wasn't specifically addressing you, rather those that choose to judge people by whether they 'believe' the theory of evolution or not. In my view, they are the shortsighted people, thinking that one explanation is right and all others are marks of inferior thinking.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

frogman042 wrote: Evolution is not a 'liberal'/'conservative' question nor a political one, it is a scientific one. The fact that you said that it 'really outrages liberals' should be changed to 'really outrages people who care about scientific integrity', and it should outrage anyone to the same degree as if folks were trying to get public schools to teach a flat earth, a geocentric model of the solar system, against the germ theory of disease and so on.

I think that there is such a gulf from a political perspective is of interest, but not because it paints a picture of one group being smarter than another group. My guess is that there is probably a significant number of people in both groups that couldn't give you a scientific rational for their position (although I would also venture to guess that the group that accepts evolution has a greater number of people that do understand what science is about as well as understand the scientific basis for their acceptance of evolution), but that it is, in my opinion, an indication of the poor quality of scientific education.

I've still be trying to find a bit single scientific evidence or a scientific model that supports an independent creation theory or that discredits the central idea that all life is interrelated. If you know of any, feel free to point me to it. (That doesn't include ideas that fail scientific scrutiny - those are a dime a dozen and are as valid as saying the earth can't be moving because if it was, the air would be blowing at over 500 mph constantly).

The Theory of Evolution is bound to change and be refined as more and more knowledge is gained, but it is almost a certainty that is will never be replaced by a theory of independent creation - or as much of a chance that the current theory that the world is a sphere is replaced by a flat earth model, or that our current understanding of the layout of the universe would be replaced by a stationary Earth with the entire universe revolving around it.

Opposition to evolution is not scientific it is either political or religious.

The idea that Humans know everything, and by implication that evolution is the last word in how the we came about, is preposterous. The same thing is true of Creationism. We just don't know, do we? We know what we know, and we know what works and what doesn't in our universe (up to a point), and what we know we have given a name to it and call it science. As for how we came to be here, it's what we choose to believe at this point. To point a finger at one viewpoint and call them stupid is bigoted, in my view.
I understand evolution and accept it, but I also think that it's also possible that maybe a higher power created the mechanism of evolution. I just don't know, and I probably will never know. But I'm not going to base my vote on it. BJ will.

It is all about thinking vs dogma.

Liberalism is in many ways a dogma itself.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

The problem with adopting that rule in one of Flock's threads is that he always uses up the bigoted rant in his very first post.

Lest we forget the current voice of the Republican party:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

The problem with adopting that rule in one of Flock's threads is that he always uses up the bigoted rant in his very first post.

So says the Bored's #2 bigot.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

The problem with adopting that rule in one of Flock's threads is that he always uses up the bigoted rant in his very first post.

So says the Bored's #2 bigot.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I think we should add to the Hitler rule that when Liberals change the subject of their rant, the thread should be abandoned. One bigoted rant per thread, please.

The problem with adopting that rule in one of Flock's threads is that he always uses up the bigoted rant in his very first post.

So says the Bored's #2 bigot.