Deep South Republicans Alabama and Mississippi – Not the Brightest Lot

The core of the Republican Party has spoken and what they have said is a little unbelievable but consistent with how they are viewed by the rest of the country.

In addition to asking about the Presidential race in Alabama and Mississippi we also touched on some other issues in those states:

-There's considerable skepticism about Barack Obama's religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama's a Christian to 52% who think he's a Muslim and 36% who are not sure. In Alabama just 14% think Obama's a Christian to 45% who think he's a Muslim and 41% who aren't sure.

Mitt Romney dominates the 'Obama's a Christian' vote in both states. He leads Santorum 42-28 with those folks in Mississippi and has a 38-21 lead over him with them in Alabama. In Mississippi Newt's winning the 'Obama's a Muslim' vote 39-28, but in Alabama it's a three way tie with all of the leading candidates at 31%.

-We continue to see evidence that Rush Limbaugh's damaged his brand over the last few weeks. His favorability is only slightly over 50% in these two states where the Republican electorate is incredibly conservative- he's at 53/33 in Alabama and 51/30 in Mississippi. Given that our last national survey on Limbaugh, taken a few years ago, found him at 80/12 with Republicans it's safe to say he's fallen a long way in these states.

-Finally there's considerable skepticism about evolution among GOP voters in both Alabama and Mississippi. In Alabama only 26% of voters believe in it, while 60% do not. In Mississippi just 22% believe in it, while 66% do not. Romney wins the 'voters who believe in evolution' vote (33-27 over Gingrich in Alabama, 38-32 over Gingrich in Mississippi.) Santorum wins the 'voters who don't believe in evolution' vote (34-33 over Gingrich in both Alabama and Mississippi with Romney at 26%)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/other-notes-from-alabama-and-mississippi.html

 

Lets see the man has a muslim name. The man has had two muslim dads. The man wrote a book where he said he stuided the Koran and went to a muslim school. But if someone thinks that the man might be a closet muslim or has leanings towards muslims over other religions based upon his background then according to leftwing liberals they must be stupid for thinking.

As for evolution, it is a theory. that is why it is the theory of evolution and if you really studied it you will see where it seems to make perfect sense and where it has holes. Science like religion is based upon belief as much as fact which is why Science is always changing its story. Just look at the atom. Turns out it is not the smallest of the small nor the basic building block of everything which gets me to my point that liberals tend to think they know everything where in fact the human race knows very little about anything.

 

The Mittster (right wing job destroyer extraordinaire) said he had some "buttery grits" for breakfast this mornin'! Good enough for Alabama I guess!!! ROFL!!!
Cripes...what a load this guy is.............great job right wing...great job!!!!!!! Condescending, arrogant, smug p*ick...Perfect representative of your party. Couldn't have written it any better!!! ROFL!!!!!

 

Hey moen, at least tomc agrees with you!

 

Wow! Where to start Andy? First, what is a closet Muslim? What does this mean "has leanings towards Muslims"? If you can't be more specific, you might want to look into the meaning of the word innuendo.

Science couldn't be less based on belief. It is based on the scientific method. Belief has nothing to do with it. Science doesn't always change its story, new discoveries happen every day unlike religion that is completely dogmatic and based on faith in a belief system that is taken for truth with no proof. Case in point, the earth is the center of the universe. Believed forever by religion, yet no longer believed. You can't argue that science doesn't have all of the answers so it is entirely wrong. That is nonsense.

 

One might quote the words of Colin Powell to such benighted ideologues, but I suspect that for various reasons most of the people in Mississippi and Alabama who believe President Obama is a Muslim (they don't just "[think] that the man might be a closet muslim [sic]") would discount and ignore the words of our first black secretary of state (who is a Republican, but again, these people would likely say "Yeah, a RINO").

Obama Sr. was an apostate from Islam (atheist) before he even met the future mother of President Obama, but we'll just ignore that. Why clutter up this thread with too many facts?

Yes, there is a theory of evolution, just as there's a theory of electromagnetism. They both describe real world phenomena. The scientific meaning of "theory" in this context is not at all the same as the colloquial understanding of the word. Perhaps Anne Helmenstine's excellent article "Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions: Learn the Language of Science" might be some help here.

If a person really studies the evidence which supports the theory of evolution (assuming that the study is motivated by desire for knowledge and not desire to support a religious position) they will see that it is the best description of the development of life on this planet that we have. Nothing more and nothing less. Whatever "holes" can be found in no way detract from its validity unless, again, one is motivated by a desire to support bronze or iron age mythology in preference to science.

Here you display a blatant misunderstanding of the basis of science, and how science operates. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and repeatable results. Belief does not enter into it, unless you're talking about a belief that rational thought and consistent results are a reasonable basis for knowledge. The computer you typed your post on doesn't work because you happen to believe it will work. It was built using principles discovered by scientists and when it works it does so whether you believe in those principles or not.

Science is never completely conclusive, that's true. There is always more to be learned, and sometimes new information results in a paradigm shift. That is a strength, rather than a weakness, and in fact is a refutation of your "science is based on belief" canard. If science was based on belief, then valid new information which conflicted with such belief would be rejected, much in the way we see certain religious people reject valid new information which disagrees with the dogma they hold sacred. In essence, science is a search for information through evidence, while religion purports to already have information, given by a deity.

This is just bizarre. Do you really think that "scientist = liberal"? What sort of evidence are you prepared to present which supports your assertion that "liberals tend to think they know everything"?

You can't have it both ways, man. Either science is a continual search for information in which a basic principle is that no theory is ever considered to be completely "proved," or it arrogantly presumes to already have all of the answers. What "liberals" have to do with this I really don't know. There are scientists who are politically liberal/progressive, and scientists who are politically conservative. Their political beliefs really aren't relevant to their status as scientists, and you certainly haven't shown a basis for connecting the two.

 

Why is the perception people hold of BO's religion so important to libs? Our resident couple of libs despise Christianity and as much as they malign Christians one would expect them to celebrate BO's lack of Christianity.

 

Because lies and ignorance must be challenged. I'm sure you can't relate Fox News boy.

 

In other words why should anyone be upset by ignorant RW knuckle draggers thinking that Obama is a Muslim? Actually if ignorant RW knuckle draggers didn't vote I suppose it wouldn't matter all that much what lies they believed or how ignorant they were but they do vote.

The question you ask rather disingenuously ignores the fact that in The Land of the Free to assert that a politician is Muslim when he or she isn't is essentially to assert that said politician is a foreign terrorist. I think the better question on a variety of levels is why the RW leadership, such as it is, doesn't seem much concerned by the ignorance and lies and on the whole prefers to wiggle and squirm rather than set the record straight.

 

Just to clarify.....you have made some pretty disparaging comments about Christains but you want to make double sure everyone knows BO is a Christian. Got it.

 

The same could be said for the LW head-in-the-sand folks who believe BO should be turned loose for another 4 years after the disaster of his first 4 years.

 

You from the South at all?

 

Neatly dodges the fact that Obama isn't a Muslim although large numbers of RW sheep insist that he is. So the lie is okay with you?
I thought as much. And since you are a loyal supporter of the Right even if it weren't okay with you I doubt you'd say anything.

 

I'm not religious, and understand the scientific method quite well, but I have to disagree that "faith" or "belief" isn't involved in any way with science. I'm not saying they worship a diety or anything, only that some theories are widely accepted as fact when there is no meaningful supporting evidence.

It is my belief that some of the theories that are hardest to verify in any conclusive manner are reinforced with data that may be misinterpretted as supporting that theory. Some of that is due to funding. Scientists need money to conduct their experiments. Theories that are considered sound by the majority of scientists receive the bulk of the available funding. Less certain theories receive much less funding, and are therefore ignored by most scientists.

It is generally accepted among scientists that the "big bang" theory is sound. Experments to confirm the theory have been ongoing since the early 20th century. In those early years there were many theories as to why we can only see so far into space. One theory was the "big bang", another was "tired light", and there were many more. Within a decade or two most scientists decided to experiment on the "big bang" theory. The main reason wasn't that one theory was more provable than the other, it was because the money began to flow towards the scientists who were looking into the "big bang" theory.

IMO, believing in the "big bang" theory... as most scientists today apparently do... is akin to the theory of God creating the Universe in six days. In that sense, scientist have a "belief" that they are correct, and cite numerous experiments that appear to support the theory. My argument is that the experiments are conducted in order to prove an unprovable theory... that the results of those experiments may be misinterpretted as supporting the theory in a large part since the people interpretting the information have a belief that the theory is sound.

So, I agree with Andy that science does have "religion" in a sense, especially for the more complicated and unproven theories. Compared to religion itself though, science is by far the more reasonable of the two.

As for people believing Obama to be a closet muslim, and not christian, these accusations are mostly coming from people with strong christian beliefs who pretty much just hate Obama for being black and having a funny, unchristian name. They cite his childhood experiences in muslim societies, especially his schooling in a muslim-based school, yet they ignore his mother's guidance during that period and Obama's later upbringing in christian America with his grandparents. For them it's inconceivable that someone taught anything less than the gospel their entire lives could be christian. Obama stated his beliefs but, whatever, if they want to be that way, let 'em... most reasonable people believe claims of Obama being a closet muslim lack credibility, and that the people making those claims are simply full of hate for the man.

 

What failures exactly? Even the wing nuts running on the Right acknowledge that Obama was handed an economy on the edge of collapse. In fact, the deepest recession since the great depression according to economists. The economy shrunk over 9% before Obama enacted even one policy. At that point we didn't even know how much of a hit our economy had taken. Even you can admit that this had nothing to do with him if you have any honesty.
So your only argument could be that we didn't recover as fast as you think we could have if we would have stuck to the same Right-Wing policies that brought us to the brink in the first place. If you have some way of proving that argument, I'd love to hear it. In all other areas, foreign policy, defense, social policy, you name it, we have advanced. The only failure I can see is his failure to prosecute Bush/Cheney for the crimes they committed while in office and that is one failure I'll admit to.
You may disagree with his policies but he has been successful implementing many of them and that is what you consider failure. I'd consider him highly successful. Now let’s see your list of failures.

 

To avoid derailing this thread, I have responded in a new thread.

 

Let's see....
Is unemployment higher or lower than when he took office?
Has our debt inceased or decreased under Obama?
Gas prices then? Now?

These are just the low hanging fruit.
As Newt said the other day, this may have been the best job BO was capable of but it hasn't been good enough to earn another 4 years.

 

[quote="
Here you display a blatant misunderstanding of the basis of science, and how science operates. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and repeatable results. Belief does not enter into it, unless you're talking about a belief that rational thought and consistent results are a reasonable basis for knowledge. The computer you typed your post on doesn't work because you happen to believe it will work. It was built using principles discovered by scientists and when it works it does so whether you believe in those principles or not.
[/quote]

Thank you for your post and here is my response. Please take it with respect for I type it without emotion.
Science is based upon belief as much as fact is the Scientific Method. It is all based upon observations of results from experiments and those observations are prejudiced by what we know at that time and what technology we have to use at that time. So people believe what they observed as being fact.

Lets take a peak at space.

1. Pluto is a planet. We were all taught that in school as fact. Until the hubble looked deep into space and boom. There was more to it then we orignally thought so lets make a new fact that pluto is a dwarf planet.
2. Vulcan is a planet that is between Mercury and the Sun. What you don't remember this. Taught as fact for a few years and the guy who "discovered" it was awarded the Legion d'honneur
3. Static Universe. Who am I to disagree with Einstein but again with technology observations that once were thought to be true were false. Current theory ---Expanding Universe due to the Hubble once again.

Lets take a peak at the Atom

1.All atoms have three parts. The three parts of an atom are the proton, the neutron and the electron.
(Turns out there are atoms without neutrons)
2. Atoms are the building blocks of matter there is nothing smaller then an atom.
(Well it turns out that there are things that make up atoms and control them like quarks and gluons and as our technology improves who knows what we might find out or should I say believe in as facts)

Lets take a peak on what has been taught as fact in very recent times in the schools during health and the media.

1. Eating eggs is bad for it causes significantly raises cholesterol. They even told us if we eat eggs only eat the white part for protein. Study after scientific study was done on this
(Well it turns out now that ....

Eating eggs does not significantly raise the body's cholesterol levels, according to a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Surrey and published in the Nutrition Bulletin of the British Heart Foundation.​

http://www.naturalnews.com/025995_cholesterol_eggs_eating.html#ixzz1p2P7ENT7​

I can go on but I think I made my point that science is as much about faith as fact for they are basing thier facts on only what they know of at the time and believe it as so.

 

Ok if someone listens to a radio host and repeats what is said verbatim be it liberal or conservative they can be regarded as sheep.
However if someone comes across the information that
1. Obama's mom married two non-christian men then perhaps
A.She did not have a strong faith
B. Was turned off by Christians
C. Had a strong distaste to it.
D. Had a negative influence on her son regarding it.

I can do the same thing about the other aspects of obama's background and it has more to do with independent thinking and alot of people have done it and base their conclusions then on this and Obama's behavior as president be it right or wrong their is a case/

 

Perfect! Now let us look at the RNC talking points that Fox News has so successfully mimiced and see if your points are at all similar....

If you thought Fox News was just reciting RNC talking points, well, you're correct. Tuesday night, Jon Stewart exposed this practice, after Steve Doocy stupidly read the RNC memo on the air telling pundits how to talk about the improving economy to make it still seem bad.

All right, so let me see if I get this straight. The numbers are real, but they're not good. In fact they're bad. Actually they're fake. And even if they were real and good, it wouldn't matter, because it's about how bad you feel and that's where we come in. Fox News, Rooting for America to Fail Since 2008.​

But their early February pushback on the economic indicators is all over the place. You rarely see Fox this disorganized. Luckily on February 10th, the Republican National Committee sent out this "pundit prep" document, let me show it to ya. This little document here, it emphasized how to mitigate any damage that may be occurring from the improved economy.​

It furnishes Republican pundits with three key areas to focus on: the national debt, unemployment, and the price of gas. Let's watch and see if the February 10th planting takes root. If you're playing at home, we're looking for the national debt, unemployment, and the price of gas.​

TUCKER CARLSON (2/16/2012): The debt is the issue.​

STUART VARNEY (2/17/2012): Why isn't the national debt the main issue?​

SEAN HANNITY (2/20/2012): Rising unemployment and the country is deeper in debt.​

BILL O'REILLY (2/23/2012): 15.6% U-6 unemployment​

ERIC BOLLING (2/24/2012): At 8 1/2% unemployment and $4 for gas.​

GRETCHEN CARLSON (2/14/2012): It is interesting, 'cause no one's talking about the gas prices.​

GRETCHEN CARLSON (2/15/2012): Why is nobody talking about this? $3.57, and you might be asking the question, why is nobody talking about this?​

Well blow me down! I think they match!