<Removed>

[patches70]

In a related story, Essie Washington-Williams, who we might know as Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter, died this week. She deserved a better father.

Hmmm, Essie Washington-Williams would disagree with you there. Maybe you should read the transcript of her interview on 60 minutes.....

Excerpt-
Essie Mae Williams:
Oh, yes. He was wonderful.

Dan Rather:
He was wonderful.

Essie Mae Williams:
Yes.

Just sayin', you've got your opinion (judgment) that is based on ignorance, which is fine I suppose, but the person who you seem to be sympathetic toward had no such judgment and thought quite the opposite of what you appear to think of him as a father.
Anyway, here is the link to the transcript if you want to have, you know, an actual informed opinion.
I think it's his politics you are against, which is fine, but your statement has to do with him as a father and the interview doesn't support your view at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/ ... 9107.shtml

[spurgistan]

My "ignorance" is mostly based on the fact that, despite having a child with a black woman, he was resoundingly in favor of segregation. I'm not saying she didn't love her father, or that he didn't give her money (less than a bare minimum of what a father should do, particularly for one as wealthy as Thurmond it could have easily been an afterthought) I'm saying she deserved better.

[Woodruff]

I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist. Which means that he believes a reliance on conventional medicine should be discouraged and that physician methods should be seen as ineffective because they treat disease as originating in the body rather than the mind.

And this is who the House selected to head the HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

Good Lord.

[Phatscotty]

Why should House Science Committee discriminate against religion? Why the hell would you necrobump this thread?

[Woodruff]

Why should House Science Committee discriminate against religion?

They shouldn't, they should discriminate against someone WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

[Phatscotty]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

[Woodruff]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

[Phatscotty]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist

I think you just trolled yourself

[Woodruff]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist

I think you just trolled yourself

Did you even read what you're replying to?

I think you're trying as hard as you can to look like you have some basic point, but in reality you're simply looking like a fool.

Would you like to try to stop looking like a fool, or are you having fun still?

Let me know when you are ready to stop sucking up to the Republican Party long enough to stop wearing your ass for a hat.

[Phatscotty]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

Then what is the correct term for a scientist who is a Christian?

[Symmetry]

I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist. Which means that he believes a reliance on conventional medicine should be discouraged and that physician methods should be seen as ineffective because they treat disease as originating in the body rather than the mind.

And this is who the House selected to head the HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

Good Lord.

Aye an Peter King was Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, despite a history of supporting the IRA, even when it killed US citizens. You'd think supporting terrorist attacks and fundraising for them would rule you out.

[Woodruff]

You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

Then what is the correct term for a scientist who is a Christian?

If one wants to be clear, they would call them "a scientist who is a Christian". Or even "a Christian who is a scientist". Both would work. It seems fairly obvious.

"Christian Scientist" is pretty specific, IN PARTICULAR in the way I used it.

Are you going to answer my questions, Phatscotty, or are you still afraid of it?

[tzor]

Then what is the correct term for a scientist who is a Christian?

A really smart person.

[Woodruff]

So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?

(Quotes added so dipshits don't misunderstand any more than they do naturally.)

[patrickaa317]

So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?

(Quotes added so dipshits don't misunderstand any more than they do naturally.)

Just as a a note, some self pro-claimed conservatives don't speak for all conservatives.

With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.

[Lootifer]

That christian scientist shit is well weird.

[Woodruff]

So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?

(Quotes added so dipshits don't misunderstand any more than they do naturally.)

Just as a a note, some self pro-claimed conservatives don't speak for all conservatives.

Believe me, I do realize that. Thankfully for conservatism, I might add.

With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.

Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.

But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.

[Lootifer]

I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.

I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.

[Phatscotty]

According to top Democratic advisers, the Republican Party is being taken over by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul

[patrickaa317]

I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.

I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.

That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.

[patrickaa317]

With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.

Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.

But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.

I'm unhappy with almost anything that is going on in DC, or even my state gov't now days, and frankly "the chairman of the committee on science, space, & technology" is so far down there that I wouldn't really care who they appointed. It's all irrelevant if we don't stop overspending on social programs, policing the world, leaving our oil in the ground while buying it from people who hate us, etc, etc. I'm personally about as concerned with the chairman for SST as I am the dog catcher of my local precinct.

1) What does the Committee do?

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development (R&D). Federal agencies that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction (either completely or partially) include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey.

I think 3-4 of the above agencies could easily be cut or consolidated together. If the chairman is willing to suggest that, he's got my support all day long. In the very likely event that he doesn't, then it's a moot point and I simply do not care either way.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.

I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.

That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.

One may say, "that's why the president has advisers on matters of war," but of course, that doesn't stop the president from selecting those whose perspectives he enjoys. Given his lack of knowledge on warfare, this may be lead himself to serious shortcomings--thus arises the problem of groupthink, which becomes acceptable given the rules through which the president selects his advisers and cabinet members--especially in exchange of favors.

(E.g. Grouphthink: Lyndon Johnson + McNamara during the Vietnam war, and FDR + The New Dealers. Exchange of favors: Obama choosing Hillary as the sec. of state, in exchange for her partisan support of his presidential candidacy. She was unqualified, yet through political clout gets the job).

Oh, democracy. Let the uninformed believe they're in control and all will be well for those who understand that game of control.

[BigBallinStalin]

With your point of the above, you'd think at this point that someone might even end up appointing someone who evaded taxes to treasury secretary.

Hell yes, that's just as valid of a complaint. Someone else mentioned another good example.

But that doesn't change the fact that, to this point, I haven't seen any conservatives who seem to be unhappy about Lamar Smith being in that position.

Just wondering: if the claim that person Whoever actually evaded his taxes his true,

then was he punished? If not, why?

(It seems that politicians who can muster the clout can evade any serious consequences to their illegal activities. Furthermore, they can become ideolized by either the electorate or those who put them in power--e.g. the president, or Senate, or whichever political party that has the discretion).

[Lootifer]

I think there is a fair to say that most internal political appointments are another example failure of [the implementation of] democracy.

I myself get to enjoy an Energy Minister who had spent a grand total of zero days working in the energy industry prior to their appointment.

That's comparable to having a president that spent 0 days in an executive position prior to starting his presidential campaign.

Thats apples and oranges.

One is a specialist decision making role where experience within the industry will assist in your uptake of information as it comes in.

The other is a figurehead leadership role. In which most countries is simply no more than a popularity contest.

[AndyDufresne]

That christian scientist shit is well weird.

They have a church near where I live. I like their bells that ring throughout the day. But that is as close as I have ventured.


--Andy