Evolution? In Wisconsin?

[Gob]

Republican presidential hopeful Scott Walker has refused to say whether he believes in the theory of evolution, arguing that it is “a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or the other”.

Walker was speaking to an audience in London at the international affairs thinktank Chatham House while on a four-day trade mission to the UK, which is being interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate the Wisconsin governor’s credentials as an international statesman.

“I’m going to leave that up to you,” he said, when he was asked the question by BBC journalist Justin Webb. “I’m here to talk about trade not to pontificate on other issues. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin and I’d like to see an even bigger evolution as well.”

Webb, who was chairing the talk, responded that “any British politician, right- or leftwing, would laugh and say ‘yes of course evolution is true’”.

[BoSoxGal]

Who needs science to handle modern living? Just open your Bible, Scotty.

[Lord Jim]

I don't blame him for not answering that question. For Walker to have a realistic chance of getting the nomination, he needs to have a big showing in the Iowa Caucuses, and there are sure to be some Fundamentalists that don't believe in evolution in attendance. Why arbitrarily alienate them over something that is completely irrelevant to being President? (The last time I checked, Presidents didn't have a whole lot of influence over evolution one way or the other...)

The fact that he refused to answer questions about ISIS and Ukraine was more bothersome to me. Presidential candidates make foreign trips to try and make themselves look more engaged in international issues. What's the point of doing that if you're not going to answer questions about foreign policy?

But it's still very early in the game....

[rubato]

Profound cynicism and innate cowardice in one man.


He is so certain that the percentage of religious bigots who might vote for him are so large that he has to lie to get their votes. And he is willing to lie for them too.

Being elected is important enough to him to lie for. (McCain did the same when he gave up all of his principles to run for president)

That would lose my vote, permanently.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

He didn't "lie"; he declined to answer the question...

Refusing to answer a question doesn't make one a "liar" anymore than being wrong (ie, GWB re WMD in Iraq) makes one a "liar"...

You seem a little unclear on what does and does not constitute a "lie"...

[Joe Guy]

A politician would actually be willing to lie in order to get elected?

I don't think so. It just doesn't happen.

[Lord Jim]

A politician would actually be willing to lie in order to get elected?

I can think of an example: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmmm, I doubt that the chowder-head fundamentalists were at all pleased with his more important statement that he doesn't think politicians should be involved in the question one way or the other. Of course, they can't read so probably have no idea what he said.

It would have been interesting if he'd asked the talking head what he meant by "evolution", just to see if he meant anything at all.

[rubato]

One element of leadership is to tell the truth when it is difficult.

He is not a leader, he is a coward.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

One element of leadership is to tell the truth when it is difficult.

He is not a leader, he is a coward.


yrs,
rubato

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period"

[rubato]

One element of leadership is to tell the truth when it is difficult.

He is not a leader, he is a coward.


yrs,
rubato

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period"

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period"

"Unless your insurance company refuses to offer it. Or the current terms are so bad that only a fool would take them. Because we all know that the government cannot require them to offer you the same policy, or any policy."

Only a stupid person would think that the qualification was necessary.

But your inability to defend Walker honestly is noted.

yrs,
rubato





yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

"Unless your insurance company refuses to offer it. Or the current terms are so bad that only a fool would take them. Because we all know that the government cannot require them to offer you the same policy, or any policy."

What part of the word "Period" do you not understand?

Your transparent rationalizations and mischaracterizations to try and excuse Obama's blatant dishonesty are noted.



ETA:

But your inability to defend Walker honestly is noted.

On the contrary, I said I didn't blame him a bit for not answering that question, and I explained why.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Unless your insurance company refuses to offer it under orders from obamacare

fixed that for you.

Or the current terms are so bad that only a fool would take them.

So some 6 million people who's plans, that they were perfectly happy with, got canceled due to obamacare were fools. Ok gotcha.

Because we all know that the government cannot require them to offer you the same policy, or any policy."

Yet the government does require them to only offer a policy they deem "adequate" (or not offer a policy at all).