Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
And yet, my polls prove that the self described conservatives on this board reject the idea that it is necessary to try to refute evolution and global warming in order to be conservatives. Ergo, it is not a part of conservative thought, and so it is entirely possible to be both a conservative and an "evolutionist", meaning someone grounded in fact and research instead of wishful thinking. It is also possible for a liberal to fall in to the trap of believing ancient writings over modern science. You (not Gipper, but the self described conservatives (SDC) on this board) have indeed proven my hypothesis wrong. There is no connection between the simplistic liberal to conservative political model and evolution or global warming. It seemed like a good hypothesis, as it is nearly always the SDC who attempt to argue against established science, but that may be just a coincidence.So, Gipper is a SDC, mentions "liberals" in every post as being deluded individuals who live in fantasy land, and he is in addition, a refuter of established science. But, I have to admit defeat. There is no cause and effect between those two points of view.
And yet, my polls prove that the self described conservatives on this board reject the idea that it is necessary to try to refute evolution and global warming in order to be conservatives. Ergo, it is not a part of conservative thought, and so it is entirely possible to be both a conservative and an "evolutionist", meaning someone grounded in fact and research instead of wishful thinking. It is also possible for a liberal to fall in to the trap of believing ancient writings over modern science.
You (not Gipper, but the self described conservatives (SDC) on this board) have indeed proven my hypothesis wrong. There is no connection between the simplistic liberal to conservative political model and evolution or global warming. It seemed like a good hypothesis, as it is nearly always the SDC who attempt to argue against established science, but that may be just a coincidence.
So, Gipper is a SDC, mentions "liberals" in every post as being deluded individuals who live in fantasy land, and he is in addition, a refuter of established science. But, I have to admit defeat. There is no cause and effect between those two points of view.
