Sun, Nov. 17

Letter: You call this science?


Bob Burke's letter claiming "Scientific Proof" of liberals being happier and more stable than conservatives: It is so hard to argue with the 'Scientific' fact-finding methodology; but I'll try!

Mr. Burke's statement indicating that as a conservative I will place his and the author(s) of the scientific article alongside the equally unscientific man-made global warming and the equally unscientific evolution is correct; that is exactly the way I see them.

Unsubstantiated with scientific facts; however his claim that I do not believe in science is so far off base, it does not rate as anything but fallacious diatribe.

Let's look at the means of obtaining his "scientific" data: He cites an article in "Science Magazine" in which he claims "scientifically compared pictures" and the Democrats had more genuine smiles than Republicans.

There are two major fallacies: 1) Claiming Republican means conservative and Democrat means liberal is a serious stretch of the truth. 2) The look of a genuine smile means happiness; and sincerity was not even addressed. Then the examples of Lindsey Graham and John Boehner as Conservatives is somewhere beyond ludicrous. Somewhat like his calling Chris Matthews (who claimed to have a warm feeling running down his leg whenever hears Obama speak) and Hardball as any kind of "Balanced Programming".

Touching on three points:

Evolution: To believe Creation came about without intelligent design is about as unscientific as you can get. Answer the question; how could a honey bee, an eye or the combining of explosive gasses into a liquid fire retardant have evolved? My opinion is that evolution is forcibly taught in schools to deny God's existence.

Global Warming: This is a multi-billion dollar scam, that even when proof of distorted data is presented; the scammers bring out the oppressors; so the proof gets buried. How did the Iceland and Greenland geologically documentwarming in the 9th and 10th centuries occur? Were the Vikings building bonfires that were too large?

Photo Evaluation: The scientific data gleaned from evaluating pictures may be scientific in some sense of the word; however, I have a little problem believing the data would be 100 percent accurate for example if you take a picture of someone who is mentally challenged, I think it would be very difficult for the members of the "Intellectual Overlord Science Analyzers" to claim the smile to be anything other than genuine and a lot if not all of them are really happy with that situation; and in that case; Lord bless them, they have a special need, unlike the liberals who refuse to learn.

With the Liberals, the light is on with nobody home and their smile is often hiding a deeply set hatred or jealousy for individual liberty.

I have heard it put this way: "There are none as blind as those who will not see; there are none as deaf as those who will not hear and none as calloused as those who refuse to see or hear."

Did you ever watch and listen to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Bob Beckel? I rest my case; because I believe that about sums up my view of Mr. Burke's scientific letter.

Dale Gohr


Event Calendar
Event Calendar link
Submit Event