Great band name!

The Gibbering Sphincters, Live!!!

Can't we just replace the title of "President" with the title of "Gibbering Sphincter" no matter who gets elected?

It fits just oh so well.

I'm stealing it.

GaryPDX: I'm stealing it.

Can't wait for the album cover.

Fred's problem is that he's old enough to remember the days of the belief in geocentrism and he doesn't want to be seen as a "flip flopper".

He also doesn't want to be burned as a witch or for any other heresies.

...and by "fred", i of course mean "mike"?

(when i say "dog kennel" i mean "matress")

Well, I like it so much it's now my pat label for any politician.

Gibbering sphincters can get you arrested in most places.

San Fransisco, Key West and West Hollywood excepted.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: ...and by "fred", i of course mean "mike"?

(when i say "dog kennel" i mean "matress")

*puts a bag over his head*

5000_gallons_of_toothpaste: *puts a bag over his head*

Fark me.

Now I've got to stand in the tea-chest and sing.

/and did those feet in ancient times....walk upon England's mountains greeen......

*takes bag off of head*

Wanebo: GaryPDX: I'm stealing it.

Can't wait for the album cover.

I'm just imagining a 'Gibbering Sphincters' album cover floating across the front of my Ipod. Maybe Gary can talk to Gwar for help on some costumes.

And, um, what the hell was that, Bill_Wick's_Friend?

BigHarv: And, um, what the hell was that, Bill_Wick's_Friend?

Start at about 1:45.

It's a sad day when people can't recognize a Monty Python sketch in two lines.

Lemon Curry?

Aren't most politicians gibbering sphincters?

zorgon: Lemon Curry?

Dear REAL Princess Margret...

Would the Gibbering Sphincters be a Butthole Surfers tribute band?

Gibbering Sphincter sounds like one of the lost Elder Gods.

I prefer the term blathering anus but that's just me.

Cagey B: Would the Gibbering Sphincters be a Butthole Surfers tribute band?

YES!!!

I think that sums it up pretty well.

I haven't read the thread yet, are all the old standbys here?

I love how our brains "want" to see normal human faces so badly that I automatically try to focus my eyes better when I see this. Or as Mike Huckabee would say, "invisible angels push down on my eyelids".

/science nerd

Fart_Machine: Gibbering Sphincter sounds like one of the lost Elder Gods.

He was uncredited (at his request) in:


Huckabee is old enough to be in the movie:
Singing Asshole (new window)

I, for one, appreciate the humor in the use of the Asinine tag with a headline about 'gibbering sphincters'. Even if it wasn't intentionally funny that way.

Huckabee: I'm not familiar that they're dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution.

Could we get a presidential candidate who is smart enough to know what the REAL scientific definition of a "theory" actually is.

It's pretty bad when they can't get the most basics of science correct.

Hey Huckster there is a "theory" of gravity too. That must mean we aren't sure if gravity exists either!!

Dumbass!

Atleast learn the very basics of science before looking like a dumbass.

garrulous rectum?

FlashHarry: garrulous rectum?

Rectum? Damn near killed the boy!

Corvus [TotalFark]
t's pretty bad when they can't get the most basics of science correct.

Hey Huckster there is a "theory" of gravity too. That must mean we aren't sure if gravity exists either!!

Dumbass!

Atleast learn the very basics of science before looking like a dumbass.

A catch phrase that can easily be repeated by talking heads on 24 hour news networks is a far more powerful and effective political tool than an intelligent, informed opinion.

And even if that weren't the case, he expressed a sentiment shared by a majority of Americans at this point. If Huckabee were able to express an intelligent, information opinion on evolution, it would probably be in his best political interest to stick with this dribble.

/Off to watch Idiocracy.

Well at least the article makes no pretense of objectivity. That always makes it so hard for me to form an opinion.

Either he's a brainwashed moron, or he's pandering to the religious right, with zero concern for the truth. Either way, it does not bode well for the future of the US. Will it take another Sputnik before we stop bashing science?

freidog: Corvus [TotalFark]
t's pretty bad when they can't get the most basics of science correct.

Hey Huckster there is a "theory" of gravity too. That must mean we aren't sure if gravity exists either!!

Dumbass!

Atleast learn the very basics of science before looking like a dumbass.

A catch phrase that can easily be repeated by talking heads on 24 hour news networks is a far more powerful and effective political tool than an intelligent, informed opinion.

And even if that weren't the case, he expressed a sentiment shared by a majority of Americans at this point. If Huckabee were able to express an intelligent, information opinion on evolution, it would probably be in his best political interest to stick with this dribble.

/Off to watch Idiocracy.

I'm pretty sure his entire campaign is based upon winning the vote of the uninformed masses. And that, unfortunately, seems to be a winning ticket in America these days. He's actively running on being the simple guy (i.e. simpleton). We are a nation of 300,000,000 people. We shouldn't be electing Bob down the street as our leader. We should be electing the best and brightest out of 300,000,000 people as the President of the United States. We were founded on the principles of Enlightenment. Huckabee is the anti-Enlightenment candidate.

WorldCitizen: I'm pretty sure his entire campaign is based upon winning the vote of the uninformed masses. And that, unfortunately, seems to be a winning ticket in America these days. He's actively running on being the simple guy (i.e. simpleton). We are a nation of 300,000,000 people. We shouldn't be electing Bob down the street as our leader. We should be electing the best and brightest out of 300,000,000 people as the President of the United States. We were founded on the principles of Enlightenment. Huckabee is the anti-Enlightenment candidate.

What was that quote? One day America will elect a complete moron, something along those lines....

Huckabee: ...I think schools also ought to be fair to all views.

Evolutionists who want a monopoly on public school education might not agree with him on that, but most fair-minded Americans do.

SkinnyHead: Huckabee: ...I think schools also ought to be fair to all views.

Evolutionists who want a monopoly on public school education might not agree with him on that, but most fair-minded Americans do.

Theory of intelligent falling?

SkinnyHead: Huckabee: ...I think schools also ought to be fair to all views.

Evolutionists who want a monopoly on public school education might not agree with him on that, but most fair-minded Americans do.

Where would you have evolution taught (what class)?
Where would you have creationism taught (what class)?

SkinnyHead: Huckabee: ...I think schools also ought to be fair to all views.

Evolutionists who want a monopoly on public school education might not agree with him on that, but most fair-minded Americans do.

Sure, have an elective on the study of religion, myth, culture and superstition. Have it include information on the various creation stories of cultures through time including the latest which is the modern religious American creation story. I'm sure that would be an interesting, educational course if taught intelligently.

In science class, teach science. Science class is no place for creation stories.

SkinnyHead: Evolutionists who want a monopoly on public school education might not agree with him on that, but most fair-minded Americans do.

When you come up with enough evidence to become a testable theory, please come back. That's what science class teaches -- the laws and theories of nature with testable, predictable, and measurable attributes. While there is nothing proving intelligent design one way or another, that doesn't mean it cannot be spoken about in school, just where it belongs: in a religious study class, covering a broad spectrum of worldly religions. If you and your children are firm in your faith, there is nothing harming learning about evolution or learning about the way other human beings live and their religion, right?

keithgabryelski:
Where would you have evolution taught (what class)?
Where would you have creationism taught (what class)?

I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

SkinnyHead:
I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

Would they receive a G.E.D?

SkinnyHead

Calling it "the scientific theory of intelligent design" doesn't make it scientific. Fail.

Oh, you all make fun.

I've had a case of gibbering sphincter.

It's no walk in the park at the beach.

SkinnyHead: I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

So evolution only then? That's good.

SkinnyHead: keithgabryelski:
Where would you have evolution taught (what class)?
Where would you have creationism taught (what class)?

I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. It CANNOT be subjected to the scientific process. Intelligent Design is Creationism in (a very poor) disguise. How many times must this be pointed out to you?

Fine then. Let's also teach the Apache scientific theory of creation in the same class. It is equally valid as your scientific theory of creation.

Animals, elements, the solar system, and natural phenomena are revered by the Apaches. That which is beyond their understanding is always ascribed to the supernatural.

In the beginning nothing existed--no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere.

Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. As if waking from a long nap, he rubbed his eyes and face with both hands.

When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light. To the east, he created yellow streaks of dawn. To the west, tints of many colours appeared everywhere. There were also clouds of different colors. (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/8494/creation.html)

Or how about the ancient Greek theory of creation? Or the ancient Chinese theory of creation? The Hindu theory of creation? What makes any one of these, including yours, any more valid than the other?

SkinnyHead: keithgabryelski:
Where would you have evolution taught (what class)?
Where would you have creationism taught (what class)?

I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

there is no "scientific theory of intelligent design".

Evolution is a scientific theory based on employing the scientific method (new window), that is why it is a Scientific Theory (which is different than a theory developed by other means) (new window). It gets to be taught in science class because it is, by definition, Science.

Intelligent Design theory never went through the well defined method for developing scientific theories (new window).

You can't call an idea "science" by saying "i propose this is the way things work", it requires tests and validation -- Validation generally requires peer reviewed High Fives.

There is no reason scientists will refuse to accept a scientific theory of intelligent design, none has been proposed that meets the requirements of following the scientific method.

Do you agree that everything taught in science class should be science?

So why was this asinine? Sometimes it feels good to sling a little mud, especially when the politician in question is a moron.

SkinnyHead: I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

No scientific theory of intelligent design exists. Please cite me to the primary, peer-reviewed research articles (experimental articles) published in a credible scientific article that actually supports intelligent design.

LordJiro: INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE.
Yes it is.

It CANNOT be subjected to the scientific process.
Yes it can.

Intelligent Design is Creationism ...
Nope.

How many times must this be pointed out to you?

keithgabryelski: Do you agree that everything taught in science class should be science?

Is math science?

SkinnyHead [TotalFark]
I would have evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design taught in the same class.

What experiments do you propose to have the class observe evidence in support of, or refuting the 'scientific theory' of intelligent design?

What should be used in science class as direct evidence the genetic mutation underpinning evolution is in not in fact random, but rather the careful work of an intelligent designer?