A person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else

rickyp wrote:idiot savant

A person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... t%20savant

having or showing the proud and unpleasant attitude of people who think that they are better or more important than other people

Although his house decorations should be enough of a warning...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gall ... are_btn_tw

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Although his house decorations should be enough of a warning...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gall ... are_btn_tw

What aspect of his house decorations is a warning?

What aspect of his house decorations is a warning?

In an interview with NBC News' Chris Jansing that aired on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Carson claimed that no other candidate in recent memory has experienced the level of media scrutiny he has felt during his campaign

I have biblical quotations at my house. Am I unfit?

I'll give Carson this, at least his painting of Jesus has Christ's skin color correct...

Sassenach wrote:An equal voice would be a national primary, presumably run on some kind of AV system to allocate preferences until one winner emerged. The point of the article is that some districts with tiny numbers of Republican voters send the same number of delegates as districts where it's easier to weigh the Republican vote, which obviously gives those voters a disproportionate influence in the final candidate selection.

Of course, since the Presidential election is also done on a state by state basis then this is only sensible.

As The New York Times’ Nate Cohn astutely observed in January, Republicans in blue states hold surprising power in the GOP presidential primary process even though they are “all but extinct in Washington, since their candidates lose general elections to Democrats.” This explains why Republicans have selected relatively moderate presidential nominees while the party’s members in Congress have continued to veer right.

The key to this pattern: “Blue-state Republicans are less religious, more moderate and less rural than their red-state counterparts,” Cohn concluded after crunching Pew Research survey data. By Cohn’s math, Republicans in states that Obama won in 2012 were 15 percentage points likelier to support Romney in the 2012 primary and 9 points likelier to support McCain in 2008 than their red-state compatriots. Romney and McCain’s advantage in blue states made it “all but impossible for their more conservative challengers to win the nomination,” Cohn wrote.

Sassenach wrote:

I'll give Carson this, at least his painting of Jesus has Christ's skin color correct...

Jesus, if indeed he did exist, would not have been black. Or if he was then he'd have stood out a mile from the rest of the population, which might have raised a few more doubts about the story Mary told of his parentage...

freeman3 wrote:Carson is a kook and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. Supporting black candidates for a time makes some Republicans feel good about themselves and their party's inclusiveness.

freeman3 wrote:Herman Cain last time, Dr. Carson this time. It's not bigotry to call out Republicans for their support of clearly unqualified African-American candidates for president. While Cain and Dr.Carson laugh all the way to the bank. Republicans, please find a qualified African-American Republican to support for president. I know that's hard because your policies are so bad for the African-American community, but supporting any African-American for president who will support conservatism is not the answer.

Further, I am pretty sure there are more Republican Governors in each category (more female R Gov's and more non-white R Gov's) than there are Democrat Governors

Archduke Russell John wrote:Check out this article as an example of what I am talking about above. It talks about how conservatives like Cruz and Carson probably won't win the nomination because of the unequal power of the moderate Republican vote in the Northeast and California.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -and-cruz/

Jesus, if indeed he did exist, would not have been black.

is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. In 2001, a new attempt was made to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the BBC, France 3 and Discovery Channel,[53] used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel. A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.[54] The face that Neave constructed suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.[55]

Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.[55] Using third-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[56]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[57] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[58] As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[57]

Although not literally the face of Jesus,[54] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[55] and that he would have most likely probably looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day.. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify

freeman3 wrote:Not that it will change anything but here is proof regarding evolution...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolut ... coyne.html
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/thin ... .wlO9DkMbd

Even though there is no doubt regarding the science about evolution I get the opposition to it. If evolution is true then organized religion is false. The idea of a god who sent his son...for some reason...to die so that people could get into heaven is not consistent with a mechanistic process whereby human beings evolved from chimps over about seven million years. Evolution means organized religion is false.

So,yeah , a doctor not believing in evolution...that's kind of a concern. In fact, a person who does not believe in evolution should not be president.