I posted something I thought was cool-looking, graphically-interesting, and amusing. Eri’s response was simple and funny. You, on the other hand, dropped a nice, fat political crack in.

Understand, I have no particular objection to this sort of thing. None. Lord knows I do it myself. But I don’t hypocritically pretend I don’t do it, and I particularly don’t lecture people at length about how awful it is that you can’t post anything without somebody dragging political views into it.

Either way, you use both rhetorical devices extensively and have no reason to take umbrage at someone else doing it.

So I’ll answer your snark both ways.

Conservative candidates HAVE publicly supported creationism, Michelle Bachmann, for one, and most of the others have avoided criticizing it for fear of alienating the baser aspects of their voter base.

As for the other definition, I certainly reserve the right to criticize and attack those who proselytize medieval and tribal superstitions, and especially those who don’t, but still continue to make excuses and cover up for those that do.

So put on your mask and snorkel. How’s this for a real water balloon? Any political philosophy that actively courts and recruits the anti-science and fanatical religious elements of society in order to further its own domestic economic agenda has no conscience, no integrity, and is not morally fit to have a voice in public life.

The creationists, no matter how mistaken they may be, at least, sincerely believe in their philosophy. The cynical Right that exploits them politically has no belief, sincerity or convictions, only financial interests.

I’m sure if flat earthers had the appropriate views on taxes and health care the Republicans could embrace them too.