OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[JackB1]

Blinking or checking out the ass? You decide.

I am a little disturbed though that a candidate as old as McCain would pick someone so young and grossly unprepared to step in as President, should McCain's health deteriorate.

Totally the ass...

He may be old, but he's still a guy. I see old guys checking out hot women all the time. When you get to that age, lookin's about all you can do.

[pk500]

Blinking or checking out the ass? You decide.

I think he's asleep.

CAPTION:

"F*ck, Cindy is going to hate me for this choice. No tail for Johnny boy tonight!"

Take care,
PK

[TheHiddenTrack]

Like many republicans she is anti-science and thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century. I still can't believe that McCain doesn't use computers or check his own e-mail. Scary. Not to mention McCain using scientific research as an example of wasteful spending without clarifying WHY it was wasteful. At least he acknowledges global warming but of course he thinks the free market will fix it. Scientific literacy is one of my main concerns when picking a president and Obama has been okay/good (not great, like McCain and Clinton he didn't have a firm grasp on the vaccination paranoia) on the issues, but he makes the creationist duo of McCain-Palin look like geocentrists.

[XXXIV]

Like most republicans she is a creationist who thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century..

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

[TheHiddenTrack]

Like most republicans she is a creationist who thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century..

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

[matthewk]

Here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02418.html

And since you are taking nit-picking to farcical levels, the definition of proof is:

"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

One guy "acusses" the Bush administration of it, so it must be true.

By the definition of proof, this is not it for me. It has not compelled me to accept your assertion as true.

[XXXIV]

Blinking or checking out the ass? You decide.

I think he's asleep.

He does need his naps.

[WPatrick]

Like most republicans she is a creationist who thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century. I still can't believe that McCain doesn't use computers or check his own e-mail. Scary. Not to mention McCain using scientific research as an example of wasteful spending without clarifying WHY it was wasteful. At least he acknowledges global warming but of course he thinks the free market will fix it. Scientific literacy is one of my main concerns when picking a presidency and Obama has been okay/good (not great, like McCain and Clinton he didn't have a firm grasp on the vaccination paranoia) on the issues, but he makes the creationist duo of McCain-Palin look like geocentrists.

So science has all the answers, were did the singularity that created the universe come from? If there is no creator of any kind where did the basic building blocks of our universe come from exactly? I guess I missed the news report when science conclusively answered these questions.

[matthewk]

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

Are you talking about how we all got here? Are you really trying to say that you know for a fact (there's that word again) how it is we are here?

It's funny...no, it's actually sad and infuriating that *some* on the left constantly scream about being tolerant of others (like gays for example), but then is completely intolerant of people they don't agree with.

[FatPitcher]

I'm going to take a drink every time I hear 9-11 and P.O.W. I may not wake up.
[\quote]

You should've tried it during the DNC and drank every time they tried to link Bush to McCain. You'd still be comatose.

Or every time Gulianni says "9/11". You'll be sloshed in no time. McCain has voted the same as Bush 95% of the time. That's a pretty strong link. As far as McCain's military history, I can't pretend to understand the hell that he endured, but does all that make him a better choice for President? Many of our greatest President's (Lincoln, FDR, Clinton) had zero military background. There has never been any evidence that military experience will have anything to do with what kind of a President you will be. Is McCain a war hero? Absolutely. Will that make him a better President? I have no idea.

A few things:
- Bush doesn't vote on legislation
- McCain sided with Bush 90% of the time, not 95%, according the the DNC research that seemingly every speaker at the convention used in their speeches. However, that was 77% from 2000-2004 and 95% after that (presumably because of their similar positions on immigration, McCain's attempts to make himself palatable to the Republican base, the need for party unity to hold off a Democratic Congress post-2006, and Bush's positions changing to be more like McCain's now that he doesn't have to be re-elected).
- I seem to remember people thinking Kerry's 3-month tour in Vietnam was a huge deal. So much so that it got him the nomination and was the theme of his convention.
- FDR and Clinton as all-time greatest presidents? FDR's legacy is a lengthy depression, entitlement programs that aren't sustainable, allowing Japan and Germany to run rampant for years in the name of peace but ultimately failing to prevent world war, and a constitutional amendment barring presidents from serving as long as he did. As for Clinton...not sure what he did that was so great aside from welfare reform.

[RobVarak]

Scientific literacy is one of my main concerns when picking a president

Seriously? Why on earth would that be the case? I'd suggest that not since Jefferson have we had a President with even slightly above-average "scientific literacy," so you must be generally unhappy with our Chief Executives. LOL

Edit-- It just came to me that Carter almost certainly had well above average scientific acumen. That's about the only one of who I can think right now. I remain perplexed about why this criterion would be of such importance, although you are obviously free to make your choice based on whatever you'd like.

[FatPitcher]

Like most republicans she is a creationist who thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century..

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

Fundamental to what? How exactly does it matter?

And if you want to get into a discussion of science and what it tells us about us, you may also want to consider:
- Science tells us that human life begins at conception.
- Science tells us that human life is no more valuable than that of other organisms.
- Science tells us that there is no meaning or purpose to our existence. We're an accident, and we, our planet, solar system, and galaxy are all doomed. We have no souls.
- Science tells us that moral behavior often goes against our evolution.
- How many people are against animal testing? Are they anti-science too?
- How many people are against GM foods? Also anti-science?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

[TheHiddenTrack]

So science has all the answers, were did the singularity that created the universe come from? If there is no creator of any kind where did the basic building blocks of our universe come from exactly? I guess I missed the news report when science conclusively answered these questions.

Where did I say that science has all the answers? I only referred to evolution and creationism/intelligent design. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the evolution of life after it came into existence. I don't care if you think a creator started things off or whatever you think. But if you think the earth is 6,000 years old, humans lived with dinosaurs, that there was a world wide flood (as described in the bible), or that humans don't share a common ancestor with primates then I would say that science has answered these questions conclusively.

I don't know what you believe but if you are a creationist I suggest you watch this series:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BS5vid4GkEY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheHiddenTrack]

Scientific literacy is one of my main concerns when picking a president

Seriously? Why on earth would that be the case? I'd suggest that not since Jefferson have we had a President with even slightly above-average "scientific literacy," so you must be generally unhappy with our Chief Executives. LOL

Well the two most obvious issues are: Energy and Climate change. And considering how important and integral technology is to our society it will be vital to have a president who values the input of scientists when making decisions on these issues. I also want a president who understands the importance of science education (and addressing how poor it is in this country) and realizes the importance of scientific research to the future of our country.

For a quick run down:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

For a more in depth look:
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-Wor ... 287&sr=8-1

[pk500]

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

If science can end the war in Iraq, I'm all for it. If science can fix the economy, I'm all for it. If science can keep guns off urban streets, I'm all for it. If science can return a sense of decency and style to America, then I'm all for it.

Sadly, I don't think the Periodic Table has all the answers.

Honestly, I don't give a f*ck whether a guy can use e-mail or not if he's a good President. I don't think the ability to send and receive e-mail is vital. He's the President, after all: He has access to the most sophisticated communications technology in the world.

Presidents almost never drive vehicles during their terms, either. They are driven everywhere in official government vehicles. I guess that makes them ill-equipped to understand or solve any of the vehicular fuel issues that are killing the American economy right now. Hell, they don't drive or fill their own tanks, so how the hell can they know what's going on?

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

Fundamental to what? How exactly does it matter?

And if you want to get into a discussion of science and what it tells us about us, you may also want to consider:
- Science tells us that human life begins at conception.
- Science tells us that human life is no more valuable than that of other organisms.
- Science tells us that there is no meaning or purpose to our existence. We're an accident, and we, our planet, solar system, and galaxy are all doomed. We have no souls.
- Science tells us that moral behavior often goes against our evolution.
- How many people are against animal testing? Are they anti-science too?
- How many people are against GM foods? Also anti-science?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Oh, I forgot to the mention these:
- Science tells us that all men are not created equal.
- Plus, men and women aren't created equal, either. I guess all those people who castigated Lawrence Summers for suggesting this subject be studied are anti-science.

[RobVarak]

God help me, I just agreed with the she-animal known as Bay Buchanan. She pointed out that the feminist establishment is going to fall all over itself to explain why this pick is actually not good for women. She's right and that will be an entertaining spectacle.

Much like unions, feminists long ago gave up on actually acting in the best interest of the group that they putatively represent in favor of tossing their lot in with the Left irrespective of the merits of a particular candidate or issue. Evangelicals have done the same thing on the Right.

Well that didn't take long at all. LMAO From the estimable Dee Dee Myers in Vanity Fair.

Clearly, McCain thinks Palin will help him among women, particularly those disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters who are having so much trouble “getting over it.” It just shows how clueless the McCain camp actually is. Unlike Clinton and Ferraro, Palin hasn’t been a strong national voice on women’s issues. She hasn’t been at the barricades, fighting for women’s health, equal pay, economic security. And she certainly hasn’t had anything to say about the national-security issues that are also important to women across the political spectrum. Does the McCain camp really expect pro-choice Democratic and independent women to be swayed by a sleight-of-gender?

Pay no attention to the woman in front of the curtain. She's apparently not woman enough for Dee Dee.

[Jared]

Not much time to post.

But you clearly do not have a basic understanding of what science is.

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

Fundamental to what? How exactly does it matter?

And if you want to get into a discussion of science and what it tells us about us, you may also want to consider:
- Science tells us that human life begins at conception.
- Science tells us that human life is no more valuable than that of other organisms.
- Science tells us that there is no meaning or purpose to our existence. We're an accident, and we, our planet, solar system, and galaxy are all doomed. We have no souls.
- Science tells us that moral behavior often goes against our evolution.
- How many people are against animal testing? Are they anti-science too?
- How many people are against GM foods? Also anti-science?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

[wco81]

Science doesn't have all the answers.

But itt would be a nice departure though to not silence scientists.

If you don't agree with what the NOAA scientists are saying, that's fine, but don't try to suppress their findings.

[TheGamer]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

[TheHiddenTrack]

Burn her at the stake then!...My my... How intolerance has come full circle.

BTW.....Have you polled "most" republicans on creationism?

Whoops. I actually meant to write "anti-science" so I'll edit it.

This isn't about intolerance. It's about understanding science and technology. It's about accepting what we call "facts." And when someone fails to accept facts it shows a lack of critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the evidence without bias. And yes, I don't think we should be electing leaders who don't understand one of the most basic and fundamental of all the scientific facts.

Fundamental to what? How exactly does it matter?

And if you want to get into a discussion of science and what it tells us about us, you may also want to consider:
- Science tells us that human life begins at conception.
- Science tells us that human life is no more valuable than that of other organisms.
- Science tells us that there is no meaning or purpose to our existence. We're an accident, and we, our planet, solar system, and galaxy are all doomed. We have no souls.
- Science tells us that moral behavior often goes against our evolution.
- How many people are against animal testing? Are they anti-science too?
- How many people are against GM foods? Also anti-science?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Tell me where I wrote that we should only use science when making decisions in our lives? Science is ONE way of knowing and investigating the natural world. Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist biologist has repeatedly said he is a anti-darwinist when it comes to morality and how we should set up society. Science doesn't determine our ethics and morality ... you can use some facts of science in order to inform your views but that doesn't mean science directly tells us any of that.

Those things you wrote is your subjective pessimistic interpretation of the IMPLICATIONS of the facts. I could just as easily turn some of those things around:

Fast forward to 3:22 for an optimistic view:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Ai-VvboPnA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[XXXIV]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

I thought about that too...Cant get much more foreign policy experience.

[ScoopBrady]

Blinking or checking out the ass? You decide.

I think he's asleep.

I think he's realizing he took the Viagra too early.

[greggsand]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

I thought about that too...Cant get much more foreign policy experience.

Agreed, perhaps she wasn't interested??

Regarding Science: McCain actually made fun of the correlation between tire pressure & gas mileage. What dude doesn't know that??

[Feanor]

One guy "acusses" the Bush administration of it, so it must be true.

By the definition of proof, this is not it for me. It has not compelled me to accept your assertion as true.

The CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 to 2005 is "one guy" .... that's priceless.

- FDR and Clinton as all-time greatest presidents? FDR's legacy is a lengthy depression, entitlement programs that aren't sustainable, allowing Japan and Germany to run rampant for years in the name of peace but ultimately failing to prevent world war, and a constitutional amendment barring presidents from serving as long as he did. As for Clinton...not sure what he did that was so great aside from welfare reform.

Isn't a bit harsh to blame FDR for the depression when he took office four years after it all began? Clinton deserves credit for being in office while the economy was good enough to pay back some of the public debt.