OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[MACTEPsporta]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

Yeah, it may have been, but I guess he was set on picking a woman.

[FatPitcher]

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 tell us any of those things. You can take, for example, the fact that we aren't at the center of the universe and say: That means we aren't special and we are insignificant! But that is not SCIENCE telling us that. Science is a way of systematically investigating the natural world. 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>

I think we're somewhat in agreement here. My argument that whether someone is a creationist or evolutionist has virtually no impact on how qualified they are to govern, because even evolutionists believe society should be run as if humans are special creations who should follow laws of morality and ethics that don't apply to other animals.

[TheHiddenTrack]

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.

Take care,
PK

Yes, because I wrote that Science will fix every problem in our world. It's one tool in our society that has improved many different aspects of all of our lives. It can also be used as a tool for destruction (bombs, etc). Science and technology CAN lead to as many problems as they can fix but all I was arguing was it is very important for a president to value science so when they are making decisions on SCIENTIFIC ISSUES they know what they are doing (energy, global warming, etc). But please, post up another straw man.

[Feanor]

My problem with Creationism is that they only seem to want to teach the Evangelical Christian version. If they want to tell school kids that the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then the Creation stories of other religions should also be mentioned. For instance, Maori legend teaches that the North Island of New Zealand was fished out of the sea by a dude called Maui.

http://history-nz.org/maori9.html

And I for one can't prove it didn't happen.

[FatPitcher]

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.

Take care,
PK

Yes, because I wrote that Science will fix every problem in our world. It's one tool in our society that has improved many different aspects of all of our lives. It can also be used as a tool for destruction (bombs, etc). Science and technology CAN lead to as many problems as they can fix but all I was arguing was it is very important for a president to value science so when they are making decisions on SCIENTIFIC ISSUES they know what they are doing (energy, global warming, etc). But please, post up another straw man.

This is the American leftist myth that Bush/creationists don't value science.

[FatPitcher]

My problem with Creationism is that they only seem to want to teach the Evangelical Christian version. If they want to tell school kids that the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then the Creation stories of other religions should also be mentioned. For instance, Maori legend teaches that the North Island of New Zealand was fished out of the sea by a dude called Maui.

http://history-nz.org/maori9.html

And I for one can't prove it didn't happen.

If they could use they money they are forced to pay to support public school to send their kids to a school of their choice instead, they would have no grounds for complaint. Problem solved.

[pk500]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

No.

It would have been impossible for McCain to run on a campaign of changing Washington, of being a bit of a maverick when his 20-plus years of Congressional service were paired with a woman who has spent the last eight years in the Bush Oval Office.

Plus Obama is trying to paint a McCain adminstration as the third Bush term, and having Condi Rice as his veep would only reinforce that.

Finally, Obama's lack of foreign policy experience -- hell, his lack of experience at just about everything -- necessitated that he choose an "insider" like Biden.

McCain has been in D.C. for 26 years and has served on the Armed Services Committee, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and other military/foreign affairs committees. He didn't need a foreign policy boost on his ticket, and he could take a chance on an "outsider" selection as veep.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Yes, because I wrote that Science will fix every problem in our world. It's one tool in our society that has improved many different aspects of all of our lives. It can also be used as a tool for destruction (bombs, etc). Science and technology CAN lead to as many problems as they can fix but all I was arguing was it is very important for a president to value science so when they are making decisions on SCIENTIFIC ISSUES they know what they are doing (energy, global warming, etc). But please, post up another straw man.

So, it's impossible for a person to believe in Creationism but also value science as a solution for global warming and energy?

Creationism is not a pragmatic issue that will solve any of America's problems, so it's irrelevant. But I firmly believe that it's possible for someone to believe in Creationism and also want to use science to help solve energy problems and global warming.

As a Catholic, I believe in creation as laid out in The Bible. But I also believe that harnessing nuclear energy and alternative fuels and sources of energy can end America's dependence on foreign oil. I don't believe that God is going to part the skies and drop barrels of oil in everyone's backyard or put invisible windmills in our gardens to solve our energy issues. I also don't believe that St. Peter is going to sew the hole in the ozone layer, either.

It is possible to be religious or have a morality based in faith and still believe in the usefulness of science. You're using a mighty broad brush to paint everyone who believes in Creationism as someone who disavows themselves of the power and usefulness of science.

Take care,
PK

[WPatrick]

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>

Sorry I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

My belief in God is based on faith, not science. It is at least a possibility that the scientific conclusions you hold dear are wrong. I think at some level your dogmatic belief in science is really just faith and its own religion too.

[Teal]

Science has become more of a political football than actual science, and in some cases (Global Warm-er, I mean Climate Change, I'm looking in your direction) resembles more the very religion the acolytes of GW(-whoops, dammit, I keep getting these confused-CC) seek to ridicule and dismiss as 'unenlightened'.

So to put all your eggs in modern science's basket is to take a risk of faith far greater, in my opinion, than that of believing in a Deity. And just like religion, there are charletans peddling myth and sensationalism who don't do justice to true science. People proselytize 'scientific findings' like Jesus on a street corner, and, ironically enough, threaten a form of 'hellfire' for those who don't ascribe to it (again with the Climate Change).

[matthewk]

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

I thought she didn't want any part of being president or vice president. I do hope McCain keeps her around if he's elected though.

[matthewk]

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

McCain DOES know that. He was making fun of Obama's message that doing it would eliminate the need for more drilling.

[matthewk]

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.

Ohhh, he made accusations. Where is his proof that we went to war for no good reason? I didn't read anything in that article about any sort of investigation on the matter, just his opinion.

I suppose it is also "fact" that Edwards did not cheat on his wife because that's what he was telling us for all those months.

[TheGamer]

^yeah, after I posed the question, I did a little research and she definitely made the point that she didn't want the position for either candidate. In fact, she plans to write a book about the last 8 years. Outside the fact that it would go against McCain's campaign as PK logically suggested, I think she was more than qualified and I wonder if McCain even looked her way for a second. It seems to me though, of all the women in the GOP rank and file, there has to have been someone more qualified than Palin who was just the mayor of a town with a population of just over 7k and the governor of Alaska for just 2 years with no national, or let alone, international experience. To me it just seems to me that McCain is just throwing a woman out there to try to get the Hillary supporters. I would think they would be a little offended by the gesture.

[matthewk]

The more I read about Palin, the more I wish she was the one running for president.

I really don't think she was chosen just to try and sway Clinton supporters. If that was the case, I'm sure he would've found a woman closer to the middle ground on issues like abortion in order to make it easy for the Clinton backers to jump the fence.

[XXXIV]

^ To me it just seems to me that McCain is just throwing a woman out there to try to get the Hillary supporters. I would think they would be a little offended by the gesture.

I think as you do in this...

but then again we have this human?

wouldn't Condoleeza Rice have been a better choice?

Yeah, it may have been, but I guess he was set on picking a woman.

[pk500]

^yeah, after I posed the question, I did a little research and she definitely made the point that she didn't want the position for either candidate. In fact, she plans to write a book about the last 8 years. Outside the fact that it would go against McCain's campaign as PK logically suggested, I think she was more than qualified and I wonder if McCain even looked her way for a second. It seems to me though, of all the women in the GOP rank and file, there has to have been someone more qualified than Palin who was just the mayor of a town with a population of just over 7k and the governor of Alaska for just 2 years with no national, or let alone, international experience. To me it just seems to me that McCain is just throwing a woman out there to try to get the Hillary supporters. I would think they would be a little offended by the gesture.

I know this is cynical, but if Palin was 54 and frumpy-looking, would she have received the nod?

Take care,
PK

[greggsand]

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

McCain DOES know that. He was making fun of Obama's message that doing it would eliminate the need for more drilling.

Does he know that? Does he really? You typing it doesn't have me convinced. I thought Obama was looking for alternatives to drilling - making fun of that is hi-larious!

[greggsand]

^yeah, after I posed the question, I did a little research and she definitely made the point that she didn't want the position for either candidate. In fact, she plans to write a book about the last 8 years. Outside the fact that it would go against McCain's campaign as PK logically suggested, I think she was more than qualified and I wonder if McCain even looked her way for a second. It seems to me though, of all the women in the GOP rank and file, there has to have been someone more qualified than Palin who was just the mayor of a town with a population of just over 7k and the governor of Alaska for just 2 years with no national, or let alone, international experience. To me it just seems to me that McCain is just throwing a woman out there to try to get the Hillary supporters. I would think they would be a little offended by the gesture.

I know this is cynical, but if Palin was 54 and frumpy-looking, would she have received the nod?

Take care,
PK

Yeah, where's Janet Reno?

[TheGamer]

You're probably right, she probably wouldn't have been. I wasn't aware however that McCain chose her to potentially hold the 2nd highest position in the country, possibly the world, after only meeting with her once. That's scary judgement.

[Feanor]

His opinion is based on having been the CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East, seeing the intelligence that was gathered before the war, and seeing the way that intelligence was treated by the Bush Administration who were determined to find an Iraq-al Qaeda connection whether it existed or not.

The proof that America went to war for no good reason is the total lack of any WMDs in Iraq, and the official conclusions of investigations by the CIA, FBI, NSA, State Department, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the independent 9/11 Commission that confirmed Pillar's view that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Since you think the troops in Iraq are doing good, do you really mind if the invasion was always going to take place once Bush's cabinet was stocked with members of the PNAC who had signed a letter way back in 1998 urging Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

[FatPitcher]

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

McCain DOES know that. He was making fun of Obama's message that doing it would eliminate the need for more drilling.

Does he know that? Does he really? You typing it doesn't have me convinced. I thought Obama was looking for alternatives to drilling - making fun of that is hi-larious!

He either knew it, or he and all his advisers are dumber than dirt for ridiculing the idea as insufficient and unenforceable. OF course, if you sumbit yourself to enough DNC propaganda implying Democrats are smart and Republicans are stupid, you probably think the latter.

[FatPitcher]

You're probably right, she probably wouldn't have been. I wasn't aware however that McCain chose her to potentially hold the 2nd highest position in the country, possibly the world, after only meeting with her once. That's scary judgement.

You've never met Obama, yet you miraculously know he's qualified to be president.

[TheHiddenTrack]

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

McCain DOES know that. He was making fun of Obama's message that doing it would eliminate the need for more drilling.

Does he know that? Does he really? You typing it doesn't have me convinced. I thought Obama was looking for alternatives to drilling - making fun of that is hi-larious!

Yes he does. He came out a few days later and said that Obama was right. He attacked Obama for it and then agreed with him. Politics. They tried to paint the tire pressure thing as his entire energy plan.

[TheGamer]

Obviously, I'm not in McCain's position either. My judgement means little in who becomes Pres or VP ultimately either. After one phone call 6months ago, McCain chose Palin to be his running mate. Who do you chose to do anything for you after one phone call?