Post by: Perd Hapley on November 19, 2007, 07:29:15 AM
Post by: K Frame on November 19, 2007, 07:34:57 AM
I'm moving it to Politics.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 19, 2007, 08:17:31 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 08:35:41 AM
...or actually ruining hard science with junk science like" global warming" like the Democrats do?
Post by: Waitone on November 19, 2007, 09:37:10 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 19, 2007, 11:39:59 AM
Post by: wooderson on November 19, 2007, 12:12:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 19, 2007, 12:36:32 PM
In that he believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, I'd say Huckabee wins by default.
But is he going to do anything to halt scientific investigation into the matter? The people of America demand action!
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 12:37:05 PM
In that he believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, I'd say Huckabee wins by default.
No, it doesn't mean anything.
I could care less what he believes. As long as he respects my right to believe what I believe, and understands that what he believes does not translate to policy, that's all that counts.
Post by: beatnik on November 19, 2007, 01:05:22 PM
The question isn't "which republican is going to stop science", the question is "which republican is going to try the hardest to stop tax dollars from being wasted on FEDERALLY FUNDED research into the promise of miracle cures where there is actually no scientific evidence to back said promises"?
Post by: jefnvk on November 19, 2007, 02:35:03 PM
Post by: Paddy on November 19, 2007, 02:38:36 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 19, 2007, 02:52:54 PM
A, I thought Mike would shut this one down, immediately.
B, I didn't think anyone would actually take my question seriously.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 19, 2007, 05:02:37 PM
Well, I was wrong on two counts.
A, I thought Mike would shut this one down, immediately.
B, I didn't think anyone would actually take my question seriously.
If it's any consolation, I woulda shut your thread down, and I don't take any of your questions seriously.A, I thought Mike would shut this one down, immediately.
B, I didn't think anyone would actually take my question seriously.
Post by: Bigjake on November 19, 2007, 06:00:56 PM
Quote
It's moot to me, as I won't be voting for any of them.
thought you were a paulian?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on November 19, 2007, 07:41:12 PM
It's moot to me, as I won't be voting for any of them.
Hear hear!
Post by: Paddy on November 20, 2007, 06:37:06 AM
Quote
thought you were a paulian?
He'd be the only one I'd vote for, but he won't get the nomination. And since I've re-registered as an Independent, I can't even vote for him in the primary. Not that I think he's ideal by any means. It will take a lot more than a RP Presidency to reverse the damage done by the last 26 years of corporatocracy foisted on this country by both Republicans and Democrats.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 20, 2007, 06:49:46 AM
Will Hilary's universal health care stifle medial advancement?
Will Global Warming get taken seriously by a Dem? To what effect?
Post by: Zeke on November 21, 2007, 10:49:52 AM
...Will Global Warming get taken seriously by a Dem? To what effect?
To what effect? The reduction in CO2 emissions called for by Kyoto (which we would immediately sign) would move 70% of the US's remaining manufacturing to the exempt "developing nations" of Mexico, India, and China.
The management of global CO2 emissions and other chemicals, along with the non-territorial waters of the high seas would be ceded to the UN, necessitating a world-wide tax levy on all human inhabitants of earth pro-rated on energy use in order to pay administrative costs. Guess who gets the largest tax bill.
Post by: GigaBuist on November 21, 2007, 10:59:49 AM
To what effect? The reduction in CO2 emissions called for by Kyoto (which we would immediately sign)...
1) We've already signed it.
2) The last time the Senate addressed this topic was 1997, when we had a Democrat in office, and shot the thing down 95-0.
Post by: roo_ster on November 21, 2007, 06:35:34 PM
Every taxpayer dollar devoted to such tripe as global warming, is a taxpayer dollar that could have gone to do something useful, like cancer research or paving a 12-lane highway through Dallas, Texas.
Post by: Iain on November 22, 2007, 12:50:25 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 22, 2007, 03:59:41 AM
Post by: seeker_two on November 29, 2007, 06:40:29 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on November 29, 2007, 06:53:01 AM
Whichever one most accurately represents most of the sentiments expressed in this thread.
Or better yet, the one that agrees most with Iain! 
Where does the constitution say we have a right to science!!
(just kidding......reserved to the states and the people)
I agree with one comment above. Just because a President holds certain religious beliefs does not necessarily mean he would be hostile to scientific research. I would be more concerned with candidates that foolishly buy into junk science and want to take all sorts of premature action.
Post by: Tecumseh on December 02, 2007, 11:37:55 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 02, 2007, 12:49:04 PM