What Republican candidate will do the most to stop science?

[Perd Hapley]

On another thread, a self-described liberal noted that the Republican presidential candidates don't "believe in science, or other rights that need to be addressed."  What positions have the candidates taken on science, and the right to science?  Which candidate would be the best pick, from the standpoint of putting a stop to all this science that is going on? 

[K Frame]

Wrong forum, Fistful.

I'm moving it to Politics.

[Sergeant Bob]

I got the first vote in!!!

[Manedwolf]

What's worse, someone holding up obviously religiousity as "science", which can be ignored if you so choose...

...or actually ruining hard science with junk science like" global warming" like the Democrats do?

[Waitone]

Huh?

[yesitsloaded]

I usually vote republican so I'm going to give out my little soapbox real quick and then be done. I am not against science, I am against spending my tax money on it. Being pro-life (in a roundabout libertarian way) I am against embryonic stem cell research. I have nothing against stem cell research or even placental stem cell research. I just hate watching my money thrown away as incentives spent on private science companies.

[wooderson]

In that he believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, I'd say Huckabee wins by default.

[Perd Hapley]

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!

[Manedwolf]

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.

[beatnik]

I love it.
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"?

[jefnvk]

Seems to me that Libretarians wouldn't be for taxing for science....

[Paddy]

It's moot to me, as I won't be voting for any of them.

[Perd Hapley]

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.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Bigjake]

It's moot to me, as I won't be voting for any of them.

thought you were a paulian?

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

It's moot to me, as I won't be voting for any of them.

Hear hear!

[Paddy]

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.

[MechAg94]

A better poll would be to open it up with all the Dem candidates also.

Will Hilary's universal health care stifle medial advancement? 
Will Global Warming get taken seriously by a Dem?  To what effect? 

[Zeke]

...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.

[GigaBuist]

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.

[roo_ster]

The candidate that buys into the most junk science and popular hysterias.

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.

[Iain]

Whichever one most accurately represents most of the sentiments expressed in this thread.

[Sergeant Bob]

Only two people voted for the American Anti-Science Party., and one of them isn't me.

[seeker_two]

I voted Guiliani.....being as logical thinking is an important part of scientific research, the nomination of Guiliani as the "conservative" GOP candidate throws all logic out the window..... 

[MechAg94]

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.