Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 14:22:58 GMT -4
I wonder if we should count Hilary's "breakdown" into sobs during a campaign speech Monday as a dirty trick? I think anyone who believes it was authentic has probably been in a coma since the early '90s.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 9, 2008 14:38:14 GMT -4
Based on your empirical evidence that everything she says is untrue and everything she does is cold and calculated, no doubt.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 14:45:04 GMT -4
Everything she does politically is cold and calculated. You don't seriously believe that this weeping turn of hers wasn't scripted do you? I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything she says is untrue, though.
I think Hilary can win the Democratic nomination but I don't think she can win the Presidency. Obama on the other hand could win over enough independents and maybe even Republicans to win the general election.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 9, 2008 15:00:22 GMT -4
Conservatives hate Hillary and have hated her since before Bill was first elected. Conservative news outlets such as Fox News and about every frequency of talk radio endlessly repeat lies and distortions about her, to the point that a lot of people believe what is said of her is true. Repeating something does not make it true. If she were a man, she would not take the flak she does. People say horrible things about her, but they are invariably not the kinds of things someone would say of a man or that would stand against a man with the same qualifications.
I'm not saying I'm for Hillary, though I'd vote for her over (almost) anyone on the right.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 15:36:12 GMT -4
I don't hate Hillary, I simply don't want her to be President. And it has nothing to do with her gender.
It has to do with wanting a President who doesn't just give people what he or she thinks they want at the moment, with no real consideration for what would be best for the country in the long term. Bill Clinton was exactly that kind of person, and I have no reason to suspect Hillary would be any different, except that she lacks his charisma.
I respect President Bush precisely because in Iraq and the War on Terror he is trying to do what he really feels is best for the country in the long term, whether it's popular or not. I don't always agree that he's right, but I have to respect that kind of integrity, especially when it is obviously lacking in many other politicians.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 9, 2008 15:46:22 GMT -4
Every politician plays that game. Even President George Bush. The fact that he agrees with you ideologically is why you overlook it with him. The fact that he agrees with you ideologically is why you so easily shrug off uncomfortable facts about him as a person and as a president.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 15:47:17 GMT -4
There actually quite a few areas where I feel George Bush has done a bad job. I just happen to repsect him more than his competition.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 15:49:49 GMT -4
What about Hillary Clinton would make you vote for her over almost anyone on the right, if not a match with her idealogy?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 9, 2008 17:10:35 GMT -4
My Gods, I wish we could get someone with Hillary Clinton's sensible science policy in the White House instead of the anti-science types that are there now.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 17:51:30 GMT -4
So believing that the human connection to global warming has yet to be proven, and that it is immoral to destroy human embryos for research purposes, makes one anti-science?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 9, 2008 18:06:42 GMT -4
No, impeding any attempts to study global warming makes one anti-science. Outlawing research that could cure many health problems makes one anti-science. Requiring the teaching of creationism is anti-science...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 18:39:42 GMT -4
No, impeding any attempts to study global warming makes one anti-science. Outlawing research that could cure many health problems makes one anti-science. Requiring the teaching of creationism is anti-science... And the Bush administration has done none of this. Global warming continues to be researched in the U.S., stem cell research was never outlawed in the U.S., and creationism is not required to be taught in U.S. Schools. You are merely repeating commonly-believed distortions about the Bush Administration.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 9, 2008 18:41:59 GMT -4
With regards to stem-cell research in particular, President Bush only outlawed the use of government funds for research outside of already existing stem-cell lines (which would have required the destruction of more human embryos to produce). Government funds continued to be provided for research with already existing lines and private research was in no way restricted. And the recent breakthrough in creating new stem cells without the destruction of human embryos would seem to have solved the moral problem.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 10, 2008 17:11:42 GMT -4
I spent a little time digging around and came up with these examples: Offering creationism books at National Park Service book stores: The book approval process that NPS requires combined with the Park Service Review criterion of accuracy in materials offered for sale in park bookstores means that every anti-science title stocked and sold in park bookstores sends the clear message that NPS approves of the content as an accurate account of its subject matter. This is not a matter of “book-banning” or censorship; this is a matter of a dereliction of responsibility to conform to established policies by a government entity. Placement of a book in a NPS park bookstore means much more than a commercial vendor like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders stocking a title. Those firms do not vouch for the accuracy of what they sell to the public; the National Park Service does. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/more-national-p.htmlLead in lunch boxes: -- In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunch boxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe _ and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels. But that's not what they told the public. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021800528.htmlChanging NASA's mission statement: From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.” In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. The “understand and protect” phrase was cited repeatedly by James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA who said publicly last winter that he was being threatened by political appointees for speaking out about the dangers posed by greenhouse gas emissions. www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html?ex=1311220800&en=74c926c8939e58e0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssKeeping scientists from speaking out on climate change: Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.htmlAltering environmental impact statements: The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing relaxed grazing limits on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340217_graze18.htmlScrewing up sex education: In October 2002, CDC replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on condom use and efficacy. …. A revised fact sheet was subsequently posted entitled Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The new fact sheet lacks instruction on condom use and specific information on the effectiveness of different types of condoms. It begins by emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. It also drops the discussion of the evidence that sex education does not lead to increased sexual activity.[4] oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_condoms.htmChanging the results of a voter fraud study: WASHINGTON, April 10 — A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times. Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate. The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states. www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/washington/11voters.html?ex=1333944000&en=fdeb2bd033d0b00f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssAnd this goes on and on. Here is a good page from the Union of Concerned Scientists that details many, many instances of the administration subverting and altering science for ideological purposes: www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 17:37:03 GMT -4
Oh no, the nation is in peril because we might find a creationist book for sale in a National Park!
|
|