> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:45 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class > > On 9/2/08, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How so? > > > > If a potential vice presidential candidate promotes a position that > clearly > > flouts the constitution then it definitely IS an issue to me. > > No, she was asked her personal opinion on something unrelated to the > job she was seeking. There's no indication she studied it or even > thought more than a minute about it. She responded with a personal off > the cuff remark.
Then she should have clarified later. A good start would be to answer, as they've promised too, the questions set forth by the Science Debate 2008 organization (as Obama's camp already has). > How about a presidential candidate that claims to be a constitutional > lawyer? > "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." - Chicago > Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007 Are seriously suggesting that, after all of the discussions that we've had on this list, that the Constitution is without interpretative leeway? While Obama's interpretation is different from yours I do believe that he will honor the decision of the courts. I am curious why Obama's interpretation of the Constitution is somehow more worthy than criticism that Palin's however? Shouldn't, in your opinion, anybody seeking these offices be expert in the Constitution? It's not a particularly long document. > > So far, to my knowledge, both McCain and Palin have failed to make > any > > definitive statement on the issue (unfortunately something I expect > much, > > much more of from them). They simply say "teach the controversy" > which is, > > in itself, an evasion and a clear indication of either willful > ignorance or > > willful dissembling. > > It has nothing to do with the job so why care? I feel - personal opinion here - that an inability to honestly or directly answer questions has a great deal to do with the job at stake. Neither Palin or McCain has shown a propensity for actually answering the questions that matter to me. On the war, on terrorism, etc they're firm and clear. On matters of science and technology, on matters of equal rights, on matters of education - they're dissembling and failing to provide any kind of statement. When Obama's preacher's apeshit insanity became public you made the case (which I agree with, at least in principle) that a president's chosen councilors and advisors matter. Palin and McCain are clearly accepting the advice of those I would prefer not to have a voice in the presidency. Again, intimating that there is any scientific controversy to evolution shows either willful ignorance or self-delusion. While the president cannot directly affect policy a president does provide a powerful voice and platform. So the personal beliefs of the president do matter. I believe that you were one of the many that claimed that Clinton's infidelities where indicative of a character flaw: a propensity to falsehood that should be considered when discussing presidential merit. I believe that McCain's (and seemingly Palin's as well) faith leads to a similar character flaw: a propensity to ignore facts that conflict with that faith even to the point of compromising the Constitution. Again, this is nothing more than personal opinion. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:267670 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
