>> 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). > >None of the 14 questions are about ID
No - but together (if answered directly) offer a better understanding of the candidate's position on science and technology than we've ever gotten. >> Are seriously suggesting that, after all of the discussions that we've had >> on this list, that the Constitution is without interpretative leeway? > >No, but he's a presidential candidate that very clearly flouts the constitution How so? I actually wasn't involved with the original discussion so I don't have the background... what were his reasons? Again, the Constitution is widely interperated by both sides and such interpertation is not flouting. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't - I'm not sure. However from what I HAVE seen Obama generally backs up his statements with information. McCain has failed to give a coherent answer, much less explain it, on nearly every issue that really matters to me. ID has been clearly ruled upon in federal court (by a Bush appointee actually): it's thinly veiled creationsim with no scientific merit or meaning. For Palin or McCain to continue making "teach the controversy" statements is flouting the Constitution's barrier separating Church and State. At least, of course, in my opinion. >> While Obama's interpretation is different from yours I do believe that he >> will honor the decision of the courts. > >And you don't think Palin will? In my opinion every mention promoting ID or giving it credence as "science" is proof that she doesn't. >> 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. > >I was just wondering why it didn't bother you but this does. I'm not sure why you think it didn't... I didn't actually comment on that discussion. I don't have enough information to make any decision on Obama's statements. However, as I said, my experience thus far has been that Obama's answers on such questions are well-researched and expanded upon (not to mention clearly stated). He may not have been in this case - in which case he deserves just as much flak. For my part, even granting that both statements were grossly disrespectful of the Constitution I'd still have to go with Obama as the lesser of two evils: I worry much more about the integrity of the education system than I do about handgun freedom. But that could just be me. >> 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. > >Fair enough. > >> 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. > >I never heard her doubt evolution. There are two groups of IDers and I >don't now which if any she's part of. Of course we don't... they won't answer straight questions directly. ;^) "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'" (I always love the fact that they talk about "competing theories" but when describing it they always say "two". I've got a book here which contains over 200 creation stories from just Native American cultures alone.) I can't find a transcript but the question was reported to be about "Creationism", not "Intelligent Design"... if so that's an even more damning indictment of her opinion of the courts as the Supreme Court has (several times) made the Constitutional stance on creationism in the classroom clear. McCain is (as per usual on these topics) seems to support both positions. I can find statements where he says that students should definately be exposed to Intelligent Design and others where he says that he believes in Evolution but respects thoseof faith but doesn't feel it has a place in science class. He's made other gaffs on other scientific issues that hit close to me. For example he's on the record progating the myth that vaccines have a proven link to autism - they don't. He's also made public statements attacking scientific programs taht he clearly doesn't understand such as the study of the North American Grizzly Bear genome. Of course I also abhor their stances on equal rights for homosexuals and reproductive freedoms. >> 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 don't think Bush has an effect. I don't see how you can't. Bush's statements supporting the teaching Intelligent Design made national news. If nothing else a Presidential endorsement does extend the debate. >> 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. > >Not me. I think his character flaw was lying about it under oath in a >sexual abuse case and tampering with witnesses. I apologize. I still feel that McCain and Palin let their faith guide them - unfortunately even when that faith contradicts the values of this country. Personally I will generally lean towards a candidate that places the values of the country above their personal values. I don't see evidence that Palin has at all and McCain has backtracked on too many statements and positions to know what he believes anymore. 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:267783 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
