Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online

Buzz Skyline writes "Several groups representing the nation's scientists, engineers, and doctors are inviting presidential candidates Kerry and Bush to participate in a "Virtual Town Hall" meeting, according to an Associated Press article that appeared in USA Today. Planned topics include stem cell research policy and technical research funding. More information is available at HiTechTownHall.org. Kerry's people say he is eager to take part, but Bush has yet to respond."

Comments

Fun afterwards

[BigDogCH]

And after the virtual town hall meeting, they will all go to the virtual whitehouse for a good ol' time. Whitehouse.com i believe it is!

Actually, bush will likely not go, as I believe he can't come up with the logic to defend his stance against stem cell research. He will lose this battle.

Re:Fun afterwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Of COURSE he has logic. He's just TOO BUSY to attend their stupid digital town hall. The internet is just full of evil and porn anyway. No reason for a war president to be on it.

Re:Fun afterwards

[escher]

Yeah, he's too busy on his Iraq map trying to figure out how to build his own Town Hall, Barracks, Blacksmith, and just where the hell to find trees to up his lumber.

Re:Fun afterwards

[BigDogCH]

LOL

And, all his citizens are standing around without a JOB!!!!

Re:Fun afterwards

[b-baggins]

You do realize that the reason fetal stem cell research is screaming for government money is because the research is so unpromising no private money is going toward it. Private investors are all funding adult stem cell, cord blood stem cell and placental stem cell research, which is producing dividends right now.

Just like the hemp advocates are a front for the drug legalization crowd, fetal stem cell advocates are a front for pro-abortionists.

Re:Fun afterwards

[magefile]

Not true. Private folks are going for adult/placental stems cells 'cuz embryonic stem cells are hard to get. And *no* *one* (mainstream, at least) wants fetal stem cells - these are *embryonic* stem cells. The ones that the in vitro docs flush down the toilet 'cuz they've got no other use for 'em. Read up on it sometime.

Re:Fun afterwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the hemp advocates are a front for the drug legalization crowd, fetal stem cell advocates are a front for pro-abortionists.

Typical conservative, trying to stereotype opposing viewpoints into tiny little boxes. The world isn't so black and white. You'd know that if you got out once in a while.

Re:Fun afterwards

[belg4mit]

Here here! And the parent poster might want to
look at research going on in the rest of the
world.

Re:Fun afterwards

[0x0d0a]

Just like the hemp advocates are a front for the drug legalization crowd, fetal stem cell advocates are a front for pro-abortionists.

Isn't this just a slippery slope fallacy on your part?

Bush still to respond

[oKtosiTe]

Here's a surprise... ;-)

Re:Bush still to respond

[buswolley]

Two things are really stupid.

1. Bush won't do it because he is afraid of typing and mispelling a word. He doesn't want to make Potatoe a republican thing.

2.Bush is probably stupid enough to think that he couldn't have someone actually type for him.

Likely outcome

[Oriumpor]

If it does happen, which I doubt, I would take the entire conversation with a grain of salt. Hopefully the entire thing is videotaped on both ends. Otherwise, that wonderful anonymity we all enjoy could let Professor DNC or Doctor GOP do the talking for either candidate.

Re:Likely outcome

[stefanlasiewski]

Otherwise, that wonderful anonymity we all enjoy could let Professor DNC or Doctor GOP do the talking for either candidate.

But not very unusual.

During the Presidential Debates, the questions will be given out beforehand so that the Professor and Doctor can train the candidates on the correct answers, correct posture, correct voice inflections, etc.

We wouldn't want either candidate to accidently say anything unscripted now, would we?

Re:Likely outcome

[E_elven]

Indeed! It's task enough to keep all those other 'candidates' away from the debates. Idiots thinking 'democracy' means something where everyone can run for office and have their cause heard.

Re:Likely outcome

[soyuz_2]

During the Presidential Debates, the questions will be given out beforehand so that the Professor and Doctor can train the candidates on the correct answers, correct posture, correct voice inflections, etc.

How the fuck is this flamebait? It's obviously true. Mods on crack...

Bush = Anti-Science

[redfcat76]

Hey I am not Bashing Bush here. But he is not a scientific president. He silently lets people resign, then reassigns right-wing christian anti-science people in there. This is one of my beefs about Bush. I cannot talk about Science and Bush without the person talking assuming I am speaking about Cloning or Stem Cell Research. Nope. Bush just hates science all alround. And what is really pathetic is this isn't why I vote or not vote. Bush has done nothing to further the cause of legal marijuana. So I vote against him.

Quentin

Re:Bush = Anti-Science

[iammrjvo]

right-wing christian anti-science

<sarcasm>Gee, uh, thanks for appealing to logic, reason and examples rather than reverting to ad-hominem name calling.</sarcasm>

disingenuous

[BigChigger]

It's not quite fair to say Kerry's "people" have agreed, but Bush himself has not. You've already displayed that this apparently is not a discourse about issues, but an ambush (pardon the pun ;-) to attack GWB. If I were GWB, I would not participate either. Besides, unlike most of the yahoos reading this board, GWB has a job.

BC

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not participate either. Besides, unlike most of the yahoos reading this board, GWB has a job.

And if GWB didn't have the job, most of the yahoos reading this board would be employeed by now.

It's been nearly 4 years, and it's high time that the president starts taking responsibility for his own economic policies instead of blaming everything on the previous administration.

Re:disingenuous

[BigChigger]

exactly what part of 9/11 was based on GWB economic policy? Things were bad before 9/11 (Thank you Bill) but tanked thereafter. I'll agree they have not recovered.

Oh, and don't be a total wus, Kerry. At least get account before you post.

BC

Re:disingenuous

[gantzm]

And if GWB didn't have the job, most of the yahoos reading this board would be employeed by now.

This crap is really amazing. I don't particulary like Bush or Kerry, but to put the entire blame of your misfortunes on a sitting president is stupid. It's takes more than one person to create the situation we have, including, but not limited to: Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Counsel Members, Governors, etc.

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life. When things started going south nobody wanted to give up the gravy train.

So, next time you're farting around without a job, spend some time at the local library and actually learn how the country works. You might be surprised to learn how little power the president really has.

Maybe IHBT, but sometimes it's hard to tell with AC's. You have to wonder if they can really be that poorly informed.

Re:disingenuous

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life.

Living the high life? I'm sorry I thought that was investment in infrastructure that had been ignored since the 60's. Tax cuts for the rich seems to be much more aligned with "living the high life" than fixing crumbling schools and environments.

As for entire blame on a President, you are correct. However, it wasn't Madeline Albright in India this spring telling the Indian business community that the President wouldn't do anything about outsourcing of jobs, it was Colin Powell. Even if you ignore the economic problems we've had since the good days, Bush has consistently supported policies that have exacerbated the situation for middle class Americans. The original poster's comment, while heavily oversimplified, was not without basis.

The President is also expected to lead the nation, to a degree. The President's complete lack of leadership, not to be confused with his arrogant stubbornness, is another reason people don't have jobs. How many people voted for Bush very cynically, believing he could get something done because of his connections and the people around him? What has he accomplished in the last 3.5 years? Higher levels of mercury in our nation's fresh water. Worst job creation record since Hoover. An economy that, at best, has some of the characteristics back that were lost during his Administration. Over extending our military, leaving us exposed to new dangers and old. No leadership on intelligence reform, even after report after report urging solutions. A record-breaking Federal budget deficit. Support for pork-barrel projects like Star Wars. Rolling back of environmental and labor protections.

W may not be personally responsible for a lot of the despair people are feeling these days, but he sure ain't doin shit to help.

Re:disingenuous

[orthogonal]

And if GWB didn't have the job, most of the yahoos reading this board would be employed by now.

Typical liberal crap. I'll have you know that all the top executives of Halliburton are doing quite well. And trickle-down economics works: by outsourcing the jobs of lazy Americans, the execs are able to hire lots of illegal immigrants as servants at sub-minimum wage market rates.

True, some of the guys actually doing the Halliburton's work in Iraq are getting killed, but, they should be proud to be allowed to make sacrifices for their company^W country so that the richest one percent's tax cuts are ensured.

Obviously, you're some sort of commie.

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

If the economy was good, then the President would try to take the credit. He's tried to take the credit for the recovery when things were looking better, but now that things continue to stagnate he tries to pin it on the previous administration.

You can't have it both ways.

He is the president, and has more influence over the economy than just about anyone else.

Re:disingenuous

[b-baggins]

Obviously, you're some sort of commie.

Well, you would know since you've apparently memorized the Marxist class warfare handbook.

Let me give you a hint. Good humor is based in a parody of reality, not a recitation of Democrat talking points.

Re:disingenuous

[zaroastra]

Assuming that who wrote the comment and who mods it are programmers, makes me think you use stereotypes to make your view short sighted and the world full of prejudice.

And why are those factual errors? Could you give me some pointers rebuting them?

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you would know since you've apparently memorized the Marxist class warfare handbook. Let me give you a hint. Good humor is based in a parody of reality, not a recitation of Democrat talking points.

Can't find much humor when the guy's dead-on right, can you? Let me give you a hint. Resorting to name-calling is one of the surest signs that you ain't got an intelligent comeback.

Oh, and the reason those are Democratic talking points? They're factual. Democrats aren't in the habit of repeating untruths ad nauseum until they're perceived as reality.

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's "council members" and I hope you're not talking about the council that the Emperor just dissolved permanently.

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly what part of 9/11 was based on GWB economic policy?

The part that says, "Rape foreign countries to quench our oil thirst." It's one of the main motivations behind all this "preemptive strike" bullshit. You don't see us preempting any companies where we don't stand to gain financially, do you? To make matters worse, it's not even long term financial gain; the war for oil is costing the U.S. more than it's making the oil companies. If Bush were the hayseed hick he pretends to be, he would be the type that feeds on his seed, leaving nothing to plant next year.

Re:disingenuous

[gantzm]

Correct you are sir: "Council Members". Just like the ones in Flint that let the unions chase out General Motors. Boy, that plan worked real well.

Re:disingenuous

[0x0d0a]

Full of factual errors (higher mercury levels, over-extended military, intelligence reform, etc) and it gets modded insightful.

I'm unaware of the mercury issues. I can't understand how you can say that our military is not over-extended -- remember the controversy about length of tours of duty and moving National Guard to Iraq and the like? And, frankly, I'm not very happy with the existing intelligence situation.

Re:disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

Support for pork-barrel projects like Star Wars.

Are you saying he's a fan of the prequels? All the more reason not to vote for him.

Re:disingenuous

[sumdumass]

well lets do one better, can you or him give anyone proof that those facts were corect in the first place?

It is very hard to disprove a negetive that isn't true. Unless your counting the number of new coal burning powerstations that were placed online (they take around 5 to 10 years to complete so they were aproved and built durring the clinton years) there is no significant rise in murcery levels outside what would normaly be happening. This is some "i didn't get my way" liberal wacko crying because bush delayed the new polutions standards for a couple more years due to the impact on the econemy and electricity prices. Over 51% of the nations electricity is made by coal/diesel burning hybreds (The coal is sprayed with JPL4 to ensure even burning). The only other eficient clean forms of manufacturing electricity (nuclear and hydro-electric) have been pretty much outlawed because of either percived danger to the comunity or enviromental impact. This leaves the coal and some ineficient windmills and solar pannels. Well the rich folks bought all the good spaces for the windmills and fought the instalation of those in most places because it would spoil thier views (read about the kenedy's fight with them). The solar pannels are under attack because they interfear with the enviroment and are posing some form of harm to some creature (scorpion if i remeber right)in the dessert. This isn't even touching on the fact that they are not nearly as productive or efficient as traditional forms of power genorating yet. The murcery levels aren't more because of anyhtign the president has done (if they are) and the reason they aren't lower is because people coulnd't aford to buy electricity if the epa standards actually went into effect and shut down 1/3 of our power generating stations. You think california had it bad, try setting that situation to the entire country.

Now the only people spounting that the military is over extended are the people running for office against bush. No-one in the military, or any other branch of government office is saying the military is over extended except when making campian speeches for those running for office. When the readyness report was filed this year, It even stated we are still ready to fight a major engagment/conflict on to fronts despite what we are doing now. It further said that we can reposition troops to more effectivly engage current threats due to co-operation and support from foreign entities that were once not considered allies. (eg. china vs. north korea)

The military is not over extended. No one without somethign to gain and is trying to use that to gain it, is saying anything remotley close to the military being over extended. This sound like a bunch of campain talking points so far.

Now intel;igence reform, this is almost laughable. Right after 9/11 and with the introduction of the patriot act, the inteligence computnity was being reformed. There was all sorts of obsticles removed from cross comunity/department comunication. Different leaders were asighned and some resigned. Creation of a whole new department of homeland security to help review information from all the agencies and attempt to provide an outside prospective on the business of interpreting the inteligence. This was done before the 9/11 coomision recomendations were even in the spotlight. The senate inteligence commity (wich JOHN KERRY missed most of the meeting to) even made changes in the way it collects and interviews those testifying to better understand the situations being presented to them. Bush HAS followed most if not all the recomendations of the 9/11 comision and instatuted the changes with an exception of a central officer being in charge with budget oversight. The officer position is there and filled but has to answer to another check before denying apropriations to any agency. So much has been done to reform the inteligence comunity since 9/11 wich largly dealt with undoing things clinton/gore put in place, the mentioning of it makes the original post look like a trol

Re:disingenuous

[Kell_pt]

I sincerily hope you're just playing devil's advocate. I've seen a lot on slashdot, but I rarely get to see such a byproduct of both naiveness and brain-washing. Wow.

Re:disingenuous

[zaroastra]

OH MAN!!!
English is the third language i speak, and i dont think i could make as many errors even if i tried!
That makes me wonder if you are a troll or even american.
That aside, and excuse me for bringing it up, I wont even try to argue against you. You say IT people are brainwashed (wich i have no idea why, because as with everything in life, you will get smart IT people, dumb IT people and so on and so forth), but let me just say this.
I know what is a brainwash. I've seen it in action, I saw what brainwash can do to a young mind, in the most extreme case, a young friend i had that was iranian.
Let add that your arguements and your way of explaining them are common of brainwashed people. You to me, sir, are obviouly and viciously brainwashed.
That said, and because I have better things to do (and really know better than to try fight a brainwashed mind, because i tried several times without success), i'll cut the chase:
Bush sucks. Really. First of all, he is just a puppet, you only need to hear him talk a couple of times (without speechpad) to see he is unable to do a clear reasoning.
I wouldnt care a bit if it were in another country.
I didnt care about saddam, i dont care about the north korean guy (who is, by the way, a lot worse than saddam, only than NK doesnt have oil, and has chinese support), but having a mindless american president is very bad, because unfortenately, it harms the whole world (even more than americans in fact)
But alas, perhaps we are doomed about it, mindless presidents for mindless drones... that is what this world is getting to. :(

Re:disingenuous

[sumdumass]

Yes it is devils advocate. But the problem is that everything i said is still true. It sounds like alot more then what is going on, it even makes Bush sound like he has been working hard for the country. This has all been reported by CNN, FOX news and most the broadcasrt stations i watch (usualy CBS and NBC).

Trust me, i am not thrilled with Bush one bit. saddly, i am even less thrilled with Kerry. Every time i hear how he is going to save the econemy and raise taxes, penalize industry that goes abroad or gain support and win the war on terror by talking to other countries i think back to 1979 and what Jimmy Carter did as president. I then remeber how interest rates were sky high, Jobs were hard to find (even harder then today) Companies were folding (as oposed to just leaving the country) you had to drive sometime more then 50 miles one way to find a job then fuel prices were so high that you coulnd't pay the bills after paying to get to work. realistate prices started skyrocketing in prices because now the banks could use them as investments as oposed to loan colateral. There were some serious problems and thats just the beguinning. I seriously feel Kerry would cause a repeate of most of that and believe me it was far worse then it is today. If someone like Senator Joe Lieberman (without Al GORE) or Governor George E. Pataki was running, i would vote for a democate president for the first time in my life (well, minus that one skit with Clinton but he was out doing the republicans on alot of things). but Kerry, nahh.

Re:disingenuous

[sumdumass]

Bush sucks. Really. First of all, he is just a puppet, you only need to hear him talk a couple of times (without speechpad) to see he is unable to do a clear reasoning

oh' i couldn;'t agree with you more on this. I think i made that clear in my post. The problem is that nothing i said to credit bush is false.

As i stated earlier, if some one other then Kerry was running against him i would most likley vote for them. That however does not give me the right to spout inacuracies about stuff going on in the country. IF the original parent poster said in his opinion or somthing to the effect of thats the way he sees it instead of thats the way it is i would have never replied. But as it stands there is nothing in my attemp to disprove those statments that is not factual and it i have succesfully discredited those original statments.

As for calling me brainwashed? I can see how it is easy to attemp to turn the tables and discredit someone by just passing it off as brainwashing or turning a comment around onto the person that originaly said it so you can drop it without any examples or supporting arguments. This is a little intelectualy dishonest in my opinion. You are quick to point out my grammar sucks and i must be brain washed but what else is the point of your comment?

Oh BTW IT people was probably one of those grammar errors you noticed thru out the rest of the comment. i was trying to say "It makes people look like blind sheep" were i actually wrote "IT make people look like blind sheep".

Another thing, N.korea and china do have an interesting relation ship. The strange part is that china will protect N. Korea from a us invasion but it is also stopping N.korea from going south. The only reason China got involved in the first place there was because when we took out most of N. Korea the first time, china felt we were too close to thier country. They basical threw us back a step. If we had better diplomatic relations at the time i belive they never would have steped in to help N. korea at all. But that is just my opinion from what i know bout the history there and the goings on durring the korean war. I also belive that if anyhting get done with N. korea and thier nunkes, it would be done by china and japan not the US. Also i don't see china as being really a major threat in the sense as they were 20 years ago..

Re:disingenuous

[Kell_pt]

Oh, I almost forgot that you people have a strong mentality of "once republican/democrat, always republican/democrat".
In my opinion, it's not even about Kerry being this or that. It's about Bush being untrostworthy, and not pursuing what's in the best interest of the country, let alone civilization.
I can't say I was all that excited with Kerry, but he's trying. And you know as well as I do that the president is just a face - it's the underlying machine that rules the country. And I for one wouldn't be able to sleep knowing that the machine that ran the US with Bush these last couple years is getting ready to do it again. It's sick, any half-informed american is able to see that. I hope you guys open your eyes before it's too late.

And btw, I know what you're going through... each time a new president comes up the overall "level" seems to drop, and it isn't risen again.

And nice choice on Clinton. It's sad how puritanism lead to his demise, its just a display of how hypocrite the whole of society turns out. I for one would prefer a president that is unloyal to its wife (apparently that's common over there) than one that continues reading children stories while the towers are being bombarded. Oh please, wake up!!!

Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[js7a]

The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[arrow]

Neither will Kerry.

99.99% of all online chat sessions with stars, canidates, axe murderers, etc. are done with transcriptionists (people who get paid to type faster than most people can speak) present.

No one wants to wait around 6 minutes for person XYZ to type out a response to a question. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't spend their days in front of keyboards.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[4of12]

Yeah, it's too good to be true.

Besides, you know how it will all go ahead of time anyway.

Questioner: "Precisely what are your plans to restore fiscal solvency to the operations of the federal government?"

Kerry: Good sounding populist rhetoric about giving Americans jobs, vague on cost details, delivered with hound dog face, slighting the current administration for screwing up even if the current administration isn't sufficiently competent to orchestrate such a screwup.

Bush:Random, disconnected homilies about American values, tax cuts magically stimulating voodoo economics that Daddy know won't work, delivered with a deer in the headlights trying not to get run over, tying things into how bad a character that Saddam was anyhow.

Next question? Answer: see above.

[It's the Veep debate between Dick "Grand Vizier" Cheney and John "Aw Shuck's I'm Jes A Country Boy" Edwards that is going to be fun to watch - certainly not the Prez debates.]

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[Anonymous Coward]

slighting the current administration for screwing up even if the current administration isn't sufficiently competent to orchestrate such a screwup.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[magefile]

[It's the Veep debate between Dick "Grand Vizier" Cheney and John "Aw Shuck's I'm Jes A Country Boy" Edwards that is going to be fun to watch - certainly not the Prez debates.]

Just like last year, eh?

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Household Survey, Bush's economy has created 1.1 million net jobs. Isn't it time you stopped peddling incorrect data?

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[Anonymous Coward]

...in China.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[Anonymous Coward]

These people who are doing the dictation, will they be correcting the pronunciation by correcting the spelling, or will we see lots about "nukyaler wepins"?

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[dwaggie]

You forgot that Bush needs to remark about how America is Safer through Warfare.

Badnarik??? Nader???

[mshiltonj]

Did they invite Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik? Why not? He will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states, plus DC. He's polling 4-5% in some states.

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[KilobyteKnight]

Do they ever? With all this talk about campaign finance reform what I feel is a much more important election reform is entirely ignored. The Democrats and Republicans have all but locked out any other parties from having an effective voice.

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[jbrandon]

He's polling 4-5% when the polling is done by his people. The question they ask is, "If the election were held today, would you vote for John Kerry, George W. Bush, or Michael Badnarik?" Needless to say, the numbers are a bit soft.

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[Hard_Code]

Calm down. All third parties need to do to gain access to the electoral system is:

1) petition each state with a simple signature count of 300% of the state population
2) to include the recently formed state of Atlantis
3) provide a simple proof that your great^4 grandfather was a citizen of the united states, ate only the chocolate portion of neopolitan ice cream, and owned exactly 2 dogs.
4) lift 3 times your body [politic] weight over your head
5) demonstrate faster than light travel

That's 6 [1] easy steps! Come on, stop whining.

[1] 6th step omitted, file a simple FOIA request to obtain it

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[dave420]

Because he's not likely to win. Nader's not likely to win anything either. I know how much that hurts libertarians, but then they're so pissed off all the time anyway I don't think anyone'll notice. ;)

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[mshiltonj]

Because he's not likely to win.

I fail to see how that's relevant in this case. I don't cast my vote or make my decision based on who's likely to win. I cast my vote on who I think best represents by views. Who wins the election may be a popularity contest, but who gets *my* vote is not. I'm not alone in this.

If Badnarik is not even asked the same questions as the two governmentarians, the how can voters possibly be informed of their options?

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[siriuskase]

With our electorial system, there is little reason to vote for someone who isn't going to win. It's not even a good way to express a viewpoint that will be taken seriously.

The current system causes the debate to focus on a few issues that frankly aren't very important except to distract from those that do matter. I don't expect the most important issue of election reform to ever be seriously debated by to dominant partiies. It works just fine (for them) the way it is.

The best way to get Libertarian viewpoints into Congress is to elect someone like ex-Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul who runs as a Republican.

Nice Idea...

[andreMA]

Too bad that neither of the candidsted have the balls to tke them up on it.

bush?

[kevin lyda]

why invite bush? what would he have to say at a discussion on science?

Re:bush?

[daeley]

Something like: "I'm a firm supporter of science and science funding for science. I mean, how else are we going to find the oil and build better weapons?" ;)

Re:bush?

[linzeal]

I hardly think he is capable of that level of abstraction after hearing his state of the union addresses and comparing them to more off the cuff interviews the man is obviously of substandard intelligence. He has granted what 3 whole interviews since taking office? I believe all of them having to have their answers pre-screened.

Re:bush?

[Experiment 626]

Certainly a lot more than Kerry. Look for science related articles on both of their campaign sites. Kerry's says nothing at all of substance. The first point he talks about is how he would use tax breaks to "create a business environment that encourages investment". Imagine how wild the anti-business trolls would go if Bush lead off that way. Kerry's science and technology platforms highlight how he would bring broadband to "every corner of America". Like I use my 1.5mbps for conducting scientific experiments. Then you have the total fluff like "invest in the breakthroughs of tomorrow" and "create the industries and jobs of the future" without providing any ideas about what Kerry thinks those might be.

Then look at Bush's site. He actually talks about his record, with facts and numbers. Contrast this to how quiet Kerry is about his record in the Senate. Bush's site points out how the administration has raised federal funding for research and development by 44 percent to the highest percentage of discretionary spending since Apollo. And unlike Kerry, Bush mentions specific areas: space exploration, nanotechnology, hydrogen power, fusion, etc.

Please correct me if you have counterexamples, but it seems to me Kerry's entire science platform is insubstantial fluff, plus the "I'm going to support stem cell research to win points with the pro-abortion crowd" plank.

Re:bush?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Perhaps Kerry doesn't mention his Senatorial record because he is too busy defending against Republican smears on his war record.

Re:bush?

[toddt]

Looking at the campaign web pages is hardly the best way to evaluate the Bush science record.

Bush has a reliable record of squelching good science in favor of his chosen industries/religious beliefs.

For example, his administration has overruled his own EPA on recommended arsenic levels/clean air regulations, et cetera. His administration has intentionally suppressed independent expert research on global warming. Why? Occam's razor might suggest it has something to do with the MASSIVE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS made by the polluting industries.

Complicated subjects? Sure. But the subversion of science to political goals is what has many independent scientists irritated with the administration. Science is supposed to be intellectually free research, not dictated from the president.

Finally, your line about stem cell research is just asinine. People who want embryonic (NOT FETAL, thus no abortion, you asshat) stem cell lines aren't advocating abortion, they're advocating the pursuit of lines of research that could lead to some of the most significant advances on critical illness that we've ever seen. Ever.

Suppressing that simply to cater to the Christian Right, most of whom wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass, is simply wrong. Intellectually and morally.

Look, I'm not pleased with Kerry. But I'll be voting Anyone But Bush on election day, simply because I'd like to see independent science back in action.

Re:bush?

[write_with_numbers]

Try reading the book of platform ideas Kerry had published. Then remember that Bush's highest level technology advisor has a B.S. in Biology and zero days in a tech sector job. Try reading the facts and figures from the Union of Concerned Scientists. This non-partisan group, whose report has been signed by 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, has determined that the Bush administration has made more decisions in opposition to good scientific data than any other administration in history.

When looking for facts and figures to back up your argument, I suggest you go to a source that is controlled by neither party.

"And unlike Kerry, Bush mentions specific areas: space exploration, nanotechnology, hydrogen power, fusion, etc."

With no shuttles launching, how is he putting money into space exploration? With our access to new oil reserves in Iraq, it has been at least a year and a half since Bush has even mentioned hydrogen power (although he did once proclaim that his administration would focus on hydrogen to make us energy independant). All Slashdot readers should know that recently the U.S. fusion program was cancelled. Besides, when you deny the No Child Left Behind Act nearly 40% of the funding you promised, how can you expect there to be future scientists to work on these breakthroughs?

Read the Kerry/Edwards platform book. There are some very interesting ideas on how to find funding for the important scientific and environmental projects that this administration has routinely ignored.

Or just go to http://www.ucsusa.org/ and look for the report on the Bush administration published in Febuary of this year and updated to include more troubling facts recently.

Re:bush?

[Alsee]

Well he recently vistied the Amish and made some "off the cuff" comments. See my sig.

-

Re:bush?

[Alsee]

Kerry's technology PDF is pretty good, but his website page on Technology reminds me of the following item from the West Wing:
"The reason I would run, were I to run, is I have a great belief in this country as a country, and in this people as a people, that go into making this country a nation with the greatest natural resources and people, educated people.
We have the greatest technolgy of any people of any country in the world along with the greatest--not the greatest, but very serious problems confronting our people, and I want to be President in order to focus on these problems in a way that uses the energy of our people to move us forward, basically."

Heh heh. But again, his technology PDF is way better.

In any case anything would be better than Bush's contempt for, supression of, and active curruption of, science.

P.S.
write_with_numbers, my sig can beat up your sig :D

-

Re:bush?

[write_with_numbers]

Sorry my sig didn't stand up to yours, but there are just so many dumb and frightening W quotes that I don't have time to sort through all of them. I do think its funny though that on dubyaspeak.com the "15 most recent dumb quotes" you never see one older than two weeks or so. Oh wait, there are exceptions when he goes on vacation for weeks at a time. After all, even with the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, and a dismal economy, Bush has taken more vacation time than any other president in history.

Not to sure Kerry would be any better on the vacation time front though.

Is this thing on?

[Wylfing]

I clicked on this topic because I was absolutely positively sure I would see some +5 Funnies. I mean, come on. George W. Bush and science. There's gotta be a joke there.

Plea for money

[DesScorp]

The whole thing is a joke. Here, let me sum up the big question that will be posed to both candidates:

"Fuck everyone else. Which one of you candidates will pledge to funnel more money to scientists?"

This would be the equivilant to attending a forum by any focus group. The intent is to get a bigger committment to that focus groups interests (and that always means more money). Doesn't matter if it's business, education, science, the military, whatever.

So they should just ask the candidate "Who promises to pony up more money to our gang" and save us all a lot of time.

Re:Plea for money

[geek42]

Point taken - a big part of the discussion would certainly be about getting more money (and freedom) for science. Another big part of it, I think, would have to center around demonstrating (as humorously as possible) excactly how uninformed, uneducated, and underintelligent Bush is.

The word Science can represent the "focus group" that you're talking about - mostly in the form of government-funded research, in this case - but it can also represent a process by which we grow our understanding of the universe. And it is in this second regard that Bush is hugely inadequate, and has set back mankind by years (decades?) by making uninformed decisions that have affected the scientific community negatively.

Dodging Yet Another Debate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry's people say he is eager to take part, but Bush has yet to respond.

Wouldn't you be reluctant to participate in a public chat if you were him?

Remember what happened to the last Republican that tried to outspell someone over the age of 6... POTATOE

Why would GWB accept?

[bay43270]

He might talk about his feelings on stem cell research in front of a crowd or with religious leaders, but why would Bush volunteer to talk to scientists about it? It would be like talking down affirmative action at a NACCP convention.

Re:Why would GWB accept?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be like talking down affirmative action at a NACCP convention.

That wouldn't win the Black Vote but it is something that should be done sooner or later. Affirmative Action is racism pure and simple. And before someone without a clue mods this as a troll, look up the word racism in a dictionary and then just try to argue that Affirmative Action which is a government policy that discriminates between job candidates based on race is not racism. That is one issue where I truly respect Bush. He tried to stop the racism ingrained in our educational system.

This could get interesting!

[FlyingOrca]

Given GWB's known propensity for junk science (most on Slashdot are familiar with the two "letters of concern" his administration has received from a coalition of top US scientists, right?), I wouldn't be surprised if he ducks this.

If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they won't care, recognise its significance, or follow it; and (b) they probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway.

Which is a pity, because the whole election mess could use some more rationality - at least from my perspective across the border. Cheers!

(Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen by birth, Canadian by naturalisation, and thinking seriously of voting in this US election - which would be a first.)

Re:This could get interesting!

[b-baggins]

Definition of Junk science: Science which disagrees with my politics.

zug zug

[oliphaunt]

build more farms!

I can see it now

[Photar]

Bush: Lets talk strategery
Kerry: STFU N00b I'll pwn y0u in naaahhm!
Bush: Don't make me go Halliburton on your ass. ...
.
. ..
.
As if either of these guys are in touch with reality. All you're gonna get is canned answers from the campaign droids.

How it might go

[Henry V .009]

I'm a Conservative, but here goes:

Kerry2004 is online...
[Kerry2004]Guess I'm here a bit early.
[Kerry2004]....
[Kerry2004]Sure is quiet. Reminds me of Nam. I fought there, you know. Won 3 Pur--
Bush2004 is online...
[Bush2004]whoa! so this is the internet huh
[Kerry2004]Hello, Mr. President.
[Bush2004]howdy howdy
[Kerry2004]I was just telling everybody about the 4 med--
[Bush2004]hey john, how do you spell 'seneter'?
[Bush2004]never mind johns all right isnt it?
[Bush2004]you went to Veitnam didnt you john? were you in the shit?
[Kerry2004]Senator Kerry. Yes I was "in the shit." In fact, I won 5--
[Bush2004]bet that stunk! lololol
[Bush2004]so n-e-way lets get sireis about forein policy for a bit. what do you think about nuking Canada?
[Kerry2004]That's insane! You're joking, right? I would like to assure everyone that if you elect me instead of this nutcase, we will get America back on the track of a rational foreign policy. I think that my character has been proven by the 6--
[Bush2004]uh...i got to go make a phone call
[Bush2004]damn it, the neos said that it would impress everyone with my leadership.
Bush2004 has quit (Abort! Abort!)

Re:How it might go

[ravenspear]

I'm a Conservative

I'm a Conservative also. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not. He stands for expanded government regulation, fiscal irresponsibility, nation building, and special interests. All non-conservative positions.

Re:How it might go

[Henry V .009]

Not to mention mass imigration and racial preferences. I'm with you.

Re:How it might go

[ravenspear]

Not to mention mass imigration

Yeah I mean, let's just bring the immigrants in by the truckload if they want to come. And if they don't want to come we'll just give them the jobs of American workers so they're still happy. Does Mr. Bush think he is the President of the world, or does he just feel that he needs to give equal benefits to US citizens AND non-citizens.

Re:How it might go

[Alsee]

At least *TRY* to make it believable, huh? Like Bush could understand "lol", much less use it properly.

-

Vote for someone real this year

[manofherb]

/me thinks that R. Nader would be more than welcome to participate in this discussion, and he probably wouldn't have to have his answers screened before hand

Dean problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never forget Howard Dean being asked about gay marriage and replying "Well, that's an issue I'm going to have to think about more."

A candidate admitting he didn't have a moral position? Amazing. Suicidal, as were many things he said, but amazing.

Junk science

[FlyingOrca]

I realize that you're probably either joking or trolling, but nonetheless I should clarify what I wrote. In fact, you've correctly identified the malady - but the patient is Dubya's administration.

Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.

There are of course disagreements between scientists and their respective ideas, but that's generally in the rather early stages of turning ideas into theories. The thing that astounds me about Mr Bush and co. is his willingness to ignore generally accepted scientific conclusions that (as you so aptly put it) disagree with his politics. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented in modern US politics.

After following for some time the decline of rational discourse in US politics, I have come to believe this is a natural extension of the same phenomenon. Because genuine political debate has been replaced by a shouting match, certain people seem to have made the fundamental logical error of thinking that science works the same way. Sadly for them, it doesn't; sadly for the rest of the world, it doesn't seem to matter to most of the electorate.

I'd close with my customary "Cheers!" here, but that last thought is a tad too depressing.

They simply don't care.

[Futurepower(R)]

The present goverment corruption often costs the taxpayer $100 or $1,000 for every dollar stolen. The simply don't care how much money they waste as long as they get theirs.

don't think it will happen

[thavig]

Kerry may want a more open debate of this type, but Bush has politicized science enough that I don't think he would enjoy the forum. The truth, though, is that I have seen both parties politicize science. In any case, there are mechanisms in place that make it unlikely that a more open debate of this type does not occur. Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofiss ue.html.

Strangely astute...

[wikdwarlock]

For those who don't get it, this is in reference to War Craft. The strange thing is the Call to Arms feature of the game. When you get scared about defending your town, you click your base and all the peasants stop everything, pick up weapons, and fight whatever is nearby. Sounds a bit like the terror alert level system, huh? Are Dubbya and Rumsfeld really WC3 junkies?

Re:Strangely astute...

[escher]

The way they fight their wars? Probably so. Suicide runs, unmetered plundering of resources until they are gone, smiting the enemy into oblivion even if it takes wave after wave of suicide attacks, etc...

Warcraft III should really be called Battlecraft. It's fun, but it's no way to actually fight a war.

Bush unwilling to talk science

[sglines]

That's a no-brainer. People with brains would never vote for Bush and he knows it. Why would he embarrass himself?

SG

Re:Bush unwilling to talk science

[Codebender]

>People with brains would never vote for Bush

Unfortunately, I know some very smart people who will vote for Bush. Some of them have picked a specific issue (e.g. gun control) and ignore all the other issues. Others simply live in a delusional dreamland where Fox News is Fair and Balanced and all Republicans are "good guys" simply because they are Republicans. At least one is just an intolerant, homophobic, racist a**-hole, and knows "W" is with him all the way.

Great idea!

[shm]

So we'll all find out that that smirking fratboy Dubya can't spell either.

Re:Great idea!

[Tom Bombadill]

Bush won't even commit to the standard three Debates and you expect him to take up this offer?

Maybe he could prattle on about how after years of alcoholism and drug abuse he learned what we all should already know and there is no "science" only GOD!

what debate?

[zogger]

sidenote on spelling: Where I grew up in the midwest potatoe and tomatoe were indeed the official correct spellings. Those spellings also follow that an e on the end of a word makes the proceeding vowel long by default.

With that said, this so called debate seems to be primarily to see which candidate will cut loose with the most money as government grants to various academics who would be forced into a real job if said grants weren't available. It is no wonder then that they don't want a Libertarian candidate on the panel. The money cut loose will be similar, just where it might go will be a little different, that's all, and not much at that. We have a military/industrial complex that runs this nation, so that's where the tax money will go, that and to pay off their office drones and mercenaries.

And really, just apply occams razor to the odds of the phenomenon of two similar age white males both from a highly restrictive and priveleged background with a membership in skull and bones fraternity being the "official candidates". Anyone honestly paying attention and not approaching that fact from a partisan D or R viewpoint would tend to see the obviousness that at super high levels the "fix is in" and US presidents are picked well in advance and people are given an illusion of choice and "voting for their candidate". It's laughable. I mean, giggling guffawing laughable. I doubt we've had an honest election for 4 to 5 generations now. We have one political party, the Globalist Corporate NWO party, and their candidate always "wins".

Dubya at meeting

[freedom_india]

Hell he can't even spell the word scientist without making errors. Asking him to talk about Stem Cell Research and other issues is like asking the Neanderthal Man to talk about Tesla Power Coils.

Instant Runoff

[siriuskase]

Almost all the states and 5% of the electorate, that's quite an achievement considering the hurdles placed in their way.

As it is, when the Democrats and the Republicans are close, the voter has more reason to vote for one of them than to vote for who he really wants. This suits the Demos and the Repubs just fine so we won't get a change unless a third party candidate makes reform of the electorial system a major compaign issue.