Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire

Well that cinches it for me by Skapare · 2012-09-04 07:52 · Score: 5, Funny

... I don't want either one of them.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:Well that cinches it for me by Yvanhoe · 2012-09-04 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

One wants a theocracy, the other call the PATRIOT act a crucial tool for the US government. I'm considering myself lucky I am not a US citizen, forced to choose between the plague and the cholera, as we say here...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://share.banoosh.com/2012/09/02/romney-obama-the-same/
That they both don't see a problem wiretapping and detaining Americans arbitrarily is very worrying.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Mitreya · 2012-09-04 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny

... I don't want either one of them.
Fortunately, our political system provides a wide range of candidates to choose from, because 2 choices wouldn't be nearly enough for a large country with many millions of people.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 08:41 · Score: 5, Informative

The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Well that cinches it for me by crmarvin42 · 2012-09-04 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

We did, that's why we have the 2 other branches of government, legislative and judicial. There are things you need an executive for, however, and that is why we have a chief executive as well. When Europe was still mostly monarchies, we divided the power between 3 ostensibly separate but equal branches of government. As time has gone on we've seemed to fudge the lines between the branches to an alarming extent, but on paper we have done exactly what you seem to be lamenting the absence of.

One problem is that the voters don't realize that the president is Supposed to be limited in his powers, and they expect him to fix everything for them. Instead, candidates promise the moon and then blame the other branch when he can't deliver when he shouldn't have been promising things he can't deliver on in the first place. No one seems to challenge the candidate on whether his promises are even within his authority to deliver, never mind politically possible to achieve without an absolute majority in the legislative branch. The "I win because I can blame the other party for my failure" political maneuver is poisonous, but as long as we voters keep falling for it they are going to keep using it.

--
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-09-04 08:52 · Score: 2

Uhhhhhh... Congress? Supreme Court?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by jmorris42 · 2012-09-04 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy. Unless you think he is an idiot you don't really believe that either. Mormons are a distinct minority with a history of persecution, on religious grounds. So unless he thinks his election will suddenly result in millions and millions of conversions it would be kinda daft to want to make a religious state that would, if history is a guide, have his people on the short list of those who go against the wall first. The fact they might go after the godless commies would be scant consolation.
Please try to think before mindlessly parroting the standard talking points. Sometimes they don't apply. Sometimes they don't apply in such a screamingly obvious way that it just makes you look like a total idiot.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:Well that cinches it for me by aardvarkjoe · 2012-09-04 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Here's a fun game to play: listen to a speech by a presidential candidate, and count the number of times that he promises to do something, or complains about what his opponent will (or will not) do, or (in the case of the incumbent) talks about what he's already done, or (in the case of a non-incumbent) complains about what the incumbent should have done.
Now count up how many of those things are actually the job of the executive branch. Most of the time, that number will be zero.
Sometimes I think I would vote for anyone who I honestly believed would just do the president's job.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy.
I would be more accurate to say Romney wants a "Corporatocracy" or "Oligarchy of the Wealthy." All the Jesus shit is just a means to that real end.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Impeesa · 2012-09-04 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.
In observing online US political commentary over the last few years, it has been my experience that many people object when he doesn't (or don't understand when he can't).
Re:Well that cinches it for me by GodInHell · 2012-09-04 09:21 · Score: 2

The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Yeah, I mean, where would anyone get the idea that the President has power over congress?

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Or to order people about and do things like command troops and tell judges how to behave.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Well.. other than our founding documents I mean.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by daem0n1x · 2012-09-04 09:27 · Score: 2

Well, you know what they say: "two parties is enough for anyone"!
Re:Well that cinches it for me by ender- · 2012-09-04 09:48 · Score: 2

I don't think you proved your point. As per your quotes of the constitution, the president is required to occasionally give a speech telling Congress how things are going. He can *recommend* to Congress things he thinks are needed or a good idea. But it's still Congress who has to make the law. He can call either or both houses of congress together to make them discuss things, and [and I'm not 100% sure I'm reading this part right] the president can tell them to go away for awhile. He can meet with Ambassadors and other public folks. His job is to ensure that the law [as passed by congress and, only after that, signed by him] is executed.
So with respect to determining the direction the country takes as far as what laws are created and passed, the president can only make suggestions to congress, and make them get together to discuss it. He can't make them agree to it or make an actual law out of his ideas.

--
Nothing to see here
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

That the president is the de facto leader of his party, combined with the fact that no legislation can get by him without either an overwhelming majority or his approval, means the president has a huge ability to set congress's agenda.

As head of the executive branch, he can choose which laws to bother worrying about executing and which ones he doesn't really care about. He can exert control over who the FBI will go after and whom will be prosecuted, and he can issue pardons.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-04 10:12 · Score: 2

The real problem is having one Supreme Commander.
Well, you can only fit one guy into the ACU
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-04 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative

He commands the armed force of the US. He does not command the nation. To review, he gives speeches to Congress and can ask them nicely to do things. He can convene Congress outside its schedule, but he can only adjourn it if Congress itself is unable to reach an agreement on adjournment. If both bodies of Congress vote to stay in session, he can't do squat. He gets to talk foreign Ambassadors and sign treaties--but the treaties don't take until the Senate ratifies them. He gets to appoint the officers of the executive branch, none of which have more power than he does, and also judges, but those all have to be approved by the Senate. Oh, and he has to make sure that the laws *that Congress passed* get carried out.
There's a reason that the office of the Presidency is described in Article *II* of the Constitution. Guess who's number one?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-04 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately too many people don't object when he walks-around issuing commands (or executive orders) as if he were the law-maker.
When it comes to creating law by edict, the Supreme Court is far more guilty than any President.
The president is limited by what executive orders can do. And executive orders are limited because they can be very easily repealed by the successor.
But a Supreme Court creates permanent law, and even worse, permanently bends the course of entire categories of laws and there's fuck-all that either of the other branches of government can do without amending the Constitution.
If you're worried about a branch of government that's grabbed far more power than intended by the Constitution, you have to put the Court first on the list.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by iluvcapra · 2012-09-04 10:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Mormons would definitely be hostile to one theocracy, but I suspect they'd be quite satisfied to tolerate openly sectarian lawmaking in Kansas or Louisiana as long as their church gets to keep its monopoly on all public offices and civic leadership in Utah. "Leave us alone to oppress our folk as we see fit" is the original sin of Federalism.
Romney isn't a theocrat, but you get the impression that he, like many Republicans, is pretty casual about church interference in state affairs. They oppose the the concept strictly in principle, but on concrete issues you will generally find them silent as long as the law in question isn't coming after them. There's no question in my mind that many movement Conservatives would acquiesce to a sort of negative theocracy, which is to say they would be satisfied to leave atheists, Muslims, and people of undesirable faith with less rights, as opposed to a positive theocracy, where only one faith is given complete rights. Rubio made this point at the RNC, when he claimed that "faith in out creator" was a foundational American value.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by pclminion · 2012-09-04 10:45 · Score: 2

No, he may not. He has pledged to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich"
If he chooses to not enforce a given law, and to do that consistently, then he is not administering justice "with respect to persons." It has nothing to do with the individual. It is not a violation of equal protections, since the law is being enforced on NO ONE.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by pclminion · 2012-09-04 11:00 · Score: 2

A law must be enforced by the executive, or he is violating his oath.
A law stating that people born on Thursdays should be put to death, must be enforced by the executive? You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the separation of powers.
You understand this no?
That isn't condescending enough. Try harder.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by riverat1 · 2012-09-04 11:12 · Score: 2

If I had mod points to give you'd get a +1 Insightful
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Penguinisto · 2012-09-04 11:18 · Score: 5, Informative

I get the concept you're shooting for, but it's a bit too simplistic.
As the titular leading force of his political party, a sitting president is supposed to have the influence and political will to rally congressional members of the same political party (and perhaps other parties) into performing tasks that benefit his promised goals. Examples? For better or worse, we have the "Bush Tax Cuts", "Obamacare", "Reaganomics", et al. Each of those were initiatives started by their respective presidents, allied congresscritters got the ball rolling, and the results were signed into law by respective presidents.
So yeah, when a president promises something, most of the time it is at least somewhat within his power to fulfill it.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by Genda · 2012-09-04 11:44 · Score: 2

Indeed, at least since Joe McCarthy wrapped himself in the flag and the bible at the same time to garner wealth and power by the wholesale gutting of the American Constitution. The saddest part is that we now find ourselves beset with an entire party composed of Joe McCarthy's and it makes my heart ache. When will the mouth breathing public stop falling for this shallow, vapid pandering to America's lowest common denominator?
Re:Well that cinches it for me by jmorris42 · 2012-09-04 12:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Um, I know it doesn't fit your narrative and all, but you did know that we know the truth of the McCarthy matter now and his only real sin was not realizing just how far the rabbit hole actually went, right? Or perhaps you don't know and don't want to know.
But if you are actually curious you might want to put yourself some knowledge on. The fifty year seal on the Senate records is expired and combined with the opening of the Verona decrypts and the access some scholars got to the old Soviet records the truth ain't pretty for the standard version of those events. Might I suggest skipping Ann Coulter's polemic, which while it does get most of the basic historical facts right is in the end an Ann Coulter book, and go for the much more scholarly work by M. Stanton Evans entitled _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies_. Instead of just references and footnotes (which it also has in quantity) it has reproductions of many original source documents and leaves little doubt as to just how bad things were in that era.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:Well that cinches it for me by _Sharp'r_ · 2012-09-04 15:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Clearly you've never been to Salt Lake City. Utah IS a theocracy. It's a nice place on the surface, but it's entirely controlled by the Mormon Church. They decide who gets to run for office, who gets elected, and what those people do once in office.
Normally I try not to feed the trolls, but I couldn't let this complete and utter bullshit pass.
Let's start with just the first sentence. The two term mayor of Salt Lake City is a long-time Democrat who's official about page has quotes like "He also championed the state’s first municipal protections in the areas of employment and housing for the City’s LGBT community." and "His progressive agenda for Utah’s Capital City centers on increasing livability through initiatives that give choices back to residents including transportation alternatives, green initiatives, equal treatment for all and much, much more."
Sounds like SLC is totally controlled by your supposed Mormon theocracy, doesn't it?
The rest of your statement is just as much bullshit. Yeah, since half the state is Mormon, of course people who are Mormon can vote and have an influence on who gets elected where. The Mormon church itself, nor its prominent leaders, don't choose nor endorse any candidates. They don't decide who gets elected and they don't tell them what to do once in office. At best, they sometimes get a sympathetic ear in zoning committees because everyone knows who they are.
Does the government in Utah tend to reflect the values of Utah's voters? Of course it does, just like it does everywhere else in the U.S. Does the Mormon church itself "control" anything like you've described? Absolutely and totally not.

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by iluvcapra · 2012-09-04 16:25 · Score: 2

I think you mean "Venona" decrypts.
I'm not sure how exculpatory Venona is to Joe McCarthy, considering the Venona decrypts weren't available to him at the time of his prosecutions. He might have guessed right with Algier Hiss, but it was just a guess -- and the man ruined the careers of dozens of civil servants, from undersecretaries to career Army officers to night janitors; while his drunken, paranoid accusations pushed the United States closer to a police state than it had ever come in the 20th century.
His prosecutions were appropriate in the way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The fact that we found out he was right in a few cases out of hundreds, long in retrospect, is absolutely no defense. Destroying people's lives with rumor and secret evidence is the sort of things communists did, not Americans, regardless of the justice of the ends.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by ThorGod · 2012-09-04 17:46 · Score: 2

Yep! The only caveat being Amendments, once ratified, may only be "interpreted" by the SCOTUS. So, if they don't like abortion but there's an amendment saying "abortion is ok"...they can't come down on a law with the reasoning that "abortion is not ok".

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Re:Well that cinches it for me by bogjobber · 2012-09-04 18:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, you're both wrong. Your post is quite a bit more reasonable than GP's, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

The LDS church doesn't control government in Utah the way that he suggested. It's not a theocracy. They don't choose the candidates or decide who gets elected. But in many significant ways they do have near-complete control over politics in the state. There is certainly no other state in the US where a single religious organization has such a large degree of control over (ostensibly) secular politics.

And it is often a *very* direct and deliberate type of control. Take, for example, the recent revitalization of downtown, primarily City Creek Center, a $5 billion mixed use development deal undertaken by the LDS church. Like many cities in the US, Salt Lake struggles with urban decay and development. The Salt Lake temple and the headquarters of the LDS church are downtown. Downtown SLC is not that large of a place, and in many ways the city itself is a showcase for the church. And the LDS church is *extremely* image-conscious. They don't want visitors to the Salt Lake temple or church headquarters to see downtown in a state of neglect, they want it to look clean and successful. So they bought a bunch of property and invested in City Creek Center.

Obviously that's not really all that normal compared to most US cities, but overall it seems like a good thing, right? And for the most part it is. But the church also starting mucking around manipulating SLC politics in very shady and underhanded ways. Let me digress for a second...bear with me.

One problem with Utah is that SLC citizens and the SLC government are far morel iberal than the rest of the state (think more in line with Portland or Seattle, whereas most of the state is *extremely* conservative). A common theme in Utah politics is Salt Lake liberals vs. the rest of the state. SLC progressives want to change the laws, but since the state legislature is much, more conservative they are often prevented from doing what they want, and they end up yelling back and forth at each other, fighting in the media, etc. One common solution to that problems is the state legislature often lets the Salt Lake liberals do whatever the hell they want in Salt Lake County with the understanding that the liberals will leave them alone the rest of the state.

In the example you gave of Mayor Becker passing anti-discrimination laws for LGBT individuals, you are only getting half the story. The Democrats tried to get that law passed for the whole state. The Republicans fought it, and a compromise was worked out. The state legislature wouldn't pass a statewide law nullifying the discrimination laws if the Democrats would give up the fight and settle for just Salt Lake County. This is an example, of how, like you explained, the government in Utah reflects the values of Utah voters. Obviously the church has a lot to do with the anti-gay feelings felt by the majority of Utah's legislators, but in this situation they did not influence it in any sort of direct way.

In the case of the downtown developments, however, the church acted in a very direct way to influence local legislature. The LDS church is not very tolerant of alcohol use. They do everything they can to control the sale and use of alcohol. For the most part it's not that big of a deal, the alcohol drinkers work around it and it's fine. But there are three major things that Salt Lake County businesses hate about Utah liquor laws:

1) There is a finite number of business in Utah that can sell liquor, based on the population of the entire state. Once the liquor licenses are gone for the year, no businesses can get a new liquor license unless a business that already has a license sells it off. Most businesses feel that the number of licenses, particularly for full-service bars, is far too low.
2) You can only open a full-service bar in an area zoned
Re:Well that cinches it for me by rtb61 · 2012-09-04 20:54 · Score: 2

Still far superior to Ayn Rand Objectivism. Want to be afraid, consider who Ayn Rand lauded, a psychopathic who dismembered a child when the ransom wasn't paid. She lauded him for being free or morals or the strictures of society and having a single minded focus on himself, his lusts and ego. That is who the running mate of Mitt Romney idolised, who Paul Ryan has stated to have been inspirational in all his decisions.
Never just look at the figure head pay attention to the whole team. Might as well as those answers were prepared by a whole team and designed around garnering more votes, than anything to do with policy direction and the only thing to pay any attention to is blunders.
Something as stupid as the job of regulatory agencies is to "streamline and reduce burden", no you Mitt Romney bloody morons, the job of regulatory agencies is to reduce company fuck ups. Mass pollution, poisoning, structures falling down, companies to big to fail, corporations basically acting in a criminal fashion etc.. Raising visa caps for high skilled foreign workers kind of kills the point or retraining existing unemployed workers, make your choice flip flopping Romneyites. Yes there is global warming but the Romney solution is to wait for confirmation with the great flood before doing anything. On education both Obama and Romney are nuts, looney tunes not point in education if you keep exporting the jobs by allowing unfair imports. It sounds like both idiots aim to have the highest education unemployed people in the world.
Mitt Romney hates net neutrality and wants a corporate controlled internet not only in the US but wants that forced upon other countries. Obama of course loves the RIAA/MPAA crowd and they come first. Overall Romney comes off as a deregulation nutter who thinks corporate executives can be trusted beyond this months bonus and padding their golden parachute. Obama comes off a whishy washy and non-committal to anything in particular except the RIAA/MPAA of course. I think their PR teams need a second shot at the questionnaire, simply not good enough try again.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Well that cinches it for me by iluvcapra · 2012-09-05 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stuff you assumed was so all your life suddenly ain't so anymore and you end up wondering just how much else you take for granted as true is also bunk.
It might be you were just too credulous before.

His targets were almost all actual commies.
I think you misunderstand what was "bad" about McCarthyism. It's not about people being guilty, it's about denouncing them in show trials without Constitutional rights or dignities. Who cares if you've got the right man if you go after him in a way in an unjust and despicable way that discredits the entire process? Had Joe McCarthy been a Communist plant himself, he could not have done more damage to the cause of Anti-Communism. He turned all of his victims into martyrs, wether they were actual spies, or (as was usually the case) were simply members of the CP in the 30s and 40s.

even if just to flog the ghost of McCarthy and do a standard issue rerun of the ritiual flogging of all Republicans as 'McCarthyites?
I see. Someone called you "McCarthyite" and it hurt your feelings. Well, Republicans can be right even if McCarthy was wrong; only an Ann Coulter would have the nutso idea that exonerating Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn would somehow validate anything a Republican says of believes today. I assure you I do not spend my time researching alternative history in order to prove that the Japanese Internment wasn't really Franklin Roosevelt's idea, or that JFK was actually going to end the Vietnam War, because these issues are irrelevant to Democratic party politics. Just as McCarthy is irrelevant to the modern Republican Party.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:inb4 by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-04 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Critiquing science positions: bashing
Calling people you disagree with "tards": sensible debate.

Re:First question by Cenan · 2012-09-04 08:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Load balancing (computing)

--
... whatever ...

The format of the asnwer is interresting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Obama never mention romney's name. Romney mention Obama in comparison 12 time. Furthermore some answer particularly on GW are less than satisfying. But hey. I don't vote so... Have fun all.

Re:The format of the asnwer is interresting by tnk1 · 2012-09-04 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Romney's campaign is on the attack because he's the contender, he has to point at Obama and convince people they made a mistake in 2008.
Obama is the incumbent and just has to convince the people who voted for him to vote for him again. It's not a hard sell, and incumbents frequently win extra terms. He'd have to screw up somehow or just be very, very unlucky to not be re-elected. The economy could be that luck factor, but attacking or even seeming to stoop to Romney's attack level will make it seem like Obama takes Romney seriously and it could cause him to forfeit some or all of his Presidential advantage. The President always has an advantage, but only if he keeps acting presidential.
Obama has a lot more to lose by looking like an attack dog than Romney, but make no mistake, it will be plenty made up for by the Super PACs on both sides going at it. There is some pretty breathtakingly vicious stuff coming out from the Democratic side as well. Just don't expect to see Obama standing directly behind it.
Re:The format of the asnwer is interresting by fm6 · 2012-09-04 16:23 · Score: 2

Romney's campaign is on the attack because he's the contender, he has to point at Obama and convince people they made a mistake in 2008.
That's been the Republican strategy since about 5 minutes after Obama won the election. I suppose it could be part of a bigger strategy, but it seems to be the only strategy they have. Every single GOP speech I've heard has had something to say about how Obama is screwing up the country.
Even if there were anything to half their claims, this would be a stupid way to proceed. It's not enough to tell people they have to vote against Obama, they need to offer people something to vote for. And the constant repetition is begging to wear on people. That's why Obama is less than 20 electoral votes from clinching the election.

Net neutrality by RoTNCoRE · 2012-09-04 08:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

So net neutrality is pandering to special interests and "picking winners and losers" according to Romney? Any leader who considers the individual a special interest, and thinks that not backing net neutrality isn't by default picking winners and losers is either an idiot or a liar, or both. Picking winners and losers is your damn job - pretty much the crux of it. The "letting the market decide" BS is letting the powerful corporate interests win. Any "invisible hand" or "let the market decide" crap went out the window with the bailouts.

Re:Net Neutrality by girlintraining · 2012-09-04 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Corrupt motherfuckers.
FTFY.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Net Neutrality by jomama717 · 2012-09-04 08:29 · Score: 2

I included idealistic because I think some of these people have such a shallow understanding of their party's ideals that *any hint* of government involvement in anything falls into their shallow understanding of - gasp - socialism!!

--
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
Re:Net Neutrality by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-04 08:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Yep this was the Romney response that disgusted me the most. Full of bald-faced lies and right-wing scare words.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Net neutrality by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 10:45 · Score: 2

Net Neutrality is a guise to control the Internet.
The most obvious problem with that analysis is that net neutrality was the law of the land until 2005 when NCTA vs Brand X validated the FCC stripping the net neutrality requirement from ISPs via (the bizzaro-world) reclassification to content providers instead of service providers. Furthermore, net neutrality remains the law of the land for telephone operators as it has for more than half a century. Yet in neither case have we seen this insidious scope creep you describe.
It seems like all that stuff you warn about has really gained traction since net neutrality was struck down. Coincidence? Maybe, but I think it is just as likely that the lack of neutrality regulation is what enabled such things. Do you think the telephone companies could get away with a back-room 6-six strikes rule the way the MAFIAA and the major ISPs seem to have?

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by hondo77 · 2012-09-04 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I especially like his response to climate change. He says it looks to him like humans are causing it but it's still up for debate. What a weasel.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.

Re:./ed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Difficult because it's done in side by side column form:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012 "Whenever the people are well-informed," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "they can be trusted with their own government." Science now affects every aspect of life and is an increasingly important topic in national policymaking. ScienceDebate.org invited thousands of scientists, engineers and concerned citizens to submit what they felt were the the most important science questions facing the nation that the candidates for president should be debating on the campaign trail. ScienceDebate then worked with the leading US science and engineering organizations listed at left to refine the questions and arrive at a universal consensus on what the most important science policy questions facing the United States are in 2012. Candidates readily debate jobs and the economy even though they are not economists; they debate foreign policy and military intervention even though they are not diplomats or generals; they debate faith and values even though they are not priests or pastors. We call on the candidates for President to also debate these Top American Science Questions that affect all voters' lives. Candidates' Answers, a Side by Side Comparison Barack Obama Barack Obama's answers to the Top American Science Questions September 4, 2012 Mitt Romney Mitt Romney's answers to the Top American Science Questions September 4, 2012 Innovation | Climate Change | Research and the Future | Pandemics and Biosecurity Education | Energy | Food | Fresh Water | The Internet | Ocean Health Science in Public Policy | Space | Critical Natural Resources | Vaccination and Public Health 1. Innovation and the Economy. Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation? Barack Obama: I believe that in order to be globally competitive in the 21st century and to create an American economy that is built to last, we must create an environment where invention, innovation, and industry can flourish. We can work together to create an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, and skills for American workers. I am committed to doubling funding for key research agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs, so that we can preserve America’s place as the world leader in innovation, and strengthen U.S. leadership in the 21st century’s high-tech knowledge-based economy. To prepare American children for a future in which they can be the highly skilled American workers and innovators of tomorrow, I have set the goal of preparing 100,000 science and math teachers over the next decade. These teachers will meet the urgent need to train one million additional science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) graduates over the next decade. Mitt Romney: Innovation is the key to economic growth and job creation, and increasingly important to American competitiveness in the global economy. Three-quarters of all U.S. economic growth, and three-quarters of the U.S. productivity advantage over other OECD nations, is directly attributable to innovation, and wages in innovation-intensive industries have grown more than twice as fast as other wages in recent decades. My plan for a stronger middle class will rebuild the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. The promotion of innovation will begin on Day One, with efforts to simplify the corporate tax code, reform job retraining programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and protect American intellectual property around the world. A Growth Agenda Over the course of my ca

Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

At least not for EVERY question.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by Kenja · 2012-09-04 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why he gave "Obama is destroying America" for every answer instead. I only wish I where kidding...

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by houghi · 2012-09-04 08:20 · Score: 2

Jeez. Seriously?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by RazorSharp · 2012-09-04 08:28 · Score: 2

Wouldn't it be 'Joseph Smith?'

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Note to Romney: "Jesus" not acceptable answer by jd2112 · 2012-09-04 08:45 · Score: 5, Funny

That's why he gave "Obama is destroying America" for every answer instead. I only wish I where kidding...
He's saying "Obama is destroying America, That should be my job".

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Obama's anwsers from 2008 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative

http://web.archive.org/web/20100427074402/http://sciencedebate.org/www/index.php?id=42

Net Neutrality by jomama717 · 2012-09-04 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!

Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.

--
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done

Mirror by lee13se · 2012-09-04 08:10 · Score: 2

Coral CDN: http://www.sciencedebate.org.nyud.net/debate12/

Re:First question by Sparticus789 · 2012-09-04 08:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Sounds like a great Ask Slashdot post....

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:ScienceDebate.org by Sparticus789 · 2012-09-04 08:12 · Score: 4, Funny

At least we now know that most Slashdot users do actually RTFA.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Climate change by sdo1 · 2012-09-04 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Romney: "my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk"

No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% of scientists in agreement.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:Climate change by Bigby · 2012-09-04 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

97% consensus on what? Not the extent of the human contribution. If 97% of climatologists think that 100% of the warming is because of human contribution, then I lose all respect for the science.
Re:Climate change by thegreatemu · 2012-09-04 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm terrified to find myself supporting Romney here, but did you even read your own quote there? He said there was a lack of consensus on "the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk."
Now let me quote from your linked article: "The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity."
Nowhere does it say that 97 percent of scientists agree that the average global temperature rise will be X degrees, that the risk is extremely/moderately/not at all severe, or that "mainly" = 100%/90%/80%, etc.
As anti-republican as I am, I have to admit Romney hit this one exactly right. There is overwhelming evidence (which, btw, is way the hell more important than "consensus") that there is warming, and that we are the cause of some significant part of it. But predicting the specific effects, even the exact amount of temperature increase, necessitates a blind faith in models with a pretty poor track record so far.
Of course, the problem is that he's trying to use lack of certainty as an excuse to to avoid taking any action, despite the fact that the science doesn't say anything at all about the best way to fix the issue (or indeed whether it needs fixing...)
Re:Climate change by khallow · 2012-09-04 10:53 · Score: 2

Of course, the problem is that he's trying to use lack of certainty as an excuse to to avoid taking any action, despite the fact that the science doesn't say anything at all about the best way to fix the issue (or indeed whether it needs fixing...)
So where's the "problem"? A great deal of lack of certainty is a great reason not to do something which you otherwise know will be harmful to society.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

That's not what he said. In fact, this is pretty good news: both candidates actually admit the reality of AGW.
He said the size of the effects hasn't been nailed down, and that the science should inform the political solutions rather than dictate them.
Pretty sensible, for a politician.

Energy Policies by spauldo · 2012-09-04 08:16 · Score: 2

Interesting that Romney actually states that he believes global warming is both occurring and partly due to human activity. That's a pretty big change from the standard Republican line. (Of course, he also says that he'll essentially do nothing about it, since China is worse than us and he doesn't want to threaten the coal industry...)

It does make me wonder though - Romney mentions putting more into nuclear power, but Obama doesn't mention it. Considering that Obama removed a lot of the red tape preventing nuclear plants being approved, you'd think he'd at least mention it considering that energy policy is a fairly big issue. It makes me wonder if Fukishima has changed the Democratic party line on nuclear power.

Just once though, I'd like to see some politicians give some straight answers instead of treating everything like a campaign ad. Their answers have a lot of words, but very little meaning.

--
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.

Re:Energy Policies by na1led · 2012-09-04 08:23 · Score: 2

It's the art of capturing votes. If you can get a scientist and preacher to vote for the same guy, you know you've done something right.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.

Re:./ed by MightyYar · 2012-09-04 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Coral cache here.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Romney: Heisenberg Politician by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:20 · Score: 5, Funny

When you measure his position, his momentum becomes uncertain. When you measure his momentum, his position becomes uncertain.

Love the global warming answer. by khasim · 2012-09-04 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

From Romney:

However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk â" and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

So ... more "research" instead of doing anything?

But at least we know that we don't need more "research" to know that Obama is the problem:

Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve â" and with good reason.

Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.

Re:Love the global warming answer. by AmeerCB · 2012-09-04 08:52 · Score: 2

Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.
Is this your first election? I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$, just pointing out that this is almost always the strategy when going up against the incumbent. It's much safer to try and make the incumbent look bad than to try and convince others that his own policies are any better.
Re:Love the global warming answer. by dkleinsc · 2012-09-04 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Romney described his energy policy as a "No Regrets" policy. I'm sorry, that's a policy of how you're going to deal with waking up next to somebody you don't remember meeting, not a policy for deciding what to do about the biggest technological challenge of the 21st century (and what has been a losing battle for quite some time now).
Also, that last sentence is a lie. Obama has been quite clear about the goals of his energy policy, namely slowly reducing the use of oil in favor of alternatives as they become economically viable. He wants the new energy sources to be manufactured in the United States if at all possible. He's picked an Energy Secretary who's a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and basically given him the assignment of directing research and subsidies and the like towards those goals, which so far has yielded:
- Simple advice like painting roofs white (yes, this actually helps, a lot, even though most media who covered it laughed at the idea)
- new fuel-efficiency standards with the goal of dropping carbon emissions once the new cars are dominating the roads.
- Some increased development of solar cells.
- Some complete duds like Solyndra.
What the Romney campaign is actually trying to do is convince people that $4/gallon gasoline has anything to do with Obama's energy policies, when there's absolutely no evidence to back up that claim.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

CoralCDN and Pastebin links by k0nane · 2012-09-04 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Browse through the cache or view in plain text on Pastebin.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-04 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The bald-faced denial of simple facts involved in his response to Internet governance makes his veiled climate denial seem reasonable in comparison. He called net neutrality "a solution looking for a problem."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by amRadioHed · 2012-09-04 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

OTOH, his position makes inaction justifiable. Republican's will have us "wait for the science to come in" up until the floodwaters are approaching Denver.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Since both candidates (but especially Romney) blabbered on for so long, I thought it might be helpful to have a summary of the candidates' positions. I tried to make it as accurate and neutral as possible, but I couldn't resist a few editorial comments.

Q1: How will you ensure America remains a world leader in innovation?

Obama: Double funding for research agencies, train more STEM teachers.
Romney: Increase visa caps for foreign workers, permanent residence for foreign grad students, cut taxes, make regulation harder, aggressive trade attitudes towards China and increased free trade agreements with "nations committed to principles of free enterprise", education reform, increase funding for basic research. [Much of this doesn't have anything to do with innovation as far as I can see, but this is what he said. -ed]

Q2: How will you deal with climate change?

Obama: Continue pushing for the same policies as before (e.g. invest in "clean energy" increased fuel economy standards, carbon emission limits for new power plants, international efforts to reduce emissions).
Romney: Doesn't believe there is a scientific consensus; suggests "No Regrets" policy (i.e. every policy implemented must yield benefits to America even if global warming is a hoax or if no other nations do anything; example: development of "low-emissions technology" and removal of regulations including nuclear power regulations)

Q3: How will you fund research programs?

Obama: Set goal to spend more than 3% of GDP on public and private research and development. Also argues that his administration's research funding, including stimulus funding, has yielded and/or will yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Romney: No explicit details on future plans, but implied proposal to implement new policies that "facilitate medical innovation" (i.e. relaxation of FDA regulations). Argues that Obama administration's research programs have not yielded and/or will not yield enough benefits for the money spent.

Q4: How will you deal with the threat of a pandemic?

Obama: Strengthen public health systems.
Romney: Strengthen public health systems, relax regulations on pharmaceutical companies to encourage innovation

Q5: How will you fix the education system?

Obama: Train more (good) STEM teachers (with private and charity support).
Romney: Destroy the teachers' unions, school choice, increase focus on standards and testing.

Q6: Where will you get energy from?

Obama: Increased development of renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels), continue existing natural gas-friendly policies.
Romney: Relax environmental restrictions on oil and gas extraction and pipelines both onshore and offshore, but retain a full commitment to environmental protection [which really tells us nothing about how he plans to balance these factors... -ed], pursue energy free-trade treaties, reassess nation's energy reserves to reflect new technology [the implication is that Romney thinks the whole "energy independence" thing is overblown and we actually have plenty of oil, though this is not explicitly stated -ed] more focus on coal and oil than Obama's plan.

Q7: How will you protect the food supply:

Obama: Increase regulation by FDA in general; reduce use of antibiotics and pesticides; strict regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals by FDA.
Romney: "Work closely with industry" to implement the preventive practices recommended by the industry.

Q8: How will you protect the water supply?

Obama: Increase investment in water infrastructure (esp. in rural areas) and funding to water conservation programs.
Romney: Re-examine water regulations; switch to more market-based approaches.

Q9: How will you handle the internet?

Obama: Protect intellectual property without reducing freedom of expression [another one of these answers that tells you nothing about how these factors will actually be balanced... -ed], shore up cybersecurity
Romney: Get rid of Net Neutrality.

Re:Summary by vlm · 2012-09-04 09:06 · Score: 2

AC we both "summarized" as you might see above. But did we actually read the same "debate"? Especially #14 and #2? Its almost as if we read two different debates... I got a whole different vibe off 'bama's #2 answer and especially Rmoney's #7 answer.
I don't think an attempt at neutrality makes any sense. 'Bama is a pretty good left of center pre-neo-conservative takeover republican and Rmoney is a caricature of Gordon Gekko from the movie. There is no representation of anywhere left of "traditional lefty-republican" and no representation of middle class interests. A portrayal of both as rightwing corporate pawns is not being slanted, its being accurate.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:./ed by k0nane · 2012-09-04 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Slightly better paste from the source, with basic formatting, on Pastebin.

Mitt Romney must have a degree in BS by Dyinobal · 2012-09-04 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mitt Romney's answers remind me of students who think that if they make an answer lengthy enough and yet stay away from saying anything concrete they can't get an answer right on a test. I guess no one ever told him it was always content that mattered and not quantity.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama but at least he keeps his answers concise and answer them with out going on for half a page or attacking his and then not answering the question at all. It's like Romney thinks he is in a debate on TV and not actually writing his answers down on for everyone to read an examine closely.

Re:Mitt Romney must have a degree in BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 19:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

>> Mitt Romney's answers remind me of students who think that if they make an answer lengthy enough and yet stay away from saying anything concrete they can't get an answer right on a test. I guess no one ever told him it was always content that mattered and not quantity.
I completely disagree. With a few exceptions Romney's answers stayed on topic and provided _reasons_ behind his decision making. Whether you agree or not with his ideas, he did give a little bit of insight into his thinking process.
>> I'm not a huge fan of Obama but at least he keeps his answers concise and answer them with out going on for half a page or attacking his [..]
Again, I disagree. I don't know who I'm going to vote for this time around, (was Obama 4 yrs ago), but it's Obama's election to lose. I _want_ to know why Romney thinks he'll be better. The so-called 'attacking' was on point every time. It created contrast, which is expected in anyone trying to make a case against an incumbent. If he doesn't do it I'm just going to vote for Obama again. Duh.

Re:./ed by vlm · 2012-09-04 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

The page is coming up slow. I hope it's already slashdotted, or else it's in for a rude awakening.

I got the GOOG cache and here's a summary

1) What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation? with the assumption that innovation = science and technology and not financial scams like the last decade or so.
El Presidente: wanna double funding, personally will prepare 100K STEM teachers, believes in that stupid idea of STEM shortage (aka wages are too high for postdocs)
Rmoney: middle class needs to work harder, need more immigrants, lower taxes on corporations, reduce regulation, stronger enforcement of IP laws, govt research has been a disaster and I'll do exactly the same thing but more

2) Talk about climate change
El Presidente: brags about how the economy has crashed thus the environment is cleaner.
Rmoney: its probably important, but lets do nothing other than talk about it, followed by five minutes of hot air global warming. Does oppose carbon taxes

3) Priority to investment in research, pretty much #1 rephrased.
El Presidente: pretty much #1 rephrased. Spend lots of money in stuff you like.
Rmoney: pretty much #1 rephrased. I'll do the same thing as 'bama but smarter.

4) biowarfare FUD, does we luvs it or no?
El Presidente: its very important
Rmoney:I am a strong opponent of disease and btw did you know my opponent sucks?

5) Edumactiaon. Americans are about average at it. Whadda you think?
El Presidente: Still believes education leads to the middle class, instead of lifetime student debt slavery. Dumb*ss. Also says we need more STEM people to push salaries lower and unemployment higher in STEM fields.
Rmoney: teachers make too much money and if we just make them poorer by getting rid of the unions then the kids will be smarter.

6) Energy. Obviously Rmoney has more than 'Bama because his responses are always twice the length. Aside from that:
El Presidente: I'm personally responsible for clean energy and I blue sky made up a plan that 20 years after I'm outta office the whole USA or whats left of it will be powered solely by sustainable, green, bioengineered unicorn tears.
Rmoney: Did you know my opponent sucks? After we get rid of regulation, energy will be cheaper.

7) Food. Most people think american agribusiness sucks. What you say?
El Presidente: I modernized the FDA so we spend more money. No results yet but I'm optimistic.
Rmoney: Food safety is important and self regulation of industries is the best (editors editorial note, didn't this idiot read Upton Sinclair? how stupid is this guy?)

8) Water, Fresh, without human sh1t floating in it, preferably. Comments gentlemen?
El Presidente: Spent a lot of money and created a lot of govt jobs, but I'm not talking about results, which is ... weird
Rmoney: if we remove regulation and laws we'll have more water

9) The internet, how will you gentlemen try to screw it up?
El Presidente: I support everyone on every side of every issue fully with absolutely no specifics
Rmoney: I will get rid of all regulation especially net neutrality while maintaining the status quo of monopoly providers

10) Remember #8, Water, Fresh? How bout Water, Salty?
El Presidente: Remember #8, Water, Fresh? Yeah ditto
Rmoney: Remember #8, Water, Fresh? Yeah ditto

11) Public Policy Science. Pretty much #1 and #3 rephrased for all 3.

12) Space, the final frontier of govt spending or whatever:
El Presidente: I take all the credit and I made some BS plan that won't take effect until decades after I'm gone and I'll continue to non-commitally "support" space
Rmoney: Nasa needs to be scrapped and rebuilt more pragmatically

13) Natural resources. Pretty much #8 and #10 rephrased for all 3

14) Vaccination / public health, is health good or bad?
El Presidente: thanks for the softball so I can brag about what my healthcare plan might accomplish in the future if all goes well.
Rmoney: vaccines are nice, I love them, don't you too? we need less regulation of critical life support and advanced medical stuff.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by mk1004 · 2012-09-04 08:41 · Score: 2

On the contrary, even though I didn't agree with several things Romney had to say, what I saw in this article was, for many of the questions, Romney presenting a detailed (almost tl;dr) outline of specific things he felt his administration should accomplish. Compared to Obama, I thought Romney came across as a little bit more prepared and purposeful.

On the contrary, Romney's answers, like the response to the first question, seemed generic; i.e. here's how we're going to fix the economy. Nothing in that answer explained what was specifically being done that would promote innovation. This is more of an indictment of Romny's campaign staff--too lazy to look for any statement from him that shows how he supports a specific issue. Don't mistake length of answer for quality.

--
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by jd2112 · 2012-09-04 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's not what he said. In fact, this is pretty good news: both candidates actually admit the reality of AGW. He said the size of the effects hasn't been nailed down, and that the science should inform the political solutions rather than dictate them. Pretty sensible, for a politician.

Translation: The polls show that denying global warming would cost more votes than acknowledging it.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Re:Inoffensive and unhelpful answers by Dyinobal · 2012-09-04 08:50 · Score: 2

Well of course Obama is going to run on his record, it makes sense. Romney's entire campaign strategy is pretty much 'I'm not Obama' and 'Obama bad' and of course neither of them say anything particularly offensive on the surface of it. If they did that they might actually lose voters.

I've always thought politics at least the election process of it in our country was about who can best say something while not actually saying anything at all

Vaccinations by thegreatemu · 2012-09-04 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love how both candidates completely ignored the heart of the vaccination issue, pretending that the reason vaccination rates have fallen is due to people being unable to afford them or supplies running out, rather than the complete failing of our educational system, which has produced a generation of idiots who think that some celebutard's cry about vaccination-caused autism is somehow more worth listening to than a century of sound medical practice. I forget who originated the quote, but it goes something like "Democracy does not mean that your ignorance has an equal voice with my knowledge."

Anyway, just more of the same political dodging. We can't call people reckless morons for endangering themselves AND OTHERS by refusing to get themselves and their children vaccinated, because they might vote for me! I'd really like to have political interviews where we can tie the candidates down and keep asking the same question until they actually answer it,

Bad interpretation by SuperKendall · 2012-09-04 08:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Picking winners and losers is your damn job - pretty much the crux of it.

In what way is that the role of the president?

The presidents job should be VERY FAR away from that role. They should not be picking individual winners or losers, they should be thinking of ways to help people in general, not in groups.

If you claim the president should be picking "winners and losers" then you are also in support of:

1) The war on drugs (winner, drag cartels, looser, drug users).

2) Banks (banks that are "too big to fail" will be constantly refreshed with government funds).

3) Wars where you decide who in the nation gets to rule.

It has always struck me as funny that so many people that want to keep companies out of the government are seeking to draw them in via net neutrality. Once Comcast is told what to do by the FCC do you think lobbying will go substantially down, or up? And the best part is then Comcast can do whatever it likes because the rules came "from the government". If you loved the torrent throttling they tried to get away with you should be delighted with the total torrent ban in effect once network neutrality rules start allowing the government dictate how networks should be run - and who they can reach. After all, neutrality means only that you must be able to reach equally VALID network endpoints...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Bad interpretation by Nugoo · 2012-09-04 10:01 · Score: 2

It has always struck me as funny that so many people that want to keep companies out of the government are seeking to draw them in via net neutrality. Once Comcast is told what to do by the FCC do you think lobbying will go substantially down, or up? And the best part is then Comcast can do whatever it likes because the rules came "from the government". If you loved the torrent throttling they tried to get away with you should be delighted with the total torrent ban in effect once network neutrality rules start allowing the government dictate how networks should be run - and who they can reach. After all, neutrality means only that you must be able to reach equally VALID network endpoints...
What, exactly, do you think will happen without net neutrality laws? Will all the ISP monopolies suddenly start acting like they have competition? Will Comcast just never try to get away with throttling torrents again? Do you realize that if there are no "rules from the government", then ISP's can just do what they want anyway?

--
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
Re:Bad interpretation by Microlith · 2012-09-04 10:05 · Score: 2

Once Comcast is told what to do by the FCC do you think lobbying will go substantially down, or up?
Considering how deep into the FCC they have their hooks already, I don't know if they could seriously do more.

If you loved the torrent throttling they tried to get away with you should be delighted with the total torrent ban in effect once network neutrality rules start allowing the government dictate how networks should be run
This is because people keep fucking around with what "Network Neutrality" should be. It's simple. Make all ISPs and all Internet connections subject to Common Carrier rules. Make it illegal for them to peer into the pipe and discriminate based on content, source, or destination. Real simple.
Otherwise, the corporations will have their way with the Internet, and when they're done you could just as well call it "iTV 2.0."

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by cpu6502 · 2012-09-04 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

>>>net neutrality "a solution looking for a problem."

The problem is a company holding a monopoly (or duopoly) over the last ~25 miles of the internet. Net neutrality is simply a form of government regulation to prevent the monopoly from abusing its customers, just as the government regulates the electric, natural gas, and water monopolies.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:You insensitive clod! by O'Nazareth · 2012-09-04 08:55 · Score: 2

The nice thing with Slashdot comments, is that if you lived in a complete seclusion for five years, and you come back to read them, you still understand the jokes.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by crazyjj · 2012-09-04 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't you understand? Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ending all government regulation and letting big corps do whatever the fuck they want is the CURE ALL of the 21-st century. It will make the economy strong, give us all great jobs, improve education, and make your dick bigger! Just give the wealthy and big corps everything they want and we'll all live in a fucking paradise on earth!

Add in "And Obama sucks!" and I think that pretty much sums up Romney's answers to every question on this survey.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by amRadioHed · 2012-09-04 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well reducing fuel consumption and slowing population growth are good to do anyway, so we should do those things regardless of climate change.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Why is inaction not justifiable? by SuperKendall · 2012-09-04 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

OTOH, his position makes inaction justifiable.

Why is that bad?

Would you rather they panic and we get the AGW equivalent of the Patriot Act, causing a lot of harm for very little real gain?

With politicians you WANT the default action to be "none", because otherwise you just get ill-informed bullshit codified into law.

A USEFUL course of action must be clear. We already know we have dropped carbon emissions to Kyoto levels already, so why in fact SHOULD we do anything more at the moment?

Republican's will have us "wait for the science to come in" up until the floodwaters are approaching Denver.

And you would prefer we double the cost of heating and gas for poor people before an inch of rise is observed?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Condensed Summary by dlsmith · 2012-09-04 09:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Q: How will you deal with [scientific challenge]?

Obama: Create/expand a government program or incentive (with no explanation of what existing programs will have to be cut to compensate)
Romney: Eliminate government regulations and let the industry take care of itself (with no explanation of how to deal with inevitable industry abuses)

(How much you trust their answers or are concerned about their non-answers will probably depend on how much you subscribe to their political philosophy.)

The Breakdown by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-04 09:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Converting candidate responses from legalese to English, please wait...*

Question 1: Innovation and the Economy:

BO: I plan on dumping at least twice as much money into corporate pocketbooks via the continued fucking-up of the US intellectual property process. Oh, yea, and I plan on hiring a shitload of STEM teachers to prep future patent lawyers, er, "engineers" for this task.

MR: Less taxes and regulation for businesses, more H1B Visas and foreign "trade agreements" that take jobs away from Americans.

Question 2, Climate Change:

BO: Sure, it's a problem, but I've already dumped a shit-ton of your money into the "clean energy" companies my buddies own, as well as attempting to set up a "carbon credit exchange" scam, er, system, that would have funneled even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of my campaign contributors - what the fuck else do you expect me to do about it?

MR: Probably bullshit, but I won't let my disbelief in the concept prevent me from using this as an opportunity to badmouth my opponent and recommend further redistribution of wealth to my also-rich homies!
Furthermore, since China doesn't give a fuck about the environment, I don't think we should either.

Question 3: Research and the Future:

BO: Uh, like I said before - more of the public's money given to corporations so they can privately profit; seriously, what don't you guys get about that?

MR: Agreed, with the caveat of, you guessed it, less regulation for the same corporations. After all, corporations are people, and if you can't trust people with your money...

Question 4: Pandemics and Biosecurity:

BO: ... Pass.

MR: Less taxes and regulation on business... Oh, and more public surveillance. How are we supposed to know who's sick if we're not watching you all 24/7?

Question 5: Education:

BO: Earlier in my administration, I proposed adding 100,000 STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) teachers... just don't ask how that's going...

MR: Education is a serious issue these days... which is why I recommend busting teachers' unions, defunding public schools in favor of private "charter" schools, and of course, blaming the current abysmal state of education solely on my opponent.

Question 6: Energy:

BO: Hey, I mentioned giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to my buddies who run "clean energy" companies, right?

MR: I disagree with my opponent; I think we should be giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to the oil companies my buddies run instead.
Can I getta 'Keystone Pipeline,' anyone?

Question 7: Food:

BO: Food safety was pretty fucked up when I came to office, so I made new rules that changes what qualifies as 'fucked up.'

MR: More government regulation and taxes. Hey, if those agri-business chumps want the same deal I give the oil and pharmaceutical companies, they need to pony up some campaign bucks, ya dig?

Question 8: Water:

BO: My administration has invested millions in fresh water conservation and restoration efforts. Granted, these programs would have existed anyway regardless of who held this office at the time, but hey - I do, so I get to take the credit. Suck it, Bush.

MR: Disband the EPA, less regulation on businesses, privatize the 'fresh water industry'.
What could possibly go wrong?

Question 9: The Internet:

BO: I promise to ensure online freedoms, granted they don't run afoul of all the new intellectual property and civilian surveillance we have/are coming up with.
Ha ha, remember when I told you I was going to veto CISPA? Suckers...

MR: The internet is for businesses to make money off of. Period. End of discussion. If you're somehow, some way preventing businesses from making as much money as possible from the internet, my administration will come down on

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:./ed by vlm · 2012-09-04 09:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

This was ... far less blatantly biased than I was expecting...

Thanks, I put in a lot of effort to sh1t on both sides roughly equally, yet basically correctly represent their answers. If there's anyone on any side whom I failed to offend, I apologize. They're both awful candidates, in their own individual different ways, so its pretty easy to make fun of them both. I've always been a fan of Mencken, nothing I write is even 1/100th as good as him at his worst, but every day I try anyway...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Wrong Reverse by jomama717 · 2012-09-04 09:17 · Score: 2

The definition of net neutrality that I accept is here, with examples of problems abound.

--
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done

Re:Here be no surprises by smitty97 · 2012-09-04 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone who refers to workers as "Human Capital" like Romney does in the first answer (and on his website) has no connection to normal humans.

--
mod me funny

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by steelfood · 2012-09-04 09:28 · Score: 2

Ok, I'll bite.

Vice-versa Obama's solution is to impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes), force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025) and even population downsizing through birth limits (not Obama's plan, but the UN's plan).

Thank's for clarifying that bit of scaremongering in parenthesis, while still looping it in with what you claim Obama "would" do.

Ok, now to pick apart the points individually:

impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes)

There's nothing wrong with carbon usage penalties, and more generally, there's nothing wrong with taxes, especially on corporations. Small businesses are where the economic growth is at. The big businesses make all the headlines, but it's the neighborhood stores that determine the health of that neighborhood. Such regulations are not going to affect small businesses very much. But they will impose severe restrictions on the actions of large businesses, and that's a damn good thing in my book.

Why would this affect large businesses more than small businesses? Because large businesses are incredibly efficient. They are as efficient at creating goods and services as they are spending natural resources to do the creation. A penalty (tax) increases the overhead of creating things. And when their overhead is so small, any increase is a significant increase. On the other hand, because small businesses are not efficient, this penalty is not going to significantly contribute to their overhead.

force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025)

Your hyperbole is showing. I'm not sure where a high mile per gallon equates to a "teeny-tiny" car. There are such things as advancements in technology, even in something as "old" as the automobile. I'm certain that by 2025, there will be plenty of cars capable of being large, and still having 54 MPG. Besides which, the limitation is on car manufacturers' offerings. It has nothing to do with your (or my) individual rights of purchasing our vehicle of choice--unless you consider a corporation an individual. It may affect the prices of larger cars. But tell me why shouldn't you pay more to pollute more? Unless you want something for nothing, which seems to be the case with people like you.

population downsizing through birth limits

I shouldn't even address this because it has NOTHING to do with Obama. You even say it yourself. But this is irrelevant to the U.S. Even with immigration, our population is holding steady, if not on a slight decline. Considering that population growth is not a problem for the U.S. and won't be so long as there a such stringent controls on immigration, wouldn't attributing that to Obama be incredibly, well, silly? You'd have been far more credible had you talked about how he's all for legalizing illegal immigrants.

If you're a libertarian, you really should be complaining about things like strong IP laws, government-sanctioned unregulated monopolies on public infrastructure, and other such intrusive government intervention into the free market. But you're not interested in small vs. big government. You're interested in promoting pro-corporate policies and denoucing anti-corporate policies.

I hope you can see far enough to know where such policies are going to end (hint: facism).

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by jd.schmidt · 2012-09-04 09:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just to be clear, the UN's sinister plan to reduce population consists of only:

Educating women to increase their personal economic choices, making birth control available and education men and women in their proper use so they can decide when to have children.

I am glad people like you are around to save us from this.

Re:Here be no surprises by MimeticLie · 2012-09-04 09:33 · Score: 5, Informative

8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama

Not sure where you got that from, but it's almost literally the opposite of what's true. From ProPublica:

Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $82,224,493
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $21,933,068
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $17,003,035
American Crossroads $12,078,463
Club for Growth Action $11,959,430
Majority PAC $10,459,928
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $7,529,620
Make Us Great Again (supports Rick Perry) $3,959,824
House Majority PAC $3,668,363
Endorse Liberty (supports Ron Paul) $3,579,627

Those are the top 10 PACs by spending. The Republican/conservative organizations are in bold. Note that the spending of all the Democrat supporting PACs comes to less than half what Restore Our Future alone has spent. Sorting PACs by contributions is similar. Obama has a lot of money behind him, but it's nothing like what Romney's got.

Re:Mitt on NASA by ganjadude · 2012-09-04 09:35 · Score: 2

they need more funding, and they need 10 year plans that dont get rewritten every election

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Here be no surprises by steelfood · 2012-09-04 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama, including the banks, lawyers, and unions, RIAA/MPAA, etc.

When you have money, you'll realize you can actually afford to buy out both sides.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Re:Here be no surprises by X0563511 · 2012-09-04 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Damn. That's a lot of cash that could have otherwise been put to useful purposes.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Sounds like the tobacco "research". by khasim · 2012-09-04 09:46 · Score: 2

ok so i guess we never should have done any research on tobacco than, everyone would still be smoking 2 packs a day, all because you want to not do research?

Yeah, reading with comprehension isn't your forte, is it?

The research on global warming has been done.
New evidence pops up every year.

The same with research on tobacco and cancer.
New cancer cases amongst smokers were popping up every year.

But let's not start doing anything to mitigate it because groups with vested interests in NOT finding a link could be doing MORE research. And still not finding any link.

Re:Here be no surprises by NatasRevol · 2012-09-04 09:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone that has $100M of net worth has no connection to normal humans.

Hey honey want to take the kids to dinner this weekend?
No, we can't, we had to buy clothes & shoes for them.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:./ed by Bam_Thwok · 2012-09-04 09:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

This Q&A is more evidence that Romney is what everybody has been calling him from the start; basically moderate, smart guy who is cunning enough to play the part needed to get into office. He's a former governor, a distinguished JD MBA, and he hasn't got a deep dark secret besides being a little too capitalistic and a little too obsequious to his Church. I don't think anyone doubts that he would be an excellent director of policy and decision-maker in chief. If there were 535 Romney's in congress who only slightly disagreed with each other on center-right versus center-left policy leanings, we'd all be far better off. But that's not what we'd get with a Romney presidency. Romney is not the leader of his party; Clint Eastwood, Paul Ryan, and Grover Norquist are. What you see in Romney's platform and tempered responses (a four point plan here, a three-pillar foundation there) is not what you will get from the Congress elected along with him should he galvanize the base enough to keep the house and win back the senate. You'd get an agenda dictated by the hard-right and the tea party, with Romney stuck signing into law bills and policies that make government less effective and militate against his reasonable goals. It's actually been pretty sad to see this Faustian bargain develop; Romney got the nomination and has a serious shot at the becoming #45 in the history books, but he's had to pander to the base of the party over which he has little if any serious sway anyway, and will be utterly subservient to their agenda while in office. A fun twist on the lame-duck phenomenon. On the flip side, the GOP gets an electable candidate, but one whose core views they know in their hearts will never really align with their own. It will be hollow, Pyrrhic victories all around.

Re:Here be no surprises by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not ironic, it's greedy. It just gives you an idea of how much these people stand to save in taxes if Romney is elected that they're putting that much money into getting him elected.

Re:Here be no surprises by X0563511 · 2012-09-04 10:02 · Score: 2

Might well be a good place to drop this link...

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by PraiseBob · 2012-09-04 10:08 · Score: 3, Informative

It's entirely possible the globe will go +2 degrees and nothing much will happen to the earth at all.

Except that research has shown a link between AGW and unusual droughts of the past few years. It seems at least possible that the unusual weather patterns contributed to the extreme midwest drought of this summer. Corn production is down anywhere from 15-50%, Soybean production is down 10-40%. (Still being harvested, so estimates vary greatly)

So 2 degrees has resulted in "nothing much" except massive amounts of food in the country vanishing. It won't affect America much this year, but you can expect revolutions around the world based on high food prices this winter.

FYI: Isaac Asimov quote by FranklinWebber · 2012-09-04 10:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Isaac Asimov quote from a column in Newsweek - Jan 21st, 1980

'There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."'

Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c93xs/antiintellectualism_has_been_a_constant_thread/

Re:Here be no surprises by SolitaryMan · 2012-09-04 10:53 · Score: 2

Economists don't understand people. Way bigger problem.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth

Re:Here be no surprises by Genda · 2012-09-04 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

You live is this strange thing called a society. You went to its schools, you drive its roads, you use the water and sewers that run to the place you live. We have places like Mogadishu or the bush in central Africa where you and you money can go and have a lovely time all by your selves. Just don't yell when a lion eats you or a bandit shoots you, because you won't be able to protect yourself with your money (save the purchase of a lion gun.)

If you really are someone completely out for themselves, with no interest is creating a cohesive society that looks after others and creates a strong and workable infrastructure for the benefit of that society, by all means, find yourself and island an go away nobody's stopping you depending on how much island you can afford. The rest of us look at the cost having a society capable of providing the basic needs for all or most, such that we can work together to create something even greater. I don't see that as an evil or a wrong. Of course the current government does use money in ways I don't agree, so I vote scallywags out whenever I get the chance.

Re:Here be no surprises by erroneus · 2012-09-04 11:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

We're talk about fair shares. Presently, the burdens are dreadfully imbalanced. Take away the priviledges and loopholes and all the extra crap and let's all get some equality. Then we can talk about wanting to hold onto what we "earn."

And seriously. "Income" is money which comes through commerce. Wages are NOT income. They are an equal trade of work for pay. You want to talk about "earning" don't talk about people doing commerce. They didn't work for it -- their employees did and they got paid for their services. The rest is income which should be taxable... payroll should not be.

What bugs me more than the wealthy who want to keep their money (I totally understand that) are the people who are not wealthy who want to protect the interests of the wealthy because they hope to somehow be wealthy one day. (A very poor chance of that happening statistically speaking.)

People should keep what they earn. Investment money is not earned money. Money through running a business? Somewhere in betweenm but there's a LOT of grey area in there isn't there?

Re:Here be no surprises by erroneus · 2012-09-04 11:02 · Score: 2

Human capital is slavery. I can't see another possible interpretation. To have capital, it must be owned. Who owns these humans he refers to?

Re:Here be no surprises by Xeranar · 2012-09-04 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Funny how it's the racist party trying to defend their agenda. Obama was talking about infrastructure and basic Keynesian economics prove it true. Government investment in infrastructure allows businesses to succeed. In all honesty though your perception of redistribution is broken. Those who own a business rely on others for success. Now the Republicans are lying about what the statement means while avoiding the obvious philosophical issue that they're constantly running from.

LMSTFY by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 11:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Summarized:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012 ...

1. What policies will you be putting in place that will keep America an Innovation leader?
O - Doubling funding to key research agencies
O - Goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers (science, technology engineering math) - with the goal of 1 Million new STEM graduates

M - Raise visa caps to allow for more foreign workers
M - Offer permanent residence to foreign knowledge workers
M - Reduce taxes on corporations
M - More vigorously defend intellectual property rights abroad
M - Deregulate industry
M - Ambiguous education reform

2. Climate Change. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
O - Policies that lead to the growth of using alternative energy
O - Already limited greenhouse emissions from vehicles
O - Large investments in green energy
O - Reduce emissions within federal government
O - Reduced dependency on oil (Claim is already readuced 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, US is at a 20 year low)

M - Believes in climate change, and that human activity is a contributor, though because of "lack of scientific consensus" believes the next step is more debate / investigation
M - Believes that Obama policy will "bankrupt the coal industry" (poor guys)
M - Opposed to carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems
M - Supports government funded research on low-emission technology
M - Supports investment in nuclear power

3. What priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
O - Strong support
O - Current level is 3% of GDP, which is higher then the level achieved during space race
O - Created Recovery Act, - $100 Billion dollars in research spending / education / training / etc. $90 Billion of which was devoted to clean energy.
* Plans to make R&D tax credit permanent

M - Strong supporter as well
M - Critical of where money gets spent, would divy it up differently
M - Does not list actual intentions

4. OHMEGERD Bird flu.
O - Chill. We got it.

M - Further investment in public health monitoring systems (?)
M - Reduced restrictions on FDA

5. Our kids suck at science. How do we fix it?
O - Educate to innovate program, 100,000 STEM teachers

M - Spending ineffective
M - Teachers unions bad
M - Wants more choice for parents as to which schools their children go to
M - Higher standards (More national tests?)

6. Energy. What policies?
O - "All of the above" energy approach (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc.)
O - Since taking office Solar / Wind production doubled
O - World leader in natural gas production (100 year supply quoted)

M - Goal energy independence within a decade
M - Allow states to make decisions regarding energy resources on federal land within their borders
M - Open Off-shore drilling
M - Energy partnership with North america NAEP
M - Use federal money for performing energy surveys
M - restore "transparency and fairness" to permitting and regulation
M - Federal money for private sector energy research

7. Food Safety?
O - Signed comprehensive food safety law reform
O - Increased FDA funding
O - Believes in Organic farming

M - Encourages more "private" participation in regulation process

8. Fresh Water.
O - Grants to water conversation projects
O - Invested in waste water treatment infrastructure

M - Modernize federal laws governing water use
M - Incentives

9. Teh webz.
O - Free / Open internet essential (Net Neutrality)
O - Supports intellectual property law, as long as it doesn't hamper freedom of expression, or undermine innovation
O - Strengthen Cybersecurity, and data confidentiality

M - Believes government should not regulate internet, but should be left to "Mark

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

Re:Here be no surprises by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 11:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Somebody who looks and sounds a hell of a lot like Obama said it on July 13, 2012.

Wow, you actually linked to a video that included the context of the quote but completely failed to notice that context. I can kind of understand those people who were too incurious to find out the context, but that's not you. You found the context and you pretended it wasn't there.

I am genuinely curious - what is going on in your head that lets you do that and not feel like an outright liar? Is it just blinding partisanship? Or do you do the same thing with the context of Romeny quotes such as, "I like being able to fire people?"

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Here be no surprises by Neon+Crossing · 2012-09-04 11:18 · Score: 2

The antecedent for "that" is not "a business," but rather "roads and bridges" and other infrastructure.

--
-NC

Flamebait by englishknnigits · 2012-09-04 11:24 · Score: 2

That website looks to basically be an atheist flame bait and venting forum. One of the poll headlines says "even religious voters overwhelmingly want the candidates to debate science." Even? Seriously? If 80% of the population of the world (the religious population) was anti-science then there would be little to no scientific progress.
Will atheists please stop confusing real/perceived ignorance of an area(s) of science or rejection of some specific subsection of science with being anti-science in general? It is complete and utter nonsense that does absolutely no one any form of good. All it does is piss people off and create larger divides. If someone is wrong, tell them why they are wrong and rise above the childish name calling.
To try and prove yourselves correct about all the "anti-science" religious people, find actual religious people (it won't be hard, you are surrounded by them) and ask them if they think science is important and if they think science is a bad thing. I have never met someone who is "anti-science" in my entire life and most people would be hard pressed to find even a single person like that yet alone a large segment of the religious population. Sure, there are Amish people, and others, that may fit the bill but that is not representative of the majority of religious populations. Stop fantasizing about yourselves standing on a pillar of science looking down on the religious dolts and actually ground yourselves in at least a small dose of reality that you claim to have such an amazing grasp on.
Yeah, this is a bit trolly and flamebaitish but most of that website, the basis of this thread, is even more so. The basic idea that website is founded on is a very good thing, we need more public discussion about these issues. The presentation, insinuations, and tone are downright shameful.

Re:Here be no surprises by tomhath · 2012-09-04 11:30 · Score: 2

You obviously don't know what the term Human Capital means:

Human capital is the stock of competencies, knowledge, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

The term has no degrading or evil connotations, quite the opposite actually. Obama fumbles around mentioning skills and education, he just doesn't know the proper term to describe them, which is "Human Capital".

Re:Here be no surprises by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 11:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Might well be a good place to drop this link...

I think that idea is misguided populism. The problem isn't that "corporrations are people too" or that "money is speech" - the problem is the corrupting influence that money brings with it (which, is something I think applies everywhere not just politics, but that's a discussion for another time and place).

I like Lawrence Lessig's idea that we might as well embrace these concepts since they are so popular with the people with influence and they at least give us a framework to build on. His idea is to use these concepts in a form of judo - let people and corps donate all the money they want to politicians, but make them do it anonymously. In short, put all the donated money into a "black box" and then (a) let donors secretly rescind their donations if they want and (b) require the politicians to take all of the donations out of the black box in one big chunk after some period of time.

The idea is to disconnect the money from the influence - you can promise a politician that you are giving a million dollars, but you can't prove it. There is no restriction on speech at all - you can "say" all you want with words or money. You just can't tie the two together in a provable fashion.

Apparently something like this system was tried in an election for judges in south florida - the result was that none of the candidates got a single dime.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:./ed by sonicmerlin · 2012-09-04 11:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Uh... given that scientists are an insanely tiny minority of the population and contribute the vast majority of human advancement... I would rather fund them in excess.

Re:Here be no surprises by tomhath · 2012-09-04 11:52 · Score: 2

Unfortunately PACS are only the tip of the iceberg. Individuals like the Koch brothers and George Soros, and organizations like the Tides Foundation pass hundreds of millions of dollars through to smaller organizations that actually spend the money, hiding the source and amount that the original donors are actually spending.

Tides alone probably gives more to liberal causes than all the PACs listed above give to conservatives.

Re:Here be no surprises by Black+Parrot · 2012-09-04 12:03 · Score: 2

You obviously don't know what the term Human Capital means:

Human capital is the stock of competencies, knowledge, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

The term has no degrading or evil connotations [snip]

Except people are willing to invest it and write it off, just like money. Or more willing than for money, when it comes to writing it off.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Will will happen has been seen already by Nugoo · 2012-09-04 12:17 · Score: 2

Why don't you ask the local governments that MAKE them monopolies. Them being monopolies is NOT NATURAL.

How do you figure? It was never illegal to start a new ISP. Like all infrastructure, it does naturally become a monopoly. After all, it doesn't make sense to have multiple companies each running cable to your house so you can choose your favourite. In fact, a few local governments have been sued by ISP's for trying to break their monopolies.

And it was MARKET FORCES that stopped Comcast, when they were found out they shut that down.

Not quite. In fact, the opposite. Granted, Comcast appealed the decision, and won, but it was the FCC that stopped them, not the market.

What has yet to be shown to any reasonable degree is why it is preferable to let the government dictate what goes over a network.

Ideally, net neutrality legislation wouldn't dictate what goes over a network. It would instead prevent ISP's from dictating what goes over their networks.

--
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.

Re:Here be no surprises by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-09-04 12:25 · Score: 2

I'm quite comfortable with my interpretation of his words. It's consistent with his view of government as the great provider.

I think it is more accurate to say that your interpretation of his words is consistent with your beliefs about obama - its all pretty ironic since you started off lamenting the careless use of words to belittle the opposition.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Romney has an interesting point on Climate Change by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-09-04 13:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.

Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.

Re:Here be no surprises by gmhowell · 2012-09-04 13:47 · Score: 2

I think you missed the importance of the word 'net'. If someone is barely making the mortgage on a million dollar house, they most certainly don't have a net worth of $1 million. If the house is worth $1 million and the mortgage is for $900,000, the net worth is, at best, $100,000.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Here be no surprises by Artifakt · 2012-09-04 14:35 · Score: 2

When Warren Buffett noticed that he was paying a lower rate than his secretary, that's a connection to a normal human being, right there. When Bill Gates explains why he'd rather focus his foundation on malaria than some of the diseases that mostly affect people with enough income to fund more research themsleves, that's a connection to some normal human beings (whether you would make the same choice or not, it's not like he doesn't understand the facts there). There are plenty of rich people who have a connection to 'normal' human beings, and a few of them actually seem pretty normal themselves. Then there's the ones who seem totally out of touch, regardless of whether they have 1 Million or a thousand million, or more.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Re:Here be no surprises by DigiShaman · 2012-09-04 15:24 · Score: 2

Except all Obama and his party have done is move money in all the wrong fucking places. We have nothing to show for our infrastructure because nothing was really spent on it. Corporate welfare to the too-big-too-fail banks helps who exactly? That, and the feds blank check to print money which in turn devalues savings held by the private citizen. The Keynesian opportunity has been an epic failure!

And I don't care if Republicans get elected, the damage has been done. Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea could launch an ICBM at Washington DC and I can bet you that a large percentage of America wouldn't give two shits. In fact, many might silently cheer. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Ya, our nation is fucked!

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Here be no surprises by MimeticLie · 2012-09-04 16:37 · Score: 2

The poster I was replying to was talking about those PACs "funding" Obama. I took that to mean spending money. If you want to just discuss money raised, that's fine. It's largely the same groups, but actually skewed more towards Republicans when you consider the warchest American Crossroads is sitting on. From the same ProPublica link:

Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $89,654,176
American Crossroads $40,063,638
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $24,739,392
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $23,908,055
Club for Growth Action $13,168,041
Majority PAC $11,648,736
House Majority PAC $9,268,191
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $8,388,547
American Bridge 21st Century PAC $7,890,414
Congressional Leadership Fund $6,511,401

So 6/10 are Republican supporting, but the funding breakdown is $181,693,858 for Republicans, $53,546,733 for Democrats.

Re:Here be no surprises by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-04 17:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a completely valid series of points.

This is one of the situations that really aggravates me. So many are operating on these distilled little platitudes that are supposed to represent greater ideologies, and applying them in a way that's completely uncompromising. And as we hear every day, compromising what you believe in is the same as weakness of will. Right?

So we get people that were lured by ideas of personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism spouting nonsense about how we need to remove all regulation, and let the markets sort things out. Or we get people throwing trash cans through a Starbucks because they think we should have let our largest financial institutions fail. God forbid anyone take a second and realize that sanity is usually somewhere in the miles of middle ground between any two textbook ideologies.

I wish we had the time and inclination to actually improve our collective quality of life through careful consideration. Instead we shout at each other, and say awful, untrue things. Meanwhile, we don't accomplish much of anything for our own benefit.

I'm no advocate for any kind of authoritarian rule, but sometimes I wish I had the ability to just freeze this circus in its tracks, and get people to talk to each other like civilized human beings.

Re:Here be no surprises by Burning1 · 2012-09-04 17:53 · Score: 2

Here is the actual context of the quote, rather than your out of context quote:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Pretty much anyone who's given speeches in public without a teleprompter can tell you that sometimes we trip up. The context and the meaning of the quote is pretty obvious.

Re:Romney has an interesting point on Climate Chan by sumdumass · 2012-09-04 20:48 · Score: 2

That was one the major rejections about Kyoto Protocol.

As Europe lowered its emissions, it also increased imports from China and India. They may not be related, but it looks that way.

Re:Here be no surprises by sumdumgai · 2012-09-05 04:10 · Score: 2

You are parroting the Republican idea that there is this huge population of lazy people that don't want to work and want handouts. Could you post a link to some research that supports this conclusion? I hear the claim all of the time, but I just don't believe that the hardworking Americans turned lazy in January of 2008.

--
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein

Re:mormons by iluvcapra · 2012-09-05 04:51 · Score: 2

Considering that if Obama were hellbent on destroying the country his actions would be indistinguishable from his current policies I'll roll the dice.

I'm beginning to wonder if jmorris42 isn't a real person, but is a rogue AI that's built its entire knowledge of politics out of Jon McNaughton paintings.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:Fuck me. Romney has a case of.. by mlrtime · 2012-09-05 07:54 · Score: 2

Thank you for proving poe's law

Re:./ed by Ear+Phantom · 2012-09-05 11:22 · Score: 2

I thought I was the only one who saw that Mitt Romney's answer to everything was to bash Obama...about entirely everything else but the question being asked.

I encourage everyone to do themselves a favor: count the number of negative things each candidate has to say and then tally it up.

Slashdot Mirror

Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire

132 of 608 comments (clear)