I'm not sure she does not belong on the list but I am sure if someon goes on that list there better be a process and specific reason:
It could be that her belief that those who destroy property in protest should not be arrested
"There has been some controversy about a quote from me that... implied that I was calling for the arrest of those people who destroyed property in downtown Seattle during the WTO protest. I want to make it clear that the quote was distorted, taken out of context, and not reflective my true feelings. I did not call for the arrest of anyone..."
Then again maybe she has no business on the list but there needs to be an audit trail either way..
Im sorry people who rent don't own the building and the person who does own it is running a business. Its his property, his livelihood. Its wrong for him to *have* to provide for other services but should he wish to thats is ok.
"How about Larry Craig's arrest for "disorderly conduct""
Soliciting sex in a public place? Thats clearly civil and not religious. I doubt youll find too many atheist who are ok with people trying to hook up for sexual favors in the MSP airport..
"since the Supreme Court threw out sodomy laws, you can't just arrest people for being gay, you have to stretch some other law to make it fit"
This was not about being gay this is about public Sex and I know a *whole* lotta gay people who would find your implication that Gay = Public anonymous sex extremely offensive..
"Revolution means throwing out the ones in charge and disregarding the constitution, in an effort to get a fresh start and do things over."
Elections mean throwing people out as well *and* our constitution can be changed. If we replaced 66% of both houses with people that wanted X in the constitution or Y removed it could be done. The idea that a populace who cant manage this feat will do any better starting a new government from scratch is absolutely ludicrous, you'll end up with the same folks and agendas ruling the day except this time they will get to write *all* the rules. Revolutions are needed when there are not real meaningful elections because when you have real meaningful elections and a living governing document you can always change it.
Revolution are almost *never* without blood, and allot of blood. If the US govt suspends elections then blood it is, until then Americans have no reason to complain they have the government we deserve. If politicians are taking too much money from lobbyist well *stop* electing them.
John Edwards has never taken a dime from corporate lobbyist yet he trails Hillary (who takes more from lobbyist than anyone else (D or R) running. Its clear that those on the democratic side who scream about needing to change the system don't really give a damn about it.
On the republican side the only man talking about smaller government is Ron Paul and despite good fund raising he is getting killed.. Its clear the republicans who want smaller government are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.. But heck at least Mitt has nice hair right?
"It's an opportunity to get rid of corrupt people and institutions, to change the way you do basic things (such as the electoral college), to cut away parts of the law no longer in use."
You don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water. The EC can easily be dismantled in many ways.
1) Amend the constitution (elect 66% of people who *want* to get rid of it) 2) Each state can decide to award their electors based on the ratio of the popular vote 3) States can get together and decide to award all electors to the person who wins nationally
None of which put at risk say, the establishment clause. If you throw out the whole constitution the liberties protected by the bill of rights are on the table.
FWIW I like the electoral college but not electors as such. The best system I think is the one in use be Main and Nebraska where in the candidate who wins each district get that elector and the person who wins the state gets the two extra electors.
really! Can you please point out to me an instance of someone being convicted of fornication? Or is this just another instance of 'because you say so'
"You can talk about how the law is supposed to work all you want, but the reality is that judges often go against what is written down, and what has gone through the legal channels."
I'm open to you posting a case where someone was convicted of fornication, working on Sunday, blasphemy,... Some judges go against what is written down by siting foreign law (it has happened) Guess we better get rid of the UN, its contaminating out justice system.
"The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution is a perfect example. District Attorneys are well known for pointing out that they do not prosecute all crimes, but decide what prosecution is in the best interest of the public, so if they decide that the ten commandments are the law of the land, they make their choices based on those, and thus circumvent the written law."
More like DA's usually decide 'is wasting time going after jaywalkers in the public interest' or else maybe you can post a case where someone was convicted of a crime which was off the books 'like fornication, or working on Sunday' but is a Christian belief... P.S. I would be *really* beneficial to your cause if you posted something in a district with a dreaded monument. BTW what a US DA deciding that A is not worth going after but B is has to do with the The interstate commerce clause is beyond me..
"Since a courthouse is generally considered a legitimate source of information concerning the law, the average citizen will understandably believe that when they see laws engraved in stone on the front steps of a courthouse, that those laws apply to our country."
You may think the average person is a rube who cant discern that even though a monument says I cant do any work on Sunday (including cooking and cleaning) that NFL players are not committing a crime. I think a little more highly of people, and your inability to cite one case prosecuted on the sabbath or blasphemy does not put allot behind your speculation.
"Poor attempt at straw man fallacies."
Not at all your claim is monument makes defacto law. My position is that neither the presence nor absence of a monument circumvents the defined legal process. I submit that some people, at times, can and will put their opinion or beliefs above the law regardless of a monument and your inability to find a single case where that has actually happened is quite telling.
"All good arguments against putting religious stuff there in the first place. "
Wow nice reality you're living in
Person A: The monument has never affected the practice of Justice Person B: Exactly why we need to remove it, its screwing with church/state by not doing anything!
If the judge had sworn an oath to uphold the constitution I would not be offended by the monuments presence..
BTW can anyone show me an instance of the 10 commandments being applied in the court while the monument was up? Seriously? was one person convicted of say not taking a day of rest? adultery? Disrespecting elders?
Maybe even as an aside... well Mr smith I don't have any evidence you stole anything but you were working on sunday and you used the lords name in vein while being arrested.. So 90 days..
Multiple states are deciding that parents should not be able to decided that something is too offensive or goes against their faith. The state is imposing something on these kids. See California bill (SB 777). There are other such laws, measures, and policies. We have seen on this thread the attitude that if you believe in God you should not be able to serve in office..
So long as it was a monument and not law I could care less. If a community of Muslims wanted to put a display for Ramadan in a local park I would also be sans conniption fit..
"Well, you would be wrong. When you place a tablet with religious laws at the steps of a courthouse, you are making a declaration that those are the laws of the land."
So I guess by having the ten commandments in the supreme courthouse of the US fornication is illegal?
"People who enter that courthouse see them as officially sanction, which they are."
Using what precedent? Laws in the US are passed by congress, signed by the president and vetted by the courts please let me know how a monument on court property circumvents this process? you can claim it all you want but monument != law..
"Those that agree with them start to take an attitude that it is ok to follow these religious laws when carrying out their state duties, even when they disagree with the states laws."
Protesters / Looters at the wto meeting in Seattle a few years back decided to follow their beliefs even though they contradict law and the did it *gasp* without a monument telling them it was ok. Muslims (some) in Canada and England are pushing for Sharia law courts *gasp* without a monument and fornication was not made illegal in Alabama even *gasp* with a monument. People will always thing their way is above the law regardless of weather or not their way is religious or *gasp* enforced by a monument.
"Why do you feel that your God has to (a) deceive His creation, and (b) stick to "small tasks"? Why is He restricted to something that you can imagine?"
I don't think he has to do either a, or b. I think he choses to do what he will.
"Why not a God clever enough to set up a few fundamental physical constants, rules of mathematics, and something too interesting for me to imagine, hit the "run" button on the universe (maybe it was labeled "let there be light"), and let the whole thing run on nothing but physics for 13.7 billion years. 9.2 billion years into the run, a solar system forms that includes a planet."
Because thats not how he chose to do it. Now if I stand before him and he says BTW those periods of time mentioned in Genesis are actually about 750K years each (or 2.2 Billion years each) It would not change his nature.
"Why do you subject God to the limits of your lack of imagination?"
This is where we are going to hit a wall in this discussion. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I dont subject God to any limits I just read his word and gleam what I can from it.
"Science is just the game we play with God to figure out what His rules are."
I can agree with that science is not evil its a gift to see just how complex and beautiful God made everything
"Of course, that just means we humans have more interesting questions that we can't yet answer. Doesn't mean we can't stop trying."
Please don't confuse my belief as being anti science. Even the theories I don't believe has value in understanding the natural world..
"Why do you feel that your God has to (a) deceive His creation, and (b) stick to "small tasks"? Why is He restricted to something that you can imagine?"
I don't think he has to do either a, or b. I think he choses to do what he will.
"Why not a God clever enough to set up a few fundamental physical constants, rules of mathematics, and something too interesting for me to imagine, hit the "run" button on the universe (maybe it was labeled "let there be light"), and let the whole thing run on nothing but physics for 13.7 billion years. 9.2 billion years into the run, a solar system forms that includes a planet."
Because thats not how he chose to do it. Now if I stand before him and he says BTW those periods of time mentioned in Genesis are actually about 750K years each (or 2.2 Billion years each) It would not change his nature.
"Why do you subject God to the limits of your lack of imagination?"
This is where we are going to hit a wall in this discussion. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I dont subject God to any limits I just read his word and gleam what I can from it.
"Science is just the game we play with God to figure out what His rules are."
I can agree with that science is not evil its a gift to see just how complex and beautiful God made everything
"Of course, that just means we humans have more interesting questions that we can't yet answer. Doesn't mean we can't stop trying."
Please don't confuse my belief as being anti science. Even the theories I don't believe has value in understanding the natural world..
"As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck."
Right because you're progressive enough to think that people who believe something other than you should be shut out of the government..
"I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening"."
Lol I love this "I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God" you leave out 'but if you do I don't think should be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck'. Obviously you do have a problem with people who believe in God well, that would be any God that does not fit into what can be weighed, measured, or categorized.. I'm sure if I said 'I believe in some superior force, or heck maybe just 'the force' you would be able to vote for me as a dog catcher or something. But because I believe in a God who does not fit with evolution I'm basically, in your eyes, just someone who should be stuck into the worker caste until I pass away and rot.
"What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening"."
You confuse not listening with (a) not understanding or (b) believing. I can listen to and understand everything you say and just not believe it. The ability to believe beyond what can be seen or measured is not something that should exclude one from being an executive administrator.
"The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion."
Not really, I don't have to reconcile anything with my belief system. Be the earth 10 thousand or 4.5 Billion years old hold no bearing on my ability in 2007 to administrate a company or protect peoples basic rights. Rights which you seem to have little respect for.
'm not normally a grammar nazi, but damn... of homonyms for "You're"
.
Bad keyboard, it did not put in the 'r' and for some reason I missed it on edit.. Dont need the lesson but its nice to know some people never publish a typo, keep up the good work..
Its called our history for some reason the ten commandments are ok in the supreme court but dang it if we don't have to start hauling away monuments around state courts.. Id hardly consider a monument in Alabama a real leg up for Christians anywhere. (BTW many of these monuments were not tax payer funded)
"Boy am I glad the courts house in $City has those tablets, it sure helped me oppress a minority today..
" - The place of Evolution in public education - The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths - The impact and possible solutions to global warming - The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research - The importance of spending money on pure science - The direction for institutions such as NASA "
"The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths"... why restrict this to scientific truths? what about fiscal, legal, and ethical truths... #2 belongs in a general debate because if you'll lie about scientific data you'll lie about employment data *and* vice versa..
"The impact and possible solutions to global warming" this impacts Business, Environment, and even states rights and that is the aspect the is actually important to from the citizens perspective General debate
"The direction for institutions such as NASA" NASA also has other aspects to it other than scientific, this is again economic and the like
"Stem cell research" Science can be morally and ethically neutral, this issue can not as much as some want to separate this from the Abortion / Life debate it cant be done
Yore left with science funding and evolution in education (and even that has a serious states rights aspect to it)... You really want a debate focused on those two things?
Frankly I find issue centered debates to be a tad worthless its nice to make candidates say in the same debate 'Im going to do X and Y and Z' where the law of limited resources has some importance.
Nobody who denies scientific facts should be voted president
I'm curious... Why? Some scientist make a killing fighting scientific 'facts'? If youre going to write current understanding of the physical world ont two stone tablets and label anyone who does not believe them all a heretic... well you see where this is going..
The problem is your post did not say if *X* does not understand science, you said the 'deny science' this attitude is an awful thing. The president is an administrator, the head of my company does not know jack about computers but hires people who do to take care of that aspect.
As a Christian I don't believe evolution, I think that if God could form a fully grown and mature man from the earth it would be a small task for him to form a fully mature (including geological features) earth. That being said I understand the theory and have a better grasp on scientific concepts than Bill Clinton (or Hillary) ever did, my career in in the sciences.
I am not advocating an armed revolution. I *am* advocating passive demonstrations against these abhorrent policies, typified by FEMA's sham news conference.
None of which require overhauling the constitution (save maybe adding term limits to legislators) to stop career politicians.
Next revolution is in a little over 12 months..
The electoral cycles give Americans a chance to replace one half the the legislative branch every 730 days. Now if they were foolish enough to believe what the dems were telling them in 2006 would you really want a violent revolution putting a few in power who made promises with the task of replacing the whole structure of government?
Seriously?
The current structure works just fine, its the folks we keep sending to DC to implement it thats FUBAR
Its that way *everywhere* if you're connected and rich you get some advantages but that does not squareness's success, if you're poor and not well connected you don't get such advantages but that does not guarantee failure.
The last election feature two presidential candidates neither of whom got there solely on merit, the same was true of 2000 (Al gore field out of law and divinity school).
Who got there starting from poverty? Well Regan and Clinton (to appease the left and the right reading this) both come to mind. Both were rich(ish) and powerful when they ran for the white house but both had earned that power and wealth themselves. You don't have to start life in a rich powerful family to be president, but it sure helps.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure she does not belong on the list but I am sure if someon goes on that list there better be a process and specific reason:
It could be that her belief that those who destroy property in protest should not be arrested
"There has been some controversy about a quote from me that... implied that I was calling for the arrest of those people who destroyed property in downtown Seattle during the WTO protest. I want to make it clear that the quote was distorted, taken out of context, and not reflective my true feelings. I did not call for the arrest of anyone..."
Then again maybe she has no business on the list but there needs to be an audit trail either way..
Im sorry people who rent don't own the building and the person who does own it is running a business. Its his property, his livelihood. Its wrong for him to *have* to provide for other services but should he wish to thats is ok.
"And the link I posted?"
Honestly Im not seeing the link can you repost?
"How about Larry Craig's arrest for "disorderly conduct""
Soliciting sex in a public place? Thats clearly civil and not religious. I doubt youll find too many atheist who are ok with people trying to hook up for sexual favors in the MSP airport..
"since the Supreme Court threw out sodomy laws, you can't just arrest people for being gay, you have to stretch some other law to make it fit"
This was not about being gay this is about public Sex and I know a *whole* lotta gay people who would find your implication that Gay = Public anonymous sex extremely offensive..
http://zardozz.com/zz/2007/08/woman-arrested-for-public-sex-with-man.html
apparently they go after good old sanctions male female relations as well
"Revolution means throwing out the ones in charge and disregarding the constitution, in an effort to get a fresh start and do things over."
Elections mean throwing people out as well *and* our constitution can be changed. If we replaced 66% of both houses with people that wanted X in the constitution or Y removed it could be done. The idea that a populace who cant manage this feat will do any better starting a new government from scratch is absolutely ludicrous, you'll end up with the same folks and agendas ruling the day except this time they will get to write *all* the rules. Revolutions are needed when there are not real meaningful elections because when you have real meaningful elections and a living governing document you can always change it.
Revolution are almost *never* without blood, and allot of blood. If the US govt suspends elections then blood it is, until then Americans have no reason to complain they have the government we deserve. If politicians are taking too much money from lobbyist well *stop* electing them.
John Edwards has never taken a dime from corporate lobbyist yet he trails Hillary (who takes more from lobbyist than anyone else (D or R) running. Its clear that those on the democratic side who scream about needing to change the system don't really give a damn about it.
On the republican side the only man talking about smaller government is Ron Paul and despite good fund raising he is getting killed.. Its clear the republicans who want smaller government are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.. But heck at least Mitt has nice hair right?
"It's an opportunity to get rid of corrupt people and institutions, to change the way you do basic things (such as the electoral college), to cut away parts of the law no longer in use."
You don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water. The EC can easily be dismantled in many ways.
1) Amend the constitution (elect 66% of people who *want* to get rid of it)
2) Each state can decide to award their electors based on the ratio of the popular vote
3) States can get together and decide to award all electors to the person who wins nationally
None of which put at risk say, the establishment clause. If you throw out the whole constitution the liberties protected by the bill of rights are on the table.
FWIW I like the electoral college but not electors as such. The best system I think is the one in use be Main and Nebraska where in the candidate who wins each district get that elector and the person who wins the state gets the two extra electors.
Then shurly if it happens this much someone can find a case where it did and post a link..
"Yes. It is."
... Some judges go against what is written down by siting foreign law (it has happened) Guess we better get rid of the UN, its contaminating out justice system.
really! Can you please point out to me an instance of someone being convicted of fornication? Or is this just another instance of 'because you say so'
"You can talk about how the law is supposed to work all you want, but the reality is that judges often go against what is written down, and what has gone through the legal channels."
I'm open to you posting a case where someone was convicted of fornication, working on Sunday, blasphemy,
"The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution is a perfect example. District Attorneys are well known for pointing out that they do not prosecute all crimes, but decide what prosecution is in the best interest of the public, so if they decide that the ten commandments are the law of the land, they make their choices based on those, and thus circumvent the written law."
More like DA's usually decide 'is wasting time going after jaywalkers in the public interest' or else maybe you can post a case where someone was convicted of a crime which was off the books 'like fornication, or working on Sunday' but is a Christian belief... P.S. I would be *really* beneficial to your cause if you posted something in a district with a dreaded monument. BTW what a US DA deciding that A is not worth going after but B is has to do with the The interstate commerce clause is beyond me..
"Since a courthouse is generally considered a legitimate source of information concerning the law, the average citizen will understandably believe that when they see laws engraved in stone on the front steps of a courthouse, that those laws apply to our country."
You may think the average person is a rube who cant discern that even though a monument says I cant do any work on Sunday (including cooking and cleaning) that NFL players are not committing a crime. I think a little more highly of people, and your inability to cite one case prosecuted on the sabbath or blasphemy does not put allot behind your speculation.
"Poor attempt at straw man fallacies."
Not at all your claim is monument makes defacto law. My position is that neither the presence nor absence of a monument circumvents the defined legal process. I submit that some people, at times, can and will put their opinion or beliefs above the law regardless of a monument and your inability to find a single case where that has actually happened is quite telling.
"All good arguments against putting religious stuff there in the first place. "
Wow nice reality you're living in
Person A: The monument has never affected the practice of Justice
Person B: Exactly why we need to remove it, its screwing with church/state by not doing anything!
If youre going to quote me and say I provided no example please quote the example I included "See California bill (SB 777)"
If the judge had sworn an oath to uphold the constitution I would not be offended by the monuments presence.. BTW can anyone show me an instance of the 10 commandments being applied in the court while the monument was up? Seriously? was one person convicted of say not taking a day of rest? adultery? Disrespecting elders? Maybe even as an aside... well Mr smith I don't have any evidence you stole anything but you were working on sunday and you used the lords name in vein while being arrested.. So 90 days..
Multiple states are deciding that parents should not be able to decided that something is too offensive or goes against their faith. The state is imposing something on these kids. See California bill (SB 777). There are other such laws, measures, and policies. We have seen on this thread the attitude that if you believe in God you should not be able to serve in office..
So long as it was a monument and not law I could care less. If a community of Muslims wanted to put a display for Ramadan in a local park I would also be sans conniption fit..
"Well, you would be wrong. When you place a tablet with religious laws at the steps of a courthouse, you are making a declaration that those are the laws of the land."
So I guess by having the ten commandments in the supreme courthouse of the US fornication is illegal?
"People who enter that courthouse see them as officially sanction, which they are."
Using what precedent? Laws in the US are passed by congress, signed by the president and vetted by the courts please let me know how a monument on court property circumvents this process? you can claim it all you want but monument != law..
"Those that agree with them start to take an attitude that it is ok to follow these religious laws when carrying out their state duties, even when they disagree with the states laws."
Protesters / Looters at the wto meeting in Seattle a few years back decided to follow their beliefs even though they contradict law and the did it *gasp* without a monument telling them it was ok. Muslims (some) in Canada and England are pushing for Sharia law courts *gasp* without a monument and fornication was not made illegal in Alabama even *gasp* with a monument. People will always thing their way is above the law regardless of weather or not their way is religious or *gasp* enforced by a monument.
"Why do you feel that your God has to (a) deceive His creation, and (b) stick to "small tasks"? Why is He restricted to something that you can imagine?"
I don't think he has to do either a, or b. I think he choses to do what he will.
"Why not a God clever enough to set up a few fundamental physical constants, rules of mathematics, and something too interesting for me to imagine, hit the "run" button on the universe (maybe it was labeled "let there be light"), and let the whole thing run on nothing but physics for 13.7 billion years. 9.2 billion years into the run, a solar system forms that includes a planet."
Because thats not how he chose to do it. Now if I stand before him and he says BTW those periods of time mentioned in Genesis are actually about 750K years each (or 2.2 Billion years each) It would not change his nature.
"Why do you subject God to the limits of your lack of imagination?"
This is where we are going to hit a wall in this discussion. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I dont subject God to any limits I just read his word and gleam what I can from it.
"Science is just the game we play with God to figure out what His rules are."
I can agree with that science is not evil its a gift to see just how complex and beautiful God made everything
"Of course, that just means we humans have more interesting questions that we can't yet answer. Doesn't mean we can't stop trying."
Please don't confuse my belief as being anti science. Even the theories I don't believe has value in understanding the natural world..
"Why do you feel that your God has to (a) deceive His creation, and (b) stick to "small tasks"? Why is He restricted to something that you can imagine?" I don't think he has to do either a, or b. I think he choses to do what he will. "Why not a God clever enough to set up a few fundamental physical constants, rules of mathematics, and something too interesting for me to imagine, hit the "run" button on the universe (maybe it was labeled "let there be light"), and let the whole thing run on nothing but physics for 13.7 billion years. 9.2 billion years into the run, a solar system forms that includes a planet." Because thats not how he chose to do it. Now if I stand before him and he says BTW those periods of time mentioned in Genesis are actually about 750K years each (or 2.2 Billion years each) It would not change his nature. "Why do you subject God to the limits of your lack of imagination?" This is where we are going to hit a wall in this discussion. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I dont subject God to any limits I just read his word and gleam what I can from it. "Science is just the game we play with God to figure out what His rules are." I can agree with that science is not evil its a gift to see just how complex and beautiful God made everything "Of course, that just means we humans have more interesting questions that we can't yet answer. Doesn't mean we can't stop trying." Please don't confuse my belief as being anti science. Even the theories I don't believe has value in understanding the natural world..
"As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck."
Right because you're progressive enough to think that people who believe something other than you should be shut out of the government..
"I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening"."
Lol I love this "I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God" you leave out 'but if you do I don't think should be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck'. Obviously you do have a problem with people who believe in God well, that would be any God that does not fit into what can be weighed, measured, or categorized.. I'm sure if I said 'I believe in some superior force, or heck maybe just 'the force' you would be able to vote for me as a dog catcher or something. But because I believe in a God who does not fit with evolution I'm basically, in your eyes, just someone who should be stuck into the worker caste until I pass away and rot.
"What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening"."
You confuse not listening with (a) not understanding or (b) believing. I can listen to and understand everything you say and just not believe it. The ability to believe beyond what can be seen or measured is not something that should exclude one from being an executive administrator.
"The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion."
Not really, I don't have to reconcile anything with my belief system. Be the earth 10 thousand or 4.5 Billion years old hold no bearing on my ability in 2007 to administrate a company or protect peoples basic rights. Rights which you seem to have little respect for.
'm not normally a grammar nazi, but damn... of homonyms for "You're" . Bad keyboard, it did not put in the 'r' and for some reason I missed it on edit.. Dont need the lesson but its nice to know some people never publish a typo, keep up the good work..
Its called our history for some reason the ten commandments are ok in the supreme court but dang it if we don't have to start hauling away monuments around state courts.. Id hardly consider a monument in Alabama a real leg up for Christians anywhere. (BTW many of these monuments were not tax payer funded) "Boy am I glad the courts house in $City has those tablets, it sure helped me oppress a minority today..
Sigh... what a waste
"
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
"
"The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths"... why restrict this to scientific truths? what about fiscal, legal, and ethical truths... #2 belongs in a general debate because if you'll lie about scientific data you'll lie about employment data *and* vice versa..
"The impact and possible solutions to global warming" this impacts Business, Environment, and even states rights and that is the aspect the is actually important to from the citizens perspective General debate
"The direction for institutions such as NASA" NASA also has other aspects to it other than scientific, this is again economic and the like
"Stem cell research" Science can be morally and ethically neutral, this issue can not as much as some want to separate this from the Abortion / Life debate it cant be done
Yore left with science funding and evolution in education (and even that has a serious states rights aspect to it)... You really want a debate focused on those two things?
Frankly I find issue centered debates to be a tad worthless its nice to make candidates say in the same debate 'Im going to do X and Y and Z' where the law of limited resources has some importance.
1) I don't want prayer in schools pushed by our government
2) I don't want a type religious phobia practiced by our government
For some reason some thing its ok for the state to sponsor a religion and some thing its ok for the state to persecute religion.. Its just damn sick..
I'm curious... Why? Some scientist make a killing fighting scientific 'facts'? If youre going to write current understanding of the physical world ont two stone tablets and label anyone who does not believe them all a heretic... well you see where this is going..
The problem is your post did not say if *X* does not understand science, you said the 'deny science' this attitude is an awful thing. The president is an administrator, the head of my company does not know jack about computers but hires people who do to take care of that aspect.
As a Christian I don't believe evolution, I think that if God could form a fully grown and mature man from the earth it would be a small task for him to form a fully mature (including geological features) earth. That being said I understand the theory and have a better grasp on scientific concepts than Bill Clinton (or Hillary) ever did, my career in in the sciences.
The commander and chief should necessarily be some kind of science geek?
None of which require overhauling the constitution (save maybe adding term limits to legislators) to stop career politicians.
Next revolution is in a little over 12 months.. The electoral cycles give Americans a chance to replace one half the the legislative branch every 730 days. Now if they were foolish enough to believe what the dems were telling them in 2006 would you really want a violent revolution putting a few in power who made promises with the task of replacing the whole structure of government? Seriously? The current structure works just fine, its the folks we keep sending to DC to implement it thats FUBAR
We have a revolution every 2-4 years...
Its that way *everywhere* if you're connected and rich you get some advantages but that does not squareness's success, if you're poor and not well connected you don't get such advantages but that does not guarantee failure. The last election feature two presidential candidates neither of whom got there solely on merit, the same was true of 2000 (Al gore field out of law and divinity school). Who got there starting from poverty? Well Regan and Clinton (to appease the left and the right reading this) both come to mind. Both were rich(ish) and powerful when they ran for the white house but both had earned that power and wealth themselves. You don't have to start life in a rich powerful family to be president, but it sure helps.