2012 Presidential Election - The Ups and Downs

[dalem]

dale,



no, when creationism got kicked around too much, that's precisely when its supporters started to shill 'intelligent design'.

frankly evolution has been taught at our schools since the early 1900s. the only difference is that after getting embarrassed in the court of public opinion in the Scopes Trial and lying low, the religious right has politicized the issue successfully in the last 30 years. their efforts have been to get teachers to teach ID as if it were a science, thus putting it on equal grounds when you and i both know that it is not. alternatively, their other proposals have been to eliminate references to evolution. both of these seriously tilt the playing field. how can science teachers refute religious garbage when they are mandated by politicians to treat said garbage on an equal basis as the science?

science has been beating the crap out of ID and creationism for the last one hundred years, it is no surprise ID advocates now want to muzzle/confuse scientific teaching outright.

you state that science should 'take on things like ID in public', well, i agree...and science has. but to state that just because science advocates want to make sure that science classes teach science vice religious garbage is a sign that they're 'avoiding the issue', that's a bad canard. and to the extent the Religious Right/the Republican Party is responsible for politicizing the issue, i'm surprised that you would excuse this and instead blame the scientists.

You're simply wrong. Science has been turtled up in the corner screaming no mas for decades.

-dale

[Gun Grape]

Because you know that you have a far better chance of convincing Republicans that they should keep their hands out of your pants when you want to board an airplane than you do of teaching Democrats sound economics.

-dale

It was the Republicans that decided the government needed to stick their hands in our pants when we board an airplane. All wrapped up in the blanket of "National Security"

[dalem]

It was the Republicans that decided the government needed to stick their hands in our pants when we board an airplane. All wrapped up in the blanket of "National Security"

Yup. That was part of my point.

-dale

[zraver]

dale,

just this one point.



evolution is shitty science?

The way many use it to try and explain the origins of life, yes it is. Evolution can only explain how life adapts, not how it began. It has several gaping holes in it like flowers, the whole Cambrian Explosion, sharks, alligators and others.

[dalem]

The way many use it to try and explain the origins of life, yes it is

Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life, only how it evolves.

Duh.

Evolution can only explain how life adapts, not how it began.

See above.

It has several gaping holes in it like flowers, the whole Cambrian Explosion, sharks, alligators and others.

Oh please explain to us the "gaping holes" regarding the Cambrian Explosion, sharks, and alligators.

-dale

[DOR]

Decrease personal responsibility.



Increase power of the State.



Yeah, like "global warming". Republicans have no problem with science - they have a problem with shitty science.



Tell that to mister "I won" and missus "elections have consequences".



And that Senate budget is exactly where, again?



If it's as entertainingly counterfactual as what you've done so far, I can only hope you will.

-dale

dalem,

Only you – and the GOPers – can take both sides of the personal responsibility / state power issue, but the pros generally try not to do it in the same sentence (or post). You want the state to tell people how to live their lives, but don’t want more state power. Well, that’s not what the Democratic Party stands for, so I guess you’re right at home on the far, far rightwing.

Global warming was an unfortunate terms that became popular. The issue is climate change, and whether we can do anything about it in time to save our own sorry hides. Denial, if carried on for long enough, will ensure the necessary changes in human behavior are too little, and too late. Cue extinction.

The Senate does not have fiscal power; that’s the prerogative of the House of Representatives. Read the constitution.

= = = = =

Still feeling a bit masochistic?

Democrats believe in liberty. If you aren’t hurting someone else, if you have the consent of two adults, the state should not interfere of what you do in the privacy of your own home.

That also applies to your personal choice to believe in a religion, or not. We’re not interested in telling you that some particular sect of one specific faction of a millennia old Middle Eastern tradition is the reason America exists, or that every person should be subject to the religious views the GOPers believe is the One Way.

You don’t want to suffer in pain for an extra week, month or year from a terminal illness? We believe you should have the right, with deliberate forethought, to pull the plug. GOPers would demand that you suffer, and deny you medication that might ease that suffering (medical marijuana, for example).

Those threee are probably the closest Democrats get to Libertarians, and the furthest from GOPers.

.

But, wait! There's more!

We believe in fiscal responsibility. Yes, we’ve had this argument before, and no, you don’t agree with me. But, the record shows that GOPers build far larger deficits and drive the national debt further and further than Democrats. And, we’re the ones who clean up the mess the GOPers leave behind, in the 1990s and again this decade. Personally, I’m getting tired of it. Raising the debt ceiling isn't about spending more, it's about taking responsibility for what has already been spent. By the Bush Administration, to the largest extent.

We’re not all that keen on launching unnecessary wars of aggression against nations that don’t threaten, or act against, our national interest. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally we’d really rather not. Compare and contrast Clinton being criticized for hesitating in Yugoslavia, and Obama getting heat for what he didn’t do in Libya and Syria, with Bush invading, destroying and oh-so-badly occupying Iraq or Reagan and his secret wars in Central America.

We believe in conservation. The root, conserve, is supposed to be more applicable to GOPers, but when it comes to real conservation, they’re not interested.

More?

[zraver]

Oh please explain to us the "gaping holes" regarding the Cambrian Explosion, sharks, and alligators.

-dale

Cambrian Explosion when the simple life on earth suddenly "evolved" and split into the different phylia- plants, insects, animals from common ancestors. Never since then has one phyla evolved into another- not once in 580 million years. Even Darwin admitted it was an obstacle to evolution.

Flowers (and later fruits)- flowers are communication- hey I'm tasty come eat me so I can spread my seeds. How did early plants feel any evolutionary pressure to develop flowers to attract insects since plants cannot actively communicate across phyla? Why would a green tree develop brightly colored and scented flowers without knowing there there was something out to they could attract.

Alligators and Sharks are both effectively immune to infectious bacteria. If nature abhors a vacuum and bacteria can rapidly evolve to overcome even the most advanced medicines, how have two of the oldest species on the plant retained such immunity. Bacteria have adapted to live and thrive in almost every environment on earth but not sharks or gators?

BTW how did crocodillians, Frogs, salamanders and lizards survive the asteroid that wiped out the dinos?

Eyes, unrelated phyla on earth have developed eyes independently of one another four different times. They all use the same protein. The possible number of proteins rival the number of stars in the sky and yet they all settle on the exact same protein?

[dalem]

dalem,

Only you – and the GOPers – can take both sides of the personal responsibility / state power issue, but the pros generally try not to do it in the same sentence (or post). You want the state to tell people how to live their lives, but don’t want more state power. Well, that’s not what the Democratic Party stands for, so I guess you’re right at home on the far, far rightwing.

I want the state to tell people how to live their lives? How?

Global warming was an unfortunate terms that became popular. The issue is climate change, and whether we can do anything about it in time to save our own sorry hides. Denial, if carried on for long enough, will ensure the necessary changes in human behavior are too little, and too late. Cue extinction.

Bullshit, bullshit, and some more bullshit.

Climate change is just as stupid and brainless an idea as "global warming".

Climate changes. Evidence that human INDUSTRY affects it? ZERO.

The Senate does not have fiscal power; that’s the prerogative of the House of Representatives. Read the constitution.

But the Senate is obligated to pas some sort of budget, aren't they?

= = = = =

Still feeling a bit masochistic?

Democrats believe in liberty. If you aren’t hurting someone else, if you have the consent of two adults, the state should not interfere of what you do in the privacy of your own home.

Really? What determines "hurting someone else"?

That also applies to your personal choice to believe in a religion, or not. We’re not interested in telling you that some particular sect of one specific faction of a millennia old Middle Eastern tradition is the reason America exists, or that every person should be subject to the religious views the GOPers believe is the One Way.

You don’t want to suffer in pain for an extra week, month or year from a terminal illness? We believe you should have the right, with deliberate forethought, to pull the plug. GOPers would demand that you suffer, and deny you medication that might ease that suffering (medical marijuana, for example).

Those threee are probably the closest Democrats get to Libertarians, and the furthest from GOPers.

.

But, wait! There's more!

Tons more.

We believe in fiscal responsibility.

Of whom?

Yes, we’ve had this argument before, and no, you don’t agree with me. But, the record shows that GOPers build far larger deficits and drive the national debt further and further than Democrats. And, we’re the ones who clean up the mess the GOPers leave behind, in the 1990s and again this decade. Personally, I’m getting tired of it. Raising the debt ceiling isn't about spending more, it's about taking responsibility for what has already been spent. By the Bush Administration, to the largest extent.

So the fact that Dems increase debt by more than twice that of Repubs is meaningless?

We’re not all that keen on launching unnecessary wars of aggression against nations that don’t threaten, or act against, our national interest. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally we’d really rather not. Compare and contrast Clinton being criticized for hesitating in Yugoslavia, and Obama getting heat for what he didn’t do in Libya and Syria, with Bush invading, destroying and oh-so-badly occupying Iraq or Reagan and his secret wars in Central America.

Bullshit, but meaningless bullshit. Read Max Boot's Tiny Little Wars.

We believe in conservation. The root, conserve, is supposed to be more applicable to GOPers, but when it comes to real conservation, they’re not interested.

Please. Lefties think conservation is "DO NOT TOUCH!" whereas conservatives know that stewardship of land and resources is a moving target.[/quote]

More?

Please.

-dale

[Ray]

Call it what you may, but the climate around our parts have surely changed.

We are now deficit in the rains of the Monsoon and life will be real hard since crops will not yield the desired amount!

We had not been affected by the global fiscal slowdown, but now we will be in a worst state!

That apart, who is leading in the US Presidentials?

Not only global warming/ climate change affects our lives, but also who become the President of the US!

[RollingWave]

Call it what you may, but the climate around our parts have surely changed.

We are now deficit in the rains of the Monsoon and life will be real hard since crops will not yield the desired amount!

We had not been affected by the global fiscal slowdown, but now we will be in a worst state!

That apart, who is leading in the US Presidentials?

Not only global warming/ climate change affects our lives, but also who become the President of the US!

Most poll tracking compliation have Obama by a decent but not unbeatable margin. about the same in gambling ring too.

Global warming is a real issue, it is also true that some Liberals and scientist jump the shark on it, but a subject that coul potentially end man kind can not be taken lightly.

Yes global climate change will happen regardless of man, that doesn't mean man doesn't affect it in some ways, but the scale of this subject means it will be quiet hard to seriously quantify and qualify.

[Ray]

RollingWave

Obama has not been good for India as Bush had been.

Notwithstanding, not that Obama strikes a chord in India, yet to be fair to him, he has projected internationally that the US is not a gung ho trigger happy nation, as was the general belief earlier. I am not commenting on whether that perception was right or wrong, but it is true that one was very uncomfortable.

Yet, the Obama administration balanced that view with Hilary Clinton, who adopted a no nonsense view (with compassion, if you will). We have seen some hard decisions on the South China Seas, Pakistan and so on.

Romney, on the other hand, is an unknown entity internationally and whatever he has said does not excite in the international arena.

It is true that US Presidential election is for US centric issues, but then US does affect the world, whether we like it or not.

Therefore, the question what one seeks is that will Romney be another Bush, or will he show moderation like McCain?

[RollingWave]

RollingWave

Obama has not been good for India as Bush had been.

Notwithstanding, not that Obama strikes a chord in India, yet to be fair to him, he has projected internationally that the US is not a gung ho trigger happy nation, as was the general belief earlier. I am not commenting on whether that perception was right or wrong, but it is true that one was very uncomfortable.

Yet, the Obama administration balanced that view with Hilary Clinton, who adopted a no nonsense view (with compassion, if you will). We have seen some hard decisions on the South China Seas, Pakistan and so on.

Romney, on the other hand, is an unknown entity internationally and whatever he has said does not excite in the international arena.

It is true that US Presidential election is for US centric issues, but then US does affect the world, whether we like it or not.

Therefore, the question what one seeks is that will Romney be another Bush, or will he show moderation like McCain?

Well, Mccain's moderation kinda went out the window when he was campaigning in 08, though he still shows a decent dose of it nowadays (though not consistently.)

The GOP have generally veered hard to the right in the last 2 decade with a mix of either neo-con global adventurism or as of now, a rather questionable social conservative driven agenda. Romney is sort of forced to go more right than his old position to win the nomination, which is ashame, since his old position actually have a signficiantly better chance of winning the independent voters. but the GOP mainstream now is almost to the point of no comprimise and take no prisonors type of mentality (at least in rhetoric, but that must to some extend spill over to practice as well.).

For most of us in East Asia, the Dems and GOP are the same thing anyway. the geopolitical strategy here is basically set in stone and no one will seriously change it. it help that the countries around here (well outside of North Korea) are stable and generally not doing too shabby.

In South Asia the general issue is that Afganistan is a flowing situation, which will directly effect the USA's perception and actual dealings with both India and Pakistan. I can guess that the South Asians probably won't be too please with Obama though I think the USA is just mostly trying to salvage the mess in Afganistan that obviously Obama didn't start and had to try and get out without making a even bigger disastor in the process. but as he US keep moving into different stages in Afganistan and/or responding to crisis there, it's not hard to see why they probably can't handle the rest of the region gracefully all the time.

[dalem]

Cambrian Explosion when the simple life on earth suddenly "evolved" and split into the different phylia- plants, insects, animals from common ancestors. Never since then has one phyla evolved into another- not once in 580 million years. Even Darwin admitted it was an obstacle to evolution.

Read SJ Gould's "Wonderful Life".

Multicellular life's gotta start somewhere - you shouldn't be startled by the fact that it did.

Flowers (and later fruits)- flowers are communication- hey I'm tasty come eat me so I can spread my seeds. How did early plants feel any evolutionary pressure to develop flowers to attract insects since plants cannot actively communicate across phyla? Why would a green tree develop brightly colored and scented flowers without knowing there there was something out to they could attract.

Mmmm, you are focusing on the few tricks that worked - balance that against the millions that didn't.

Alligators and Sharks are both effectively immune to infectious bacteria. If nature abhors a vacuum and bacteria can rapidly evolve to overcome even the most advanced medicines, how have two of the oldest species on the plant retained such immunity. Bacteria have adapted to live and thrive in almost every environment on earth but not sharks or gators?

I'm ignorant of this topic. Book or article or other source?

BTW how did crocodillians, Frogs, salamanders and lizards survive the asteroid that wiped out the dinos?

The asteroid helped finish off the non-avian dinosaurs - they were pretty far along towards their own extinction anyway. Lots of things survived past the Cretacious-Tertiary extinction event, just not many that were larger than a breadbox, as is typical for most mass extinction events.

Eyes, unrelated phyla on earth have developed eyes independently of one another four different times. They all use the same protein. The possible number of proteins rival the number of stars in the sky and yet they all settle on the exact same protein?

Mmmm, a gajillion or so different life forms over a few tens of millions of years, 4 lines make eyes with the same protein (I don't know this but will stipulate it for you to illustrate the weakness of your position) - maybe that particular protein is good for eyes?

-dale

[Doktor]

Obama has not been good for India as Bush had been.

Talking about the public perception, I wonder if Obama has been better for any country :red:

[zraver]

Read SJ Gould's "Wonderful Life".

Multicellular life's gotta start somewhere - you shouldn't be startled by the fact that it did.

Nice way to avoid answering... The Cambrian explosion and the emergency of the various phyla is the only time its happened. Other single cells life forms have not evolved into different phyla, and there are no proto-phyla today. So shortly after life emerged, it exploded into the vareity of phyla we see today, but has not added to the phyla even once in the ensuing 580 million years...

[qute]Mmmm, you are focusing on the few tricks that worked - balance that against the millions that didn't.[/quote]

I am focusing on the fact the flowers and fruit are cross phyla communication that developed without the phyla invovled being able to communicate and respond to the evolutionary pressures.

I'm ignorant of this topic. Book or article or other source?

Alligator Blood May Put the Bite on Antibiotic-resistant Infections

Google crocodillian and infection resistance

The asteroid helped finish off the non-avian dinosaurs - they were pretty far along towards their own extinction anyway. Lots of things survived past the Cretacious-Tertiary extinction event, just not many that were larger than a breadbox, as is typical for most mass extinction events.

It didn't finish off the big crocks...

Mmmm, a gajillion or so different life forms over a few tens of millions of years, 4 lines make eyes with the same protein (I don't know this but will stipulate it for you to illustrate the weakness of your position) - maybe that particular protein is good for eyes?

Evolution says there are most likely failed adaptations, yet we have no fossil evidence of any eye using life form using any protein but the one that is used. It does not matter that the protien is good for eyes, its the independent use of the same protein for the same function despite all the other proteins that would work.