Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinsfan
A couple of points:
A) Your going to have an even larger Democrat majority in congress.. meaning.... no more unjust wars....
B) You argue that the national debt is a problem (which it is).... yet placing a Dem in the White House with a Dem congress is a recipe for higher spending... actually, as we have found, a Rep pres with a Rep congress is a recipe for higher spending.... Truly, the best scenario is off-setting influences of power. History bears that out at an alarming rate. The bottom line is this: Presidents are extremely slow to veto BAD LAWS that are passed to him by his own party.... And let's not forget... it's CONGRESS that has the largest impact on the Economy... not the president (even though the Olberman's of the world would have you think otherwise)... The JUNK SPENDING you refer to would have to come from a Congress that, by all reports, is set to have 60 of the 100 senatorial seats in the Democrats control.
C) Green energy initiatives by Obama can't be funded if he is taxing the very companies that can provide the technology and increasing the capgains tax, which disincentivizes wealthy individuals/companies from funding it (why the hell hasn't the demcoratic congress re-signed the tax credit for wind energy? The last time the credit lapsed it resulted in something like a 75% decline in alternate energy research and development, if i remember correctly).
D) What is wrong with Palin's desire to have creationism taught along side evolution? Don't get me wrong.... I'm not high on creationism myself.... at least, not without incorporating evolution as the "vehicle" of the creator. But what is WRONG with teaching them side by side? The whole concept of SCIENCE (you know, the subject which Evolution is a subset up) is that you line up your possibilities, collect your facts, and objectively make assessments. What is so wrong with presenting all of the competing theories (that is all they are... THEORIES) to students and letting them draw their own conclusions? It sounds awfully defensive, to me, for people to want to prevent the teaching of creationism.... Afterall, if you are so sure that
evolution is, in fact, the correct theory.... then what are you scared of? The facts should speak for themself, no?
|
re:Creationism, a basic law of science is that you have to be able to validate your findings. If we are going to teach that theory, then, as far as I am concerned, you have to teach the theory that the world was created by a Giant Spaghetti Monster too, because I have exactly as much evidence as the creationists do, namely, zero. At some point, you have to draw the line and say that maybe we will let faith be just that, allowing that to be the domain of the church, and leave school to teaching actual science.
The problem is that fundamentalists want to go so far as to have the Bible be a frickin textbook in school. Holy Batman!
As for green energy, people are falling all over themselves, even on the right, to incentivize it, everything from elimination of cap gains for startups, to special tax credits, to prizes for whomever can develop an efficient car. Given the recent runup in oil, I am pretty sure we get that regardless of who gets in. Even here, were most of us have admittedly pretty different views on things overall, it seems like we would mostly agree with that. Being against green energy right now is almost like being against cute puppies :)
You know, you are right to some degree about seperated power. No, I take that back, you are exactly right about that. But rare is the occasion where you get someone in the white house that hasn't been whoring himself to lobbyists in the path to get there in a huge way. I saw Obama tell guys in Detroit that no, we do have to raise CAFE standards, even though he needs to win Michigan. He spoke up for merit pay systems in schools on his way up that seriously pissed off the teachers union (one reason they went to heavy for Hillary, I might add). Now, if he had spoken out against the idiots that think that all our gas is going to come from Corn in Iowa, it would be the trifecta - sadly, electoral politics got in the way of that. But even on that front, popular reaction to escalating food prices might solve that. My point? I would like to see, just once in my lifetime, what happens when someone who is at least a slightly less whorish ***** gets in there. McCain isn't it. Obama is at least closer to the ideal there.