Mike Huckabee

Borneo Fnctn

Mike Huckabee is most likely going to run for President in 2012.

He's a creationist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXajXz4DF1w

He wants to change the constitution to include a reference to god.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

I wouldn't be too worried if he wasn't so popular. He probably won't be the next president but I think it's worrying that he even has a fighting chance. He was the second most popular republican candidate after John McCain in the 2008 primaries. The man is the Governor of Arkansas. A whole fcuking state! And he doesn't even realize that religion and state should be kept seperate! Don't even get me started on his other politics.

MrEko

He ran in the last election and lost out near the end. In 2012 (hopefully) Obama will be up for re-election and will get it. Huckabee is popular with conservatives, yes, but he wont ever make past Governer level, the majority of Republicans see that they need an Obama type person, not another old man with dusty views.

Fanny Cradock

MrEko wrote: »

In 2012 (hopefully) Obama will be up for re-election and will get it.

It would seem expedient to see what Obama does in his current term before talking about a second term.

Dinner

It's a pity about his views because as a person, I thought he came off very well. He appeared on the Colbert Report quite a bit and didn't come across like he felt awkward or was trying too hard like most politicians.

Borneo Fnctn

Dinner wrote: »

It's a pity about his views because as a person, I thought he came off very well. He appeared on the Colbert Report quite a bit and didn't come across like he felt awkward or was trying too hard like most politicians.

I agree. He's a good speaker and all but that's the problem with politics. The loudest, most charismatic guy will often win votes but he's not always the man for the job.

Húrin

We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?

You don't see how a man who believes in a fairy tale over scientific fact being the most powerful man in the entire world as being a big issue?

Húrin

Galvasean wrote: »

You don't see how a man who believes in a fairy tale over scientific fact being the most powerful man in the entire world as being a big issue?

No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.

lostexpectation

its jindal we have to look out for, he just as religious but far more mean.

philologos

Sound level headed guy from what I've seen of his new show on FOX News compared to others that they would have. He said his faith defined him, and I don't see that as being wrong.

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.

Well to me I would think when seeing anyone who believes in something so far fetched, "Gee, if he believes that, what other mad policies must he have?".
Anyone with such a high disregard for science gets a big no in my book (like Sarah Palin - I really didn't want her in power after hearing some of the anti-science tripe she was coming out with).
Of course science is high on my priorities.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i believe he really meant it when he said mans law should be changed before gods law, doesn't sound very bloody conservative to me.

--edit

surely science should be left to scientists and not politicians? what exactly do these ****ers ever get right?

Galvasean

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

surely science should be left to scientists and not politicians? what exactly do these ****ers ever get right?

If a president's policies directly inhibit scientific research (whether it be through lack of funding/backing etc.) or ignores scientific research in important matters of state it can be pretty detrimental to science and the world in general.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

why should the government back research the private sector wont? If there is something to a particular research item there is bound to be a multitude of private sources of funding instead of taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Would you feel comfortable having your taxes going to fund a creationism museum? Or how about a few government funded scientology exhibits detailing the crimes and evil of psychiatry.
Creationist jackasses, and jackasses they tend to be, have every right to get upset when money they've earned is taken from them to fund things they find offensive. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the research, it's just right and wrong. Scientists shouldn't have to pander to political sensibilities to get funding, the more power one president assumes to defend the interest of science the more power the next president has to attack good research.

sink

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

why should the government back research the private sector wont? If there is something to a particular research item there is bound to be a multitude of private sources of funding instead of taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Would you feel comfortable having your taxes going to fund a creationism museum? Or how about a few government funded scientology exhibits detailing the crimes and evil of psychiatry.
Creationist jackasses, and jackasses they tend to be, have every right to get upset when money they've earned is taken from them to fund things they find offensive. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the research, it's just right and wrong. Scientists shouldn't have to pander to political sensibilities to get funding, the more power one president assumes to defend the interest of science the more power the next president has to attack good research.

Much of the most advanced science projects are so expensive they can only be afforded through public finance (think NASA, ESA and CERN) and they don't have any known direct monetary benefit that would appeal to private investors looking for a return.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

look I like the idea of Cern, I think it's great, interesting and all kinds of shiny but it's still an absolute bucketload of money taken out of the pockets of working people to pay for something they couldn't even understand enough to make a decision on whether or not they wanted to fund it. Who gets to make that call? An unelected body of science experts? an elected body of scientifc retards? some horrific melding of both?

And what if CERN reveals absolutely nothing of any significance, I know scientists and science groupies won't think it was a waste of money because even if nothing of any real significance is discovered everything new that we learn is significant but the vast majority of people don't think like that about this **** and it's not right to force them to pay for it. Maybe that means we wait a couple of decades or centuries for breakthroughs in certain areas, maybe it means we never get to try certain things but at least we'll have conducted ourselves somewhat morally. Bit of hyperbole incoming, but does the sheer awesomeness of the pyramids justify the slave labour that went into their creation? Or the cathedrals built on indulgences?

I dunno, it's half 2 in the morning and I'm pretty sure i'm in the minority here.. I just think it's not right.

--edit

oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.

sink

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

look I like the idea of Cern, I think it's great, interesting and all kinds of shiny but it's still an absolute bucketload of money taken out of the pockets of working people to pay for something they couldn't even understand enough to make a decision on whether or not they wanted to fund it. Who gets to make that call? An unelected body of science experts? an elected body of scientifc retards? some horrific melding of both?

And what if CERN reveals absolutely nothing of any significance, I know scientists and science groupies won't think it was a waste of money because even if nothing of any real significance is discovered everything new that we learn is significant but the vast majority of people don't think like that about this **** and it's not right to force them to pay for it. Maybe that means we wait a couple of decades or centuries for breakthroughs in certain areas, maybe it means we never get to try certain things but at least we'll have conducted ourselves somewhat morally. Bit of hyperbole incoming, but does the sheer awesomeness of the pyramids justify the slave labour that went into their creation? Or the cathedrals built on indulgences?

I dunno, it's half 2 in the morning and I'm pretty sure i'm in the minority here.. I just think it's not right.

--edit

oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.

CERN developed the world wide web and is currently leading the way in grid computing which will be of huge economic benefit for the IT sector. The operating costs of CERN are negligible in comparison to the funding spent on the military. Civilisation rise and fall and are judged upon their scientific advancement. I am of the opinion that science is the penultimate purpose of society.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm not that big on military spending either

--edit

Civilisation rise and fall and are judged upon their scientific advancement. I am of the opinion that science is the penultimate purpose of society.

umm..

well thank you for a genuine new feeling, being more frightened of scientists than i am christians.

The purpose of society ought (imo) be to allow each individual the opportunity to live their life their way, without causing undue harm to others.

Do you think scientists are better than regular people?

Dinner

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.

But it is those very government run alternatives that have done all the hard work with the development and testing of the technology that private companies will use to get the spacecraft into orbit.


And on the CERN thing, the end goal of an experiment isn't necessarily the most important thing that could come out of that experiment. The world wide web has already come from CERN and when building the LHC they needed a way to process and analyse that volume of data. So GRID was developed. It could have a big influence on the future of distributed computing and on the Internet.

It's very easy to say why bother with these pointless physics experiments when all that money could be used to build more hospitals or schools but the day the human race starts to put that into practice, will be the day we start to stagnate as a civilisation. Just because something doesn't return immediate investment is not an excuse to abandon it (Apologies for all the negatives there).

sink

Dinner wrote: »

The Internet has already come from CERN

Small correction. The internet was developed by DARPA in the US, CERN developed the web which utilises the internet. Which also brings me to another point, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is funded by the US Military and so it was funds for the military that led to the development of the internet. Much of the technology you use everyday has it's origins in military applications such as satellite communication and GPS satellite navigation.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

But it is those very government run alternatives that have done all the hard work with the development and testing of the technology that private companies will use to get the spacecraft into orbit.

and how does this affect the millions of people worldwide who will never get to visit outer space but are funding other peoples journey of a life time? I'm not saying space exploration is bad, I'm just saying you don't have to use government force to pay for it.

And on the CERN thing, the end goal of an experiment isn't necessarily the most important thing that could come out of that experiment. The Internet has already come from CERN and when building the LHC they needed a way to process and analyse that volume of data. So GRID was developed. It could have a big influence on the future of distributed computing and on the Internet.

Well that's great, and to do it millions of dollars/euro/whatever were taken (on penalty of imprisonment) from people all around the world so that some scientists could have a go at maybe finding a beneficial technology from a particular experiment. I'm not arguing the practical advances from CERN and whatnot, I'm just expressing my distaste for the methods used in funding them. you don't just get to take money from people to spend on your own pet projects, not even government oughta have that right. Whatever way you look at it, you are screwing over an incredible number of people who would otherwise rather have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it is you're researching/funding. If the christians want to teach creationism, let them do it in the schools that they build and fund, I think it's only fair the same oughta be said for the other side.

It's very easy to say why bother with these pointless physics experiments when all that money could be used to build more hospitals or schools but the day the human race starts to put that into practice, will be the day we start to stagnate as a civilisation. Just because something doesn't return immediate investment is not an excuse to abandon it (Apologies for all the negatives there).

I guess I'm lucky I'm not saying that

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sink wrote: »

Small correction. The internet was developed by DARPA in the US, CERN developed the web which utilises the internet. Which also brings me to another point, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is funded by the US Military and so it was funds for the military that led to the development of the internet. Much of the technology you use everyday has it's origins in military applications such as satellite communication and GPS satellite navigation.

And what has any of this got to do with the political and moral implications of government funding of scientific research? There are arguments to be made for military research that can't really be made for pure science like CERN, but even then should the military be given free reign to fund whatever crazy project they want at the taxpayers expense? Bomb carrying bats, mine laying dolphins and the Gay bomb. I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.

sink

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

umm..

well thank you for a genuine new feeling, being more frightened of scientists than i am christians.

Simply because I place great importance upon it? Why does that scare you?

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

The purpose of society ought (imo) be to allow each individual the opportunity to live their life their way, without causing undue harm to others.

Fairly low bar to set. "Penultimate" meaning the end result. Civility is required, but it is only a facilitator for science and culture and imo is not the penultimate purpose of society. Bear in mind that as an atheist I don't believe in any objective purpose, the purpose I am talking about is self determined and subjective. For other people it may be culture or religion.

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

Do you think scientists are better than regular people?

No don't be ridiculous, obviously not, science can not exist without the support of many other societal functions. I myself am not directly involved in science but I work in a field that owes it existence to science.

Dinner

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

and how does this affect the millions of people worldwide who will never get to visit outer space but are funding other peoples journey of a life time? I'm not saying space exploration is bad, I'm just saying you don't have to use government force to pay for it.

As I mentioned scientific research isn't ever about giving immediate results to the tax payers who fund it. It's about the big picture. It's about furthering our civilisation so that in the future people may be able to hop on a spacecraft as we do an aircraft.

And on the subject of airtravel. When it was first introduced it was used for military purposes and the elite who could afford it. But as time went by and with the introduction of aircraft like the Comet, airtravel slowly became more accessible to the public until we reach the stage we're at today when it has become something completly normal.

Space travel could be same. But because of the obvious difficulties compared to air travel, it is of course going to be a longer and more expensive process.

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

I guess I'm lucky I'm not saying that

You're not too far off the mark though.

I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.

I hear what your saying though. It is a lot of money that is used, and not all of it will give practical returns. But those that do give good returns can both innovate and save our lives.

sink

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

And what has any of this got to do with the political and moral implications of government funding of scientific research? There are arguments to be made for military research that can't really be made for pure science like CERN, but even then should the military be given free reign to fund whatever crazy project they want at the taxpayers expense? Bomb carrying bats, mine laying dolphins and the Gay bomb. I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.

Here's where we seem to differ. You don't care what practical benefits come out of publicly funded science that would not have been accomplished through private means, so long as money is not being taken out of yours or anyone else's pocket. While I can see the logic behind it I think you underestimate the impact that would have upon scientific advancement. We would probably never be able to reach our current level of advancement through solely private endeavours which directly impacts upon our quality of life.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sink wrote: »

Simply because I place great importance upon it? Why does that scare you?

placing great importance on science is just fine and dandy with me, it is the best and possibly only way for us as to get a grip on what is going on, it's the purpose of society bit that I'm worried about.

Fairly low bar to set. "Penultimate" meaning the end result. Civility is required, but it is only a facilitator for science and culture and imo is not the penultimate purpose of society. Bear in mind that as an atheist I don't believe in any objective purpose, the purpose I am talking about is self determined and subjective. For other people it may be culture or religion.

Well if what you meant is that people oughtn't have restrictions placed upon the way they want to live their lives (providing there's no harm to others) then that's cool, we're in agreement. I just don't see how that can be squared with taking money from them by force and giving it to something you think is important. If you think it's important then by all means fund it, give 10% of your paycheck towards it but it's just not right to force a bible thumping or koran humping fundamentalist to pay for it. That's all I'm saying, I'm not trying to wage a war on science I'm just trying to outline a political and moral position to try to explain why some people aren't jumping for joy that (for example) embryonic stem cell research will now be federally funded in the USA.
If you think it's important then by all means, donate.

No don't be ridiculous, obviously not, science can not exist without the support of many other societal functions. I myself am not directly involved in science but I work in a field that owes it existence to science.

fair enough, it was that penultimate purpose bit that threw me.

sink wrote: »

Here's where we seem to differ. You don't care what practical benefits come out of publicly funded science that would not have been accomplished through private means, so long as money is not being taken out of yours or anyone else's pocket. While I can see the logic behind it I think you underestimate the impact that would have upon scientific advancement. We would probably never be able to reach our current level of advancement through solely private endeavours which directly impacts upon our quality of life.

No, I do care. I just don't think it's a good enough reason to justify immoral acts and I'm not sure how taking money by force from people who otherwise wouldn't consent to funding such programs is anything other than immoral. I'm sorry if that makes me an anti science crazy, but there it is.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dinner wrote: »

As I mentioned scientific research isn't ever about giving immediate results to the tax payers who fund it. It's about the big picture. It's about furthering our civilisation so that in the future people may be able to hop on a spacecraft as we do an aircraft.

fair enough but that's your big picture, what about the big picture of the millions of people who disagree with you? Billions worldwide probably, when you consider the lack of education most people suffer through. Are you a member of the priviledged few who get to decide the course of our civilisation? Does your superior understanding of the universe give you more of a say than them? I'm sorry if most of my post is stupid questions that don't really have anwers, but I'm not trying to argue the particulars with you. I'm all for science, I'm just also all for personal freedom and I don't see how I can cheer for something that is at it's core (imo) wrong/immoral even if it leads to all these amazing benefits and technological wonders.

And on the subject of airtravel. When it was first introduced it was used for military purposes and the elite who could afford it. But as time went by and with the introduction of aircraft like the Comet, airtravel slowly became more accessible to the public until we reach the stage we're at today when it has become something completly normal.

yes, globalisation has been pretty damned fantastic.

Space travel could be same. But because of the obvious difficulties compared to air travel, it is of course going to be a longer and more expensive process.

well, naturally.

You're not too far off the mark though.

No, I just don't have much faith in your or my ability to decide for the grand masses of humanity what they should and shouldn't spend their money on.

I hear what your saying though. It is a lot of money that is used, and not all of it will give practical returns. But those that do give good returns can both innovate and save our lives.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. it just doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to basically force people to work hours of their lives away to fund projects they either don't care about or find morally unacceptable.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.

You must be expecting to find them in the A&A forum, otherwise I can't imagine how you even came across this thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Borneo Fnctn

Húrin wrote: »

We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?

He supports the teaching of creationism in school as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Teaching lies to students... it's a big deal. I think the fact that he believes in the creation myth is a poor testament to his intelligence to be quite honest. If he's silly enough to believe this, he's liable to have all sorts of crazy beliefs and opinions. And he does. Read up on his other politics. He's not fit to be in politics let alone the white house. He wants to change the constitution to reflect his own religious values. This is selfish and downright reckless.

fitz0

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes governments do have a vested interest in the science they fund. They fund science to further their nation. If making progress isn't a good enough reason to use taxes for scientific funding then what is? The personal greed of private enterprises?

The thing is to elect the right government, in particular the right president to lead a country which, need I remind you, this thread is about.

Edit - He's a very charismatic man. That's the first time Ive heard him speak and he handled that question brilliantly. And as for creationism he doesn't come across as a "6-days-Adam-and-Eve" type creationist. He repeats "I don't know" a lot, which speaks in his favour. He seems more ID focused than pure creationism. He may have even make a good president depending on his policies.