Republican Primaries

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know why some people persist in their desire to dismantle the Republic, out of sheer irrational hatred for government.

drug legalization is opposed by the right.
the right supports increased police powers as Inayusha brought up.
homeland security
warrant less wire tap
domestic spying
knock less warrants
sodomy laws
vice law in general
in fact if you think a little all laws that control individuals are from the right.
the left tries to control corporations (which are not people).
so the dems are the party of control only if you are a corporation.
and I don't give a flying rats ass about the rights of corporations.

QFT

The legalization of Drugs is not a partisan issue.

Im looking for laws that affect the majority of people.

What "increased Police Powers" through public policy are you talking about?

homeland security encompasses many of the others you listed. This doesn't control any facet of your life.

I don't agree with Sodomy laws but will use that in my list.

Vice laws? What, like strip joints, prostitution, or redlight districts which is equally opposed by leftist feminists? Alcohol? Gambling? Can you name any?

Ending abortion.
Keeping women from voting and participating in government.
Keeping women from driving a motor vehicle.
Ending divorce.
Enforcing monogamy laws.
Forcing women to wear a covering over their heads, as a sign that they are under man's authority.
Restoring slavery.
Ending public education.
Exempting religions from taxation.
Infant circumcision.
High gasoline prices.
Addicting our nation's children to sugar and caffeine.

You name it, the vile, radical right-wing Republicans are up to it.

I'm pretty sure Palin won't run and 50/50 on if Bachmann will. I think Bachmann would probably win Iowa if she does enter the race but wouldn't have much of a shot for the nomination. I think Mike Huckabee's 2008 run would be about her ceiling as a candidate altho she would probably be able to raise way more money than Huck did in 2008.

I thought Mitch Daniels was going to be a guy the establishment would put their support behind but he won't be running. Somebody else will enter this race, maybe Chris Christie or Jon Huntsman Jr. I think we're getting pretty close to the final field tho.

Maybe I'm delusional but out of all the candidates currently running I think Ron Paul is in the best position to win. He's got the experience, the grassroots, the money, and his issues have been at the forefront of the political debate these last few years. He can appeal to social conservatives without the statism that would turn off other voters. He would have the best chance of all the current GOP contenders to knock off Obama in my opinion, he'd have Obama defending himself from both sides. I suspect Obama's only strategy, which the media will be completely complicit in, in that situation will be the politics of fear. His campaign will make Lyndon Johnson blush.

Controlling the individual is the issue here...

Can you name public policy that does that... other then the ones I've either noted or added to my list.

Actually, it is very much a national issue. The arguments that have been brought in court on this issue have always cited the US Constitution, rather than any particular state law.


No, it really isn't. Creationism is not science, and should not be included alongside evolutionary biology. It has absolutely no place in the classroom.


I'm just gonna go ahead and say you don't know what you're talking about here. Evolution is not "weak science," the fact that ideas in biology don't apply to physics or chemistry is irrelevant (since nothing from biology applies to those fields), and there is not in reality any difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. Evolution is not in the realm of philosophy at all.


Another issue with Republicans being anti-science comes with their absurd opposition to stem cell research. This stems from their stance on abortion.

Evolution is a fact. Genetic variation is a fact. The hypothetical part is assuming that natural selection accounts for it completely. Could there be other natural factors or processes at work?

ruveyn

I don't know of any actual biologists who believe natural selection is the only factor at play. Even an introductory first-year textbook like Campbell/Reece will discuss other factors and processes that are involved in evolution.

It is a state issue in that it affects he educational system of the particular state in which the issue is argued in. You can't pass it in Texas and force it on the populace of California...






Let me clarify for you: if PARTS of evolution is discounted as weak science, let it be. Why would you have a vested interest in believing in weak science? If it isn't weak science, you have nothing to worry about anyways.

Intelligent Design is clearly in the realm of philosophy. Is there a Creator... Why did this Creator create... These are all questions that Biology can't explain and Darwinian explanations are relegated strictly within Biology and cannot explain the origin of the universe or if it even has one. "How did this creator create" gets more into physics and natural properties of the universe, as well as biology for the origins of life.

The reason I cited that it doesn't apply to physics or chemistry was because Ruveyn said that the religious coo'coo's want to discredit and destroy science. Science and even Biology is fine with or without parts of Darwinian explanations.




The Republican opposition is not to Stem Cell Research... it is for using their taxpayer dollars to fund it. It doesn't stem either from Abortion... one has to believe that these people take their biblical views seriously. It comes from their instructions from the bible to be pro-life unless it involves Evil. Only then can you be pro-death. The scripture was very much a reaction to pagans who obsessed with the hereafter instead of here now, like the Egyptians where their bible was the book of the dead, and their greatest monuments were tombs or statues immortalizing immortals.

It is still important on a national level. Especially if the yahoos in Texas pass new educational "standards" that textbook writers all across the country will then adhere to.


I assure you that none of the "Intelligent Design" advocates have ever managed to stumble across any of the actual difficulties in evolutionary biology. Nor will they ever; because to find the open questions and unresolved problems requires an actual knowledge of the science, which they are sorely lacking.


I don't. Quit putting words in my mouth.


Students should learn actual science. Falsely presenting ID claims as if they are a legitimate counter to evolutionary biology is dishonest and misleading.


Those are questions that biology does not attempt to explain, so your criticism is meaningless and rather stupid. You may as well complain that Newton's theory of gravitation does not explain electromagnetism.


If your only basis is that it not affect physics or chemistry, you can ditch biology entirely, since nothing from biology applies to those fields. And no, biology is not fine without evolution.

Incidentally, you do reveal yourself as a kook when you persistently refer to evolutionary biology as "Darwinian theory" or "Darwinism." Those are terms only used with frequency by the ID community. In case you had not noticed, science has advanced considerably in the past 150 years. Darwin was an important early influence in developing evolutionary biology, but the field has come so far in the past century and a half that it is no longer appropriate to refer to the entire field of evolutionary biology as "Darwinian."


The opposition is to stem cell research, and the denial of funding is a means to the end of banning it.


Yes, it does. The entire objection is that embryos are destroyed in the process.


This is a bizarre tangent that has very little to do with life-saving medical ressearch.

are you trying to debate for debate sake?

There is an old talmudic saying that goes: Silence is agreement.

I don't agree with regards to this post, but will be silent since it seems this won't go anywhere.

QFT2

How science works:
1) somebody has an idea.
2) they test the idea.
3)they publish the results of the test.
4)the published results are scrutinized for other possible theories that could explain the results.
5)Other scientists repeat the test to see if they get the same answer.
5.5)The idea is used to accurately predict the outcomes of other tests.
5.9)other scientists try to find ways to refine or overturn the idea because doing so will now bring them fame and status.
6)repeat 2-5.9 multiple times.
7)the idea is refined, and becomes accepted theory.
the theory is published in textbooks.

Creationists want to go straight from 1 to 8.

yes but you can't confine the creation of the world by a creator to the limited definitions of science. It is untestable by natural modes of measurement. It isn't even in the realm of biology.

I think the greatest problem facing creationists is their strict interpreting of 7 days being 7 actual days, especially when the biblical text in no way supports this.

Intelligent Design has a place in the classroom, but it needs to be full proofed by scholarship and taught in Philosophy, not Biology.

Government by the Mickey D's and Wal-Marts, for the people, is FREEDOM, dude!

It's attempts to knock it back into it's place that are the real threat to liberty.