Presidential Debate (Page 13)

GomesBolt - 2012-10-07 8:28 PM The skink isn't evolving if it has live birth in one place and eggs in another. Nurse Sharks give birth to live young and lay eggs too. It's a case of adaptation to the environment. If you move the mountain skink to the coast, they probably go back to egg laying.

See what I did there? I made a hypothesis. Now I can try to disprove it. It's called scientific method. Problem is that some "scientists" don't use it because it hurts their ability to get headlines for really cool things like a skink evolving.

I looked for more articles and they never said they studied that by the way. Just that they studied the nutrient problems.

Bad reporting or bad science. Either way, it's bad.

Wow, we're off the main topic.

gearboy - 2012-10-07 8:13 PM

I believe schools should teach facts. So the science curriculum should be teaching geology (the earth is not 6000 years old), archaeology (dinosaurs did not coexist with modern humans), physics The earth is not the center of the universe), biology (for which, yes, evolution is a cornerstone. And in fact, is occurring in a demonstrable way now). We should teach history and literature - which in the western world cannot be done without some working knowledge of the bible as literature and religions as a force behind political changes and regimes in history.

Wow, we're off the main topic.

gearboy - 2012-10-07 8:13 PM

Basically, I think Obama believes we need to give everyone the same basic access to rights that the majority have. While Romney seems to believe that you should be on your own. And that if you need some help at some point, you are a dependent leach with no drive to become independent.

GomesBolt - 2012-10-07 9:53 PM True. So true. Just keeping the thread alive really until Thursday.

tuwood - 2012-10-08 8:10 AM

I'll have to start a VP debate thread on Thursday.  

mdg2003 - 2012-10-08 9:21 AM

  I'm thinking the VP debate will come off like a SNL skit.

GomesBolt - 2012-10-08 3:35 PM

FoxNews broke this shocking development about the Thursday debate.  It's an amazing piece of journalism...

 

GomesBolt - 2012-10-08 4:35 PM

FoxNews broke this shocking development about the Thursday debate.  It's an amazing piece of journalism...

 

mdg2003 - 2012-10-09 8:53 AM

 Shocking that FOX screams bias and then attaches those photos of the two candidates. Plugs looks to having a stroke and Ryan appears to be in deep productive thought. A little 'neener-neener' journalism methinks.

tuwood - 2012-10-09 10:29 AM

I always enjoy the unflattering photo's that both sides put out of the candidates.

tuwood - 2012-10-08 9:20 AM

Just saw this headline.  oops

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

 

 

tuwood - 2012-10-09 10:36 AM

lol, and on that note...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/ap-publishes-unflattering-pic-romney-bending-over/#ixzz28oWagHMk

powerman - 2012-10-07 8:58 PM

Could you please tell me what rights the minority does not have that the majority does? Or rather... what "access to rights" do I enjoy that others seem to be barred from? I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution applies equally to everyone.

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-07 5:05 PM

If you're going to put words in my mouth, please make them accurate.  First of all, I never said it was "the most important thing."  2nd, I never said kids should be taught "there is no God."  I would never tell anyone there is no God and I would be appalled if a school taught a child such a thing.  (this reminds me of the so-called "war on religion" silliness...there is no "war on religion"...and even in a benign post I made, you seemed to infer incorrectly I was attacking religion, which I wasn't, but I'll save that for another thread)   

Fair enough, from some of the things you've written on this forum that is the impression I came away with. When asked why you preferred Obama over Romney that was the reason you gave. fwiw, part of my perception of your opinion came from another thread you started, something about being outraged,,,,,

Cruse, as to your question, yes, there need to be national standards.  I actually liked part of the GOP's stance (at least it used to be, I don't know if it still is) of vouchers.  Vouchers could provide competition and challenge public schools to perform better.  The problem with vouchers though, is that some folks will take federal tax dollars and use them to provide sub-standard education to their children.  In those scenarios, federal funding would be provided to schools teaching children the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that dinosaurs lined up 2 by 2 on an ark in a flood...or, that money would be free to fund fundamentalists of other religions.  I don't mind the idea of competition with public schools with an attached voucher system...but it has to be done with a lot of regulation to ensure those types of scenarios I mentioned above are prohibited.

As far as the Federal Govt. goes, I am ok with Federal Guidelines, but leave the rest to the states. Our Federal Govt. doesn't know when to stop and most things domestically they have involved themselves in has made things worse not better, education is prime example.

I believe in upholding national standards on a federal level, yes.  When you say it should be up to the state/city/town to decide (and fund) everything education-related, yet again, those on the bottom will take the biggest hit.  Federal funding is huge for less advantaged school districts.

As it still is today for most inner city schools, it just costs a lot more money with the Feds "help".

It sounds great to strip the federal govt. down and say we'll save so much money, but would we really?  I'd argue no, and the collateral damage caused in the long run could be even more costly.  So, in the choice of federal vs. state/city/town, why can't it continue to be both?  Why can't we tweak the system where it needs to be tweaked?  Why can't we foster a system that introduces competition to help step the public schools' game up?  I know a lot of this goes past standard talking points, but I'm pretty sure we've got a lot of creative minds here in CoJ.  What says you?

Why can't we continue to have the Federal Education system,,,,, well I'm sure we will have it, at what cost, to our children and our pocketbook? I think those at the local level have more concern and caring for our children but with our current system they are handcuffed by Federal regulation and bureaucracy, I predict will get worse before it (if it ever does) get better.

I think the biggest saving will be 1. eliminating a huge inefficient bureaucracy that provides little to no benefit to our children. 2. It will free up our for the most part inefficient lawmakers to, well, now I'm second guessing myself, lord knows what they will do with the extra time? 

 

gearboy - 2012-10-07 7:13 PM

Wow - way to misrepresent and distort what secular beliefs mean. 

This is an interesting response to a question I asked CD. I really don't know where you are coming from and don't understand what you are saying or asking.

If you would explain where you are coming from and what I said that invoked your response I'll try to respond.

I have an Darwin fish on my car. My SIL asked me if it meant I was anti-god. I had to explain that it means I am pro-science. Now, if your religious beliefs are that failing to teach in a public school YOUR particular belief set is the same as teaching that there is no god, that is a pretty sad state of affairs for you and your religion.

I'm curious as to where you have gotten the information to concluded what my personal religious beliefs are?

I believe schools should teach facts. So the science curriculum should be teaching geology (the earth is not 6000 years old), archaeology (dinosaurs did not coexist with modern humans), physics The earth is not the center of the universe), biology (for which, yes, evolution is a cornerstone. And in fact, is occurring in a demonstrable way now). We should teach history and literature - which in the western world cannot be done without some working knowledge of the bible as literature and religions as a force behind political changes and regimes in history.

And here we agree.

As for what I think Obama stands for that persuades me to vote for him - he believes in universal health coverage. Romney, despite having created the model on which Obamacare is based, apparently no longer thinks this is a good idea. He is moving to equal treatment of gays, finally ended DADT and now endorsing gay marriage. I don't believe Romney supports those positions.

While, I think that removing DADT is the biggest positive thing Obama has done in the 3 1/2 years in  office. Are you saying these are the biggest things to consider when voting for POTUS with our nation being over 16 Trillion in debt? You know that was my original question, but it appears getting caught up in the minutia rather than the big important things seems to be the same here in COJ as it is in Congress.

Now regarding Universal Health Care for everyone I have to ask, as it seems those in your profession stand to gain from this as they have when legislation was passed years ago forcing Insurance carriers to provide coverage for mental health issues.

How much of your gross income comes directly from the people you serve? %

How much comes from Insurance company payments? %

How much comes from the Government? %

My perception is that you have benefited from Government regulation and will benefit even more from ObmaCare. I'm not saying you don't want it for pure humanitarian reasons, but it also has the appearance of being a benefit to you financially none the less.

Last point on ObamaCare, again in case you've overlooked it our nations is 16 Trillion dollars in debt and we are basically adding the biggest social welfare program in the history of our nation not to mention 20 or so new taxes at a time we can least afford it.

Basically, I think Obama believes we need to give everyone the same basic access to rights that the majority have. While Romney seems to believe that you should be on your own. And that if you need some help at some point, you are a dependent leach with no drive to become independent.

I would really appreciate you explaining what you mean by this paragraph? In particular "Obama believes we need to give everyone the same basic access to rights that the majority have"

GomesBolt - 2012-10-11 1:08 PM

The First Debate wasn't what we thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QlwilbVYvUg