1. Comment #37388 by ICONIC FREEDOM on May 4, 2007 at 11:11 am

McCain's double-speak isn't a good sign.

3 actually said no; astoundingly stupid, but I'm glad they revealed themselves.

I'm saying this now, as I mentioned on other blogs before the 2006 Elections, if BOTH parties don't get off their sanctimonious-soapbox of self-righteousness they are going to continue to push voters away.

Rudy so far seems to be the one I would most favor; I'm not liking the "pro-life" attitude but I'm not sure he's so far to the right on it, either.

All the others seek to turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

2. Comment #37390 by Big T on May 4, 2007 at 11:17 am

To all American voters, don't vote for fundamentalists!

Other Comments by Big T

3. Comment #37394 by John P on May 4, 2007 at 11:23 am

This is easy. Just don't vote for any Republican. Spend your time weeding through the Democrats.

Other Comments by John P

4. Comment #37397 by Snomann32 on May 4, 2007 at 11:25 am

"To all American voters, don't vote for fundamentalists!"


I made that mistake once. It won't happen again!

Other Comments by Snomann32

5. Comment #37399 by Dower on May 4, 2007 at 11:36 am

I will not vote for another bible-thumping, born-again Christian fundamentalist ... in name or in reality ... we need leaders, men or women who will follow reason, not blind faith ... I turned away from religion after being enlightened to the fact that the sacred book I spent so many years preaching out of was written by the finger of man, not the finger of a sky-god ...

Other Comments by Dower

6. Comment #37401 by denoir on May 4, 2007 at 11:38 am

Wow.

I knew that the nut cases had influence over the upper echelons of power in the US. However I did not believe that the people in power were actually nut cases themselves.

While I don't think any of the three mentioned will win the republican nomination and much less the presidency, it is still way to dangerous to be laughed at.

I'm not sure how, but the relatively sensible 50% of the American public needs to quickly deal with the other half. The margins are too small and there is too much at stake. Control over nuclear weapons and religious fundamentalism do not mix well.

Other Comments by denoir

7. Comment #37414 by wagnerpe on May 4, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I don't believe for a second that any of these candidates have ever seriously considered the subject. They are just playing to the hands of the conservative nutbars in America, some of whom will actually refuse to vote for someone because they believe in evolution. Politicians aren't dumb, they just lie when its necessary to get the votes. They know the answers that will appeal to the most people, and they pluck at them like a harp.

Notice how the only people who raised their hands saying they don't beleive in evolution were the ones that nobody's heard of? They're just trying to jumpstart their candidacy.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

8. Comment #37417 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 12:15 pm

What a coward McCain was there. He couldn't just leave it at a yes, regardless of whether he actually believes what he said or not, it just reaked of cowardliness.

Other Comments by Hylo

9. Comment #37424 by maton100 on May 4, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Huckleberry Fin, Charlie Brown, and Greedo. What else is knew?

Other Comments by maton100

10. Comment #37435 by rationallady on May 4, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I was positively surprised that the three front runners actually had the courage to state that they do believe in evolution, qualified or not. Remember the vast majority of the Republican base, those who vote in the primary, do NOT believe in evolution. I would not vote for any of these candidates for other reasons, however.

Other Comments by rationallady

11. Comment #37438 by hhaugan on May 4, 2007 at 12:59 pm

I was positively surprised to see there were no more than three candidates out of 10 that does not believe in evolution.

That's a better statistic than the US as a whole, which is a very scary prospect indeed.

Other Comments by hhaugan

12. Comment #37440 by Wonko the Sane on May 4, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I would suspect that at least 1 or 2 of those that said they do not believe in evolution actually do but are saying they don't for political reasons.

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

13. Comment #37445 by newcomer on May 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm

cant wait for a candidate to state his position without fear.It seems they adopt their position according to the voters inclinations. This to me is pure hypocrisy and cowardice.You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one!!!

Other Comments by newcomer

14. Comment #37446 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 1:32 pm

What a coward McCain was there. He couldn't just leave it at a yes, regardless of whether he actually believes what he said or not, it just reeked of cowardliness.

He had to say that to get keep the moderate religious vote. It was not cowardice, for it took a lot of courage to say that he believed in evolution, and therefore basically ruling out the fundie vote. I am actually pleasantly surprised that more of them didn't deny evolution (weather they believed it or not, because the fundie lobby is very powerful).

This is easy. Just don't vote for any Republican. Spend your time weeding through the Democrats.

Believe it or not, not everyone here is a liberal. I am Libertarian minded (small government, low taxes, no deficit spending, personal freedom...) Giuliani is the closest to me ideologically, and at this point I will be happy to vote for him. Moreover, no one can deny how he turned NY completely around.

Other Comments by mr harry

15. Comment #37447 by Not Stupid on May 4, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Other Comments by Not Stupid

16. Comment #37449 by retiredbiker on May 4, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Diderot had it right: "Man will never be free until the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Other Comments by retiredbiker

17. Comment #37450 by Matt2h on May 4, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Thursday's Republican Presidential DebateShare
3:49am Today | Edit Note | Delete
In Thursday night's Republican Presidential debate on MSNBC, 3 of the Republican candidates expressed something so shocking I could not believe it.

Upon being asked if anyone on the stage "does not believe in evolution," Senator Sam Brownback, Former Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo raised their hands. That alone should spell an immediate end to their respective candidacies. It indicates that their minds have been so thoroughly poisoned by religious literalism - truly fundamentalism of the most dangerous kind - that they have lost touch with reality.

As if it needed repeating, there is no debate within the scientific community regarding the overwhelming validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It is most unfortunate that a handful of religious extremists have created the illusion, in the public sphere, that there is anything to discuss as far as science is concerned.

What does need to be discussed, on the other hand, is the very nature of religious faith as a mode of knowing about the world. I submit to you that this is a clear case of faith having overstepped its bounds. Your faith should not require you to deny matters of overwhelming empirical fact. Faith operates within a different realm than that - a realm beyond the sensible world from which science extracts its data. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

As prominent Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Edward O. Wilson have insisted, there is no necessary conflict between religion and science, presuming the former deals with "why" and the latter with "how." Those trained in the analysis of physical data should not pretend to philosophical or literary expertise, and those trained in the tradition of attempts to interpret the human condition should not pretend to scientific expertise.

Quite simply, our 3 dear Republican candidates overstepped their bounds as men of faith, Thursday night, by dissenting on a matter on which they clearly don't have the education to be able to intelligently opine.



Matt Henderson
Millersville, PA

Other Comments by Matt2h

18. Comment #37451 by Matt2h on May 4, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Former Governor Huckabee did say something last night, however, which I have been insisting on for a while. Namely, that there is something rather odd about those who attempt to completely separate their "personal beliefs" from their public behavior or political philosophy. Beliefs have consequences. Beliefs matter. Now, there is something to be said, certainly, for the mature realization that you do not feel you have the political authority to impose your ethical judgments on those without similar views.. but it does not at all surprise me when someone who believes that abortion is murder.. or that jesus instructed him/her to spread the good news.. actually puts those beliefs into action. That is consistent. People can censor their own behavior however they like.. but when they start making claims about what is good for everyone.. a flag is raised.. you can no longer hide behind
"personal belief." You have invited scrutiny by the universality of your moral judgment





Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo said something last night that should spell an immediate end to their political careers. Only in America could three men vying for the nomination of one of the two major parties actually deny a central tenet of modern science.. and still maintain any credibility whatsoever. Only in America (among the educated nations).

As Richard Dawkins has remarked.. you cannot be both sane and well-educated and disbelieve in evolution. Unless you're being intentionally deceptive. That at least 3 of our Republican candidates are either so ignorant or so insane (or so dishonest) as to disbelieve in evolution may not be surprising considering whose party they hail from.. but it is still genuinely disturbing that they can come anywhere close to securing the nomination of a national political party.

Other Comments by Matt2h

19. Comment #37454 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I was more shocked, and befuddled by the performance of candidates falling over themselves to be favorably identified as the most extreme "pro-life" candidate in the field. While in stark contrast, when the topic of health care came up, all they talked about was how "the U.S. has the greatest health care system in the world!".

Either they are criminally ignorant or they haven't even the slightest bit of real compassion for life. The U.S. has the very worst infant mortality rate among its technological peer nations, and these "pro-lifers" think that is a successful health care system?!?!!!!!!!!!

With the exception of Ron Paul (who has integrity) I really hate these guys. They are completely lacking in even the most basic intellectual and moral credibility.

Even Guiliani (whose policies I more agree with than disagree), had to tell that stupid lie in which he credited Ronald Reagan for the release of Iranian hostages. How stupid are people?

My most basic litmus test is really simple:
you lie or misrepresent yourself, you wont get my vote. no compromises. no excuses.

Other Comments by Riley

20. Comment #37456 by FVThinker on May 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I wouldn't read too much into McCain's hedging. Unfortunately, to even have a CHANCE of winning, you can't deny belief in God. Were Pete Stark (our one and only openly atheist federal lawmaker) to run for president, he would have to do his own hedging. It is a sad fact.

This says nothing about where he stands on other issues.

Other Comments by FVThinker

21. Comment #37458 by Not Stupid on May 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I see nothing remarkable here. A group of people who resemble monkeys more than humans admit that they see no evidence of evolution, based on their experience of course. Neither do I.

Other Comments by Not Stupid

22. Comment #37462 by ghostbuster on May 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm

The best form of government is democracy, tempered by assassination.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

23. Comment #37464 by bhima on May 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I find it odd that anyone who claims to be liberatarian would vote for guiliani. The ONLY candidate you should mark at the ballot box (and I believe the only conservative candidate who isn't raving insane or completely owned by big oil) is Ron Paul.

1) Ron Paul does not support this immoral illegal occupation.
2) Ron Paul does not support the patriot act
3) Ron Paul does not support torture or the abolishment of habeus corpus
4) Ron Paul also does not support Bush's signing statements (they throw out checks and balances...one of the most vital functions of our government)
5) and he does not support bypassing FISA.

You know why he doesn't support these actions? because he is the only candidate on that stage that even gives a hoot about the Constitution and our laws. Does Guiliani? No, clearly he does not since he supports Bush verbally or through silent complicity. Seriously, if you consider yourself a liberatarian, please choose a candidate that cares first about the constitution, not first about getting elected or first about some major corporate donor. Cheers.

Other Comments by bhima

24. Comment #37466 by NJS on May 4, 2007 at 2:09 pm

When Tony Blair was asked about creationism being taught in a city academy he'd championed he described evolution as "just a theory" - its not just the US where idiots "get away with" being stupid.

Other Comments by NJS

25. Comment #37467 by Nimnom on May 4, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Could someone please identify the three who raised their hand?

Other Comments by Nimnom

26. Comment #37468 by jshuey on May 4, 2007 at 2:19 pm

This is way off topic, and I apologize, but since it was brought up...

"1) Ron Paul does not support this immoral illegal occupation.
2) Ron Paul does not support the patriot act
3) Ron Paul does not support torture or the abolishment of habeus corpus
4) Ron Paul also does not support Bush's signing statements (they throw out checks and balances...one of the most vital functions of our government)
5) and he does not support bypassing FISA."

Unfortunately, Rep. Paul, whom I like personally and whose integrity I admire, also favors putting the nation back on the gold standard, a sure recipe for hyper-deflation.

Other Comments by jshuey

27. Comment #37474 by sent2null on May 4, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I was astounded at 1) McKain's hesitation to answer. 2) His need to "soften" the original "yes" by adding that crap about the mountain. 3) That 3 on the podium raised their hands to say "no". A sad commentary on the state of knowledge of those that hope to rule the free world.

Other Comments by sent2null

28. Comment #37475 by Connor on May 4, 2007 at 2:44 pm

My respect for Huckabee just shrank considerably. I rarely agreed with his decisions as governor, but this is just ridiculous.

Other Comments by Connor

29. Comment #37476 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 4, 2007 at 2:48 pm

NJS commented:

"When Tony Blair was asked about creationism being taught in a city academy he'd championed he described evolution as "just a theory" - its not just the US where idiots "get away with" being stupid".

When challenged during Prime Minister's questions on the teaching of creationism in the faith schools he is so keen on funding with taxpayer's money, Blair said he did not see a problem in diversity.

And when asked if stories about him and George Bush praying together before meetings (including those on invading Iraq) were true, he looked shifty and refused to give a straight answer.

The madness is spreading.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

30. Comment #37482 by pault on May 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm

McCain is such a weasel, I used to respect the guy but not since he started pandering to the fundies.

Other Comments by pault

31. Comment #37493 by bhima on May 4, 2007 at 4:05 pm

to #26

ewww..i didn't know that. Yeah, the gold standard would totally shift our economy into a massive deflation...except for the people that own lots of gold hahaha!

I personally am not advocating for Ron Paul, I'm no Liberatarian or Conservative, but I do at least believe he has an overall mindset that cares about the constitution before big business. Lets say, i wouldn't be totally destroyed if he got elected. At least we could have debates about the constitution instead of abortion, stem cell research, schiavo, or creationism.

Other Comments by bhima

32. Comment #37496 by Mr. Grape on May 4, 2007 at 4:27 pm

"Believe it or not, not everyone here is a liberal. I am Libertarian minded (small government, low taxes, no deficit spending, personal freedom...) Giuliani is the closest to me ideologically, and at this point I will be happy to vote for him. Moreover, no one can deny how he turned NY completely around."

Just remember that the libertarian model has no accountability for corporations, which is exceptionally bad for the time we live in where politicians can be bought and sold(by religious nuts or otherwise) I believe a green candidate would bring a much needed balance and benefit to everyday people rather than the top 1%(or 0.1%)

I do agree that a libertarian would make a better president than a democrat and especially a republican. Just remember that the democrats pull the religion card as much as the republicans.

Vote 3rd party, democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

33. Comment #37497 by Homo economicus on May 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Reminds me of that bit in Spartacus when the Senate leader speaks about making a public offering to the gods and Caesar says:

But you do not believe in the gods?

Privately I do not believe in them; neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

34. Comment #37507 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Although I said I was Libertarian minded, and have basic values that are in-tune with the libertarian philosophy, I would not vote for a Libertarian; they are just too radical. Libertarians like Ron Paul live in an idealized world, there have to be some compromises in the real world.

The Constitution is not a static document. It has to 'evolve' with the rest of us if it is to stay useful, and it has through interpretation and amendment (things that Ron Paul would be against).

Other Comments by mr harry

35. Comment #37509 by framante on May 4, 2007 at 4:58 pm

The fact that these people are considered serious presidential candidates is scary.

Other Comments by framante

36. Comment #37515 by Dr C on May 4, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Remember, these folks are politicians. And they're running for the highest elective office in the country. What they're trying to do of course is to appeal to the widest range of people possible. They begin with the incredibly backward-looking Republican base, but they're also careful to try to not alienate other groups necessary for victory. Or they should be if they're looking very far into the future.

OK. What all this means to me is that this is an illustration NOT of the shocking ignorance of the candidates (they were scripted by very very intelligent people) but rather the ignorance of the American people at large, who buy into this drivel.

Fact of life. It's not enough that scientists talk to other scientists. Science needs to address the common folk and keep educating them in terms they can relate to/understand. The "only a theory" example is perfect.

If science/scientists ignore the apparently-growing ignorance of the people, we'll be teaching alchemy instead of chemistry to our grandchildren.

Don't just bash the Republicans, we have real work to do.

Other Comments by Dr C

37. Comment #37516 by Dreamer's Dilemma on May 4, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I hold out great hopes that an inspiring candidate with proper credentials and positions will come forth to earn the Republican nomination. But even if that doesn't happen and someone actually conjures up the Devil on the stage during the Republican convention and he/she gets the nod, I'll vote for him/her over the likes of Senator Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

38. Comment #37520 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2007 at 6:01 pm

re the 3 no's to evolution. A nice follow up question would have been something like "So for the benefit of those who dont know about evolution briefly explain what it is and why you dont 'believe' in it".

I predict that they wouldnt have a clue what it was (they'd mention monkeys or slime or random perhaps, or maybe even that really dirty word...eye!)and then their reasons for not believing would involve a few 'distracting change the topic cos i dont know it' jokes about not believing in god 'and we all believe in god dont we!'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #37521 by cmacblue42 on May 4, 2007 at 6:08 pm

well, we now know that the dems will win, because the fundamentalist majority will vote for the 3 lesser known candidates, and they wont be able to compete with the dems nominee.

Other Comments by cmacblue42

40. Comment #37524 by Perran on May 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Diderot had it right: "Man will never be free until the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

...having stoned to death the last lawyer with every volume in the Libray of Congress.

Other Comments by Perran

41. Comment #37526 by katiecarr on May 4, 2007 at 6:21 pm

I am a registered Republican - pro Iraq war and pro-national security but on this issue I depart from many Republicans - no serious person can claim he does not believe in evolution when the evidence is overwhelming for those with eyes to see. Such a person is too stupid to be president. I like Mitt Romney but if he actually believes Mormon doctrine, then he also is too stupid to be president. I loathe the Dems but this is just depressing.

Other Comments by katiecarr

42. Comment #37528 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

re: katiecars post. with many hot topics (abortion, the war, stem cell research) being for or against is a matter of (informed)opinion but evolution is one which is a matter of almost certain fact, it has noting to do with opinions as it came before us and will continue after us. When i talk to people I pretty much ignore their stance on god but their stance on evolution tells me far, far more about them (well, i assume it does)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

43. Comment #37531 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 4, 2007 at 6:42 pm

My response to this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn-ZQBV_FRo

If you like it,please don't forget to rate, and comment. The more activity the higher the video goes the more people see it. Thx:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

44. Comment #37535 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 6:50 pm

40. Comment #37524 by Perran on May 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm

...having stoned to death the last lawyer with every volume in the Libray of Congress.

Hey, now. We're not all bad. :)

Besides. I think there are still more books in the Library of Congress than there are lawyers. And I'm not entirely sure any are made of stone. ;)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

45. Comment #37537 by roach on May 4, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Regarding Perran and retiredbiker's comments:

I trust your comments are largely facetious. Politicians and lawyers are heavily criticized simply because of their professions. It's just sad.

Other Comments by roach

46. Comment #37538 by fletch12 on May 4, 2007 at 7:34 pm

i wish they had asked if anyone thought the universe was only 6000 years old. wonder if the same three hands would have gone up.

Other Comments by fletch12

47. Comment #37547 by jupsie on May 4, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Call me cynical, but the politicians have to give the answer which will placate the majority of their constituents. It is therefore a simple matter of playing the odds. It may have been best to reply along the lines of.."That's not a topic which lends itself to a simple yes or no response"
Andrew

Other Comments by jupsie

48. Comment #37549 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Mr. Grape wrote: "Just remember that the democrats pull the religion card as much as the republicans."

30% of the 2008 Republican candidates state that evolution is a myth! Do you seriously think that even one Democratic candidate is in denial on this?

The Republican Party is a Theocratic party.

It's the party of:
- The Christian Coalition
- The Family Research Council
- The Office of Faith Based Initiatives
- The display of the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms
- Abstinence only sex education
- Prayer in school
- Intelligent Design
- Gay bashing
- And declaration that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation.


wake up.

seriously.

wake up.

Other Comments by Riley

49. Comment #37552 by MelM on May 4, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Perhaps we could make a case that both the president and vice-president should be atheists because this would keep the country going in the event of rapture.

Anyone who still thinks the Dominionists arn't very dangerous should read "Kingdom Coming" by Michelle Goldburg.
http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Coming-Rise-Christian-Nationalism/dp/0393329763/ref=sr_1_1/104-7079336-6081544?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178341700&sr=1-1

Other Comments by MelM

50. Comment #37553 by foxfire on May 4, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Riley wrote:

30% of the 2008 Republican candidates state that evolution is a myth! Do you seriously think that even one Democratic candidate is in denial on this?

Honey, if Hillary was campaigning in Mobile AL, I think she would seriously evade the question.

There is a "dark horse" (appropriate, considering tomorrow's race) named Fred Thompson. Don't discount it. Don't ever discount the power that will be (is already?) pushing it.I won't be voting for it, regardless of how many sacred "Regan" veils are twined in its mane.

Other Comments by foxfire