Rasmussen: Huckabee pulls within three points of the front-running Rudy Giuliani

[Logan13]

Rasmussen: Huckabee pulls within three points of the front-running Rudy Giulianihttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

If the current round of Huck-a-mania is nothing more than Mike Huckabee’s fifteen minutes of fame, the former Arkansas Governor is certainly making the most of it. Today, in the first full round of national polling completed since last week’s “debate” among Republican Presidential hopefuls, Huckabee has pulled to within three points of the frontrunning Rudy Giuliani. Heading into the debate, Giuliani led Huckabee by twelve.

Not only that, new polling data released today shows that Huckabee has pulled to within a single percentage point of Hillary Clinton in a general election match-up. Huckabee is also a frontrunner in Iowa and essentially tied for second in New Hampshire. Some pundits believe Huckabee’s numbers will surely go down as fast as they’ve gone up while others are beginning to consider the possibility that the bass-guitar playing Governor may become a serious contender for the Republican nomination.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Giuliani with 20% support nationwide while Huckabee attracts 17%. Fred Thompson is at 14%, John McCain at 13% and Mitt Romney at 11%. Ron Paul attracts 7% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide and no other Republican candidate reaches 2% (see recent daily numbers). During the past week, three events—a debate, an endorsement, and Huck-a-mania—have created new challenges and uncertainties for the GOP frontrunners.

Rudy Giuliani is still seen as the most electable Republican. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are essentially tied for second in this category.

Results for the Presidential Tracking Poll are obtained through nightly telephone interviews and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Today is the first update for which all of the interviews were conducted following Wednesday’s Republican debate.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now attracts 37% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 24%. John Edwards remains in third place among the Democratic hopefuls at 15%, Bill Richardson is the top choice for 6%, and no other Democratic candidate tops 3% (see recent daily numbers).

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats believe that Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. That’s down from 81% a month ago. Sixty-six percent (66%) believe Obama is at least somewhat likely to win it all and 58% say the same about Edwards.

New polling on general election match-ups released over the weekend shows Obama tied with McCain, in a toss-up with Giuliani, and leading both Thompson and Romney.

Other polling released yesterday shows that just 23% believe the United States is heading in the right direction. Women are more pessimistic than men.

Also, during the month of November, 37.3% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats while 32.6% considered themselves Republicans. Those figures are virtually unchanged from October, are a bit better for the GOP than November 2006, but represent a significant decline in the number of Republicans since President Bush’s re-election.

See Rasmussen Reports general election match-ups and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic candidates.

The Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll is updated daily. Today is the first day of regular weekend updates.

Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

[kfrost06]

He's got my vote! How about you Logan?

[Logan13]

He's got my vote! How about you Logan?

yes.......where the hell you been?

[Kärnfysikern]

Huckabee as president is one damn scary scenario. Even more religiously nutty than Bush. Logan how can you support someone that doesnt belive in evolution and has made anti scientific statements? Such a man can not make good descisions.

[RA]

You would not vote for him based on the fact that hes religious?

Huckabee as president is one damn scary scenario. Even more religiously nutty than Bush. Logan how can you support someone that doesnt belive in evolution and has made anti scientific statements? Such a man can not make good descisions.

[Kärnfysikern]

I would not vote for him based on the fact that he has made statements like this.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Its scary on so many levels, most of all because he even suffers from the missconception that science even needs belife or that science and the bible isnt in a conflict. This is after all a man that will ultimately be responsible for how "big" science is done in america and america is number one because you are best at science.
I have no respect for those that doesnt respect science.

[RA]

I disagree. I like his statement. Our understanding of the universe and all that is in it is constantly changing but the bible/religion stays the same.

Look at stem cell research, before they just HAD to have embryos otherwise we are holding back the cure for millions of people blah blah blah.

Now, we dont need embryos.....he has a point.

btw, Im not voting for him

I would not vote for him based on the fact that he has made statements like this.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Its scary on so many levels, most of all because he even suffers from the missconception that science even needs belife or that science and the bible isnt in a conflict. This is after all a man that will ultimately be responsible for how "big" science is done in america and america is number one because you are best at science.
I have no respect for those that doesnt respect science.

[Logan13]

I would not vote for him based on the fact that he has made statements like this.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Its scary on so many levels, most of all because he even suffers from the missconception that science even needs belife or that science and the bible isnt in a conflict. This is after all a man that will ultimately be responsible for how "big" science is done in america and america is number one because you are best at science.
I have no respect for those that doesnt respect science.

He is saying that God is science. I see no issue with that, but I do take issue with your apparent religious bigotry since you seem to come to the defense of every other group but this one........

[kfrost06]

I would not vote for him based on the fact that he has made statements like this.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Its scary on so many levels, most of all because he even suffers from the missconception that science even needs belife or that science and the bible isnt in a conflict. This is after all a man that will ultimately be responsible for how "big" science is done in america and america is number one because you are best at science.
I have no respect for those that doesnt respect science.

I am shocked that statment comes off as scary

[Dagron]

I disagree. I like his statement. Our understanding of the universe and all that is in it is constantly changing but the bible/religion stays the same.

Look at stem cell research, before they just HAD to have embryos otherwise we are holding back the cure for millions of people blah blah blah.

Now, we dont need embryos.....he has a point.

btw, Im not voting for him

Very well said and I agree as well, although, if he does win the nomination, there is no way I am voting for him. I know folks from Arkansas who claim that there is very little difference between him and the Clintons in practice; taxes raised repeatedly and social programs left and right (no pun intended).

[gixxerboy1]

Very well said and I agree as well, although, if he does win the nomination, there is no way I am voting for him. I know folks from Arkansas who claim that there is very little difference between him and the Clintons in practice; taxes raised repeatedly and social programs left and right (no pun intended).

I agree with him being to much for social programs and for illegal aliens.

I'm not religious and i dont care about the faith of any of the candidates. It shouldn't matter what they are. But it worries me if they let their faith effect how they plan on running the country

[kfrost06]

I would not vote for him based on the fact that he has made statements like this.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Its scary on so many levels, most of all because he even suffers from the missconception that science even needs belife or that science and the bible isnt in a conflict. This is after all a man that will ultimately be responsible for how "big" science is done in america and america is number one because you are best at science.
I have no respect for those that doesnt respect science.

So, would you vote for Obama? even though the Senator preached to a South Carolina congregation, "I can be an instrument of God they same way all of you are."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...3695418&page=3

now that to me is scary.

[thegodfather]

I believe any candidates religious background should be completely irrelevant to their election and that religious statements have no place in any debates. There is a seperation of church&state for a reason. Too often these politicians let their religious rhetoric find their ways into the motives behind bills which restrict all of our freedoms. Such as the freedom for people to put whatever the hell they want into their own bodies. Or some religious zealouts in the mid-west who pass laws against distributing condoms in high schools. These kind of idealogies have no place in our political system in this country. Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, and all variations stemming from those basic crimes, I absolutely agree with their illegality. Drugs are a medical problem, and I challenge anyone to make a good logically based case for them being a legal problem. Aside from drugs which have a SIGNIFICANT deleterious effect on society, I do not see the reason to regulate what people put into their bodies. I am all about personal accountability, I am so tired of the politicians holding everyone BUT the person who makes the decision to do something accountable for their actions. A person shoots someone, sue the gun manufacturer. A person overdoses on a medication intentionally, sue the Pharmaceutical company. Give me a break. The last thing we need is a candidate who is going to let their personal religious ideaologies affect their judgement when passing or vetoing legislation. We already have enough bullshit laws on the books that were passed because of those kind of ideaologies, and we dont need more. You guys should be PISSED about your personal freedoms that are being taken away from you, and that HAVE been taken away from you. Everyone seems to be under the impression that we cant get those freedoms back. Well we certainly cant if we keep electing candidates who are just going to reinforce those illogical "moral" based laws, which really restrict the freedoms of the majority.

I would love to see Ron Paul win the primaries, and then eventually the Presidency. However I do live in reality and know the chances of that happening are very slim. He has my vote in the primaries without a doubt. If he doesn't win, I will certainly cross that bridge when I come to it. I am starting to examine other candidates and which ones most closely resemble his ideals. I would like to see a candidate who is for personal freedoms, and wants to end the current reign that big brother has on this country. I am also deeply opposed to Wellfare and Medicaid. Once you start giving these people handouts they dont want to work for anything, it fosters a society of laziness. And half of these people in the ghetto are claiming dependents that dont even live with them or are related to them. The entire system needs to be thrown out. Thats the end of my rant for the night, Im pissed and my blood pressure just jumped 20 points.

[RA]

Thats just your opinion. I like a guy whos decision making includes his deeply heald religious beliefs.

I agree 100% that the damn schools shouldnt be handing out condoms. If I want my child to have one I will BUY HIM/HER ONE! I send them to school to learn the three R's not have some idiot shove a condom in their face.

I am more libertarian leaning when it comes to the war on drugs but that doesnt disagree with what I said above. Freedom is being able to take what I want, do what I want, and raise my kids how I want.

As far as personal accountability thats a big lib thing. Always blame someone else for your problem. You want tort reform so the lady that sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself doesnt get paid off? Vote Republican. Democrats continually block any tort reform because they get the money from trial lawyers and we all end up paying for it.

I believe any candidates religious background should be completely irrelevant to their election and that religious statements have no place in any debates. There is a seperation of church&state for a reason. Too often these politicians let their religious rhetoric find their ways into the motives behind bills which restrict all of our freedoms. Such as the freedom for people to put whatever the hell they want into their own bodies. Or some religious zealouts in the mid-west who pass laws against distributing condoms in high schools. These kind of idealogies have no place in our political system in this country. Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, and all variations stemming from those basic crimes, I absolutely agree with their illegality. Drugs are a medical problem, and I challenge anyone to make a good logically based case for them being a legal problem. Aside from drugs which have a SIGNIFICANT deleterious effect on society, I do not see the reason to regulate what people put into their bodies. I am all about personal accountability, I am so tired of the politicians holding everyone BUT the person who makes the decision to do something accountable for their actions. A person shoots someone, sue the gun manufacturer. A person overdoses on a medication intentionally, sue the Pharmaceutical company. Give me a break. The last thing we need is a candidate who is going to let their personal religious ideaologies affect their judgement when passing or vetoing legislation. We already have enough bullshit laws on the books that were passed because of those kind of ideaologies, and we dont need more. You guys should be PISSED about your personal freedoms that are being taken away from you, and that HAVE been taken away from you. Everyone seems to be under the impression that we cant get those freedoms back. Well we certainly cant if we keep electing candidates who are just going to reinforce those illogical "moral" based laws, which really restrict the freedoms of the majority.

I would love to see Ron Paul win the primaries, and then eventually the Presidency. However I do live in reality and know the chances of that happening are very slim. He has my vote in the primaries without a doubt. If he doesn't win, I will certainly cross that bridge when I come to it. I am starting to examine other candidates and which ones most closely resemble his ideals. I would like to see a candidate who is for personal freedoms, and wants to end the current reign that big brother has on this country. I am also deeply opposed to Wellfare and Medicaid. Once you start giving these people handouts they dont want to work for anything, it fosters a society of laziness. And half of these people in the ghetto are claiming dependents that dont even live with them or are related to them. The entire system needs to be thrown out. Thats the end of my rant for the night, Im pissed and my blood pressure just jumped 20 points.

[thegodfather]

It is however a catch22 roidattack.... When he uses his deep seated religious ideals to pass laws, things such as stringent drug control policys make their way into law for reasons like "morality" and of course my favorite bullshit sentiment of all "Saving the children." It is not the states job to save the children, ITS THE PARENTS. You did say you wanted to raise your child however you want, and I completely agree. So please lay in the bed that you made for yourself. If you've raised your kid right, then surely drugs and other substances wont be an issue for him/her. It should not take massive drug control policy and a war on drugs which doesn't work worth a damn anyway, to keep your kid away from drugs. Not to mention, despite all their efforts the "children" still manage to get their hands on the drugs. So I actually like the idea you have presented to me, allowing the PARENT to be responsible for their childrens upbringing and safety, rather than big government.

Thats just your opinion. I like a guy whos decision making includes his deeply heald religious beliefs.

I agree 100% that the damn schools shouldnt be handing out condoms. If I want my child to have one I will BUY HIM/HER ONE! I send them to school to learn the three R's not have some idiot shove a condom in their face.

I am more libertarian leaning when it comes to the war on drugs but that doesnt disagree with what I said above. Freedom is being able to take what I want, do what I want, and raise my kids how I want.

As far as personal accountability thats a big lib thing. Always blame someone else for your problem. You want tort reform so the lady that sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself doesnt get paid off? Vote Republican. Democrats continually block any tort reform because they get the money from trial lawyers and we all end up paying for it.

[RA]

So we're pretty much on the same page...

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if it wasnt for his foreign policy. IMO, we should worry about that over domestic issues at this point....although Ive been waiting for a libertaian/republican hybrid to come along

It is however a catch22 roidattack.... When he uses his deep seated religious ideals to pass laws, things such as stringent drug control policys make their way into law for reasons like "morality" and of course my favorite bullshit sentiment of all "Saving the children." It is not the states job to save the children, ITS THE PARENTS. You did say you wanted to raise your child however you want, and I completely agree. So please lay in the bed that you made for yourself. If you've raised your kid right, then surely drugs and other substances wont be an issue for him/her. It should not take massive drug control policy and a war on drugs which doesn't work worth a damn anyway, to keep your kid away from drugs. Not to mention, despite all their efforts the "children" still manage to get their hands on the drugs. So I actually like the idea you have presented to me, allowing the PARENT to be responsible for their childrens upbringing and safety, rather than big government.

[thegodfather]

So we're pretty much on the same page...

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if it wasnt for his foreign policy. IMO, we should worry about that over domestic issues at this point....although Ive been waiting for a libertaian/republican hybrid to come along

We should worry about what at the moment? You're saying that the current state of foreign affairs is more important than those at home right now? I might be inclined to agree. However, what are you talking about in regards to policy? Are you saying that we need to take care of the Middle East because they could continue to stage terroristic attacks from there. You mean, the attacks that we've provocated with our own foreign policy? Does anyone here actually DENY fallout from the way we've marched around the world for the last 20 years treating sovereign nations no matter how small or big like pre-schoolers?

Lets look PRE-9/11 and PRE-1993 attack on WTC...Our foriegn policy has been agitating these peoples for decades. If Saudi Arabia showed up on the US Coast, and started building a base in YOUR neighborhood, what would you say or do?

[dank1970]

huckabee has chuck norris backing him, fact. I saw a commercial on you tube. I see no reason to even have a vote now. huckabee wins!

[Kärnfysikern]

He is saying that God is science. I see no issue with that, but I do take issue with your apparent religious bigotry since you seem to come to the defense of every other group but this one........

Ok so what groups have I defended?

[RA]

Fact is we are in Iraq and I 100% disagree with pulling out and leaving that country in chaos. Good, bad, or ugly we started a job and we need to see it through.

Another fact is if we pull out there is a 100% chance that they follow us back over and hit us. Why did 9/11 happen? Because we saved Kuwait? Because we support Israel? Boy, those are terrible.

We should worry about what at the moment? You're saying that the current state of foreign affairs is more important than those at home right now? I might be inclined to agree. However, what are you talking about in regards to policy? Are you saying that we need to take care of the Middle East because they could continue to stage terroristic attacks from there. You mean, the attacks that we've provocated with our own foreign policy? Does anyone here actually DENY fallout from the way we've marched around the world for the last 20 years treating sovereign nations no matter how small or big like pre-schoolers?

Lets look PRE-9/11 and PRE-1993 attack on WTC...Our foriegn policy has been agitating these peoples for decades. If Saudi Arabia showed up on the US Coast, and started building a base in YOUR neighborhood, what would you say or do?

[Kärnfysikern]

I disagree. I like his statement. Our understanding of the universe and all that is in it is constantly changing but the bible/religion stays the same.

Look at stem cell research, before they just HAD to have embryos otherwise we are holding back the cure for millions of people blah blah blah.

Now, we dont need embryos.....he has a point.

btw, Im not voting for him

Well how has quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, lagrangian mechanics, electromagnetic field theory, statistical physics ect changed during the last 50 years? The forefront of science changes offcourse, new things are found and details are added. But the foundation remains solid and evolution is a part of the foundation.

I dont se how anyone could consider the bible more trusthworthy than the foundation of science. Everything we enjoy in our modern life is because of science.

To many politicians are to ignorant when it comes to science and technology.

[Kärnfysikern]

So, would you vote for Obama? even though the Senator preached to a South Carolina congregation, "I can be an instrument of God they same way all of you are."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...3695418&page=3

now that to me is scary.

Well it doesnt suprise me that every candiate gives a bit of lip service to christianity.

But to answere your question, no I would probably not vote for anyone that makes overly religious statements. I would have no proble voting for a christian politicians aslong as Im sure their belife wont effect the way they want to run the country.

[thegodfather]

Fact is we are in Iraq and I 100% disagree with pulling out and leaving that country in chaos. Good, bad, or ugly we started a job and we need to see it through.

Another fact is if we pull out there is a 100% chance that they follow us back over and hit us. Why did 9/11 happen? Because we saved Kuwait? Because we support Israel? Boy, those are terrible.

Well, why did 9/11 happen? Lets ASSUME that we think Osama Bin-Laden was responsible for the attack, which we were never able to establish a direct connection with. Also, several of the alledged hi-jackers on that list are still alive in several Middle Eastern countries. Ohh, and Osama Bin-Laden released a statement several days after the 9/11 attack denying that he had anything to do with it. In addition to that, the 9/11 Commission Report, which was a dog and pony show to begin with, stated in regards to WHO FUNDED the 9/11 attacks that it was "Of little significance."

BUT, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and say that it was Osama Bin-Laden.

Why did 9/11 happen???

US foreign policy which established bases on their holy land, and in their countries.

US foreign policy that degraded the sovereignty of sovereign nations.



All you really need to do, is try to walk a mile in their shoes. If Saudi Arabia built a military base in the town you live in RoidAttack, on land that was important to you and your grandparents, I think that you would be pissed. If they then started spewing their propaganda in your town, and trying to enforce Islamic ideals in your culture, you would also be pissed. We establish bases in their country and then try to influence them with our Western ideals, THEY DONT WANT THEM! They like their Islamic way of life, it is an insult to them to assume that they want anything to do with our Western way of life.

So now, Saudi Arabia has a base in your town, and they're dilluting YOUR CULTURE with their Islamic ideals. You have no standing army that could ever hope to defeat your occupyer, so what do you do? You resort to guerilla warfare tactics, which appearently in our modern day societies we have labeled "terrorism"....

[RA]

Name 1 base that we established in the middle east that wasnt allowed by their respective govts. Im talking pre 9/11.

Well, why did 9/11 happen? Lets ASSUME that we think Osama Bin-Laden was responsible for the attack, which we were never able to establish a direct connection with. Also, several of the alledged hi-jackers on that list are still alive in several Middle Eastern countries. Ohh, and Osama Bin-Laden released a statement several days after the 9/11 attack denying that he had anything to do with it. In addition to that, the 9/11 Commission Report, which was a dog and pony show to begin with, stated in regards to WHO FUNDED the 9/11 attacks that it was "Of little significance."

BUT, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and say that it was Osama Bin-Laden.

Why did 9/11 happen???

US foreign policy which established bases on their holy land, and in their countries.

US foreign policy that degraded the sovereignty of sovereign nations.



All you really need to do, is try to walk a mile in their shoes. If Saudi Arabia built a military base in the town you live in RoidAttack, on land that was important to you and your grandparents, I think that you would be pissed. If they then started spewing their propaganda in your town, and trying to enforce Islamic ideals in your culture, you would also be pissed. We establish bases in their country and then try to influence them with our Western ideals, THEY DONT WANT THEM! They like their Islamic way of life, it is an insult to them to assume that they want anything to do with our Western way of life.

So now, Saudi Arabia has a base in your town, and they're dilluting YOUR CULTURE with their Islamic ideals. You have no standing army that could ever hope to defeat your occupyer, so what do you do? You resort to guerilla warfare tactics, which appearently in our modern day societies we have labeled "terrorism"....

[RA]

How much has the bible changed over the last 50 years. I would say less than the foundation of science.

Getting back to his statement, its letting a primarily Christian country know that things like embryonic stem cell research would not be funded by the govt...which most of his voters would agree with.

Im certain that your one of those people that thinks just because we can do it, we should do it,(with respect to science) but I would have to disagree.

Well how has quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, lagrangian mechanics, electromagnetic field theory, statistical physics ect changed during the last 50 years? The forefront of science changes offcourse, new things are found and details are added. But the foundation remains solid and evolution is a part of the foundation.

I dont se how anyone could consider the bible more trusthworthy than the foundation of science. Everything we enjoy in our modern life is because of science.

To many politicians are to ignorant when it comes to science and technology.

[thegodfather]

How much has the bible changed over the last 50 years. I would say less than the foundation of science.

Getting back to his statement, its letting a primarily Christian country know that things like embryonic stem cell research would not be funded by the govt...which most of his voters would agree with.

Im certain that your one of those people that thinks just because we can do it, we should do it,(with respect to science) but I would have to disagree.

The bible has not changed much in the last couple thousand years, but human society has certainly come a great way in that amount of time, wouldnt you agree?

I am one of those people that believe if we have the ability to do something great scientificly, that politicians and religious people should have no say in the matter. It does not directly affect them, Im not asking to do experiments on their children, so they should keep going about their everyday lives going to Church on Sunday and that be that. Additionally, if the religious and politicians alike want to bitch about the kind of advances we're making in science, I think that the next time any of them get cancer, they should refuse treatment and just say a prayer. Why would you want to benefit from scientific research that you denounce? You shouldn't, it would be hypocritical.

And, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the governments didn't allow the bases, but how much pressure, and how much money do you honestly think changed hands behind closed doors. Our country has suspended Habeas Corpus, and subjects its people to warrantless wire tapping. Polls show the majority of the American public do not agree with it. Does that mean just because the politicians make a decision, that 100% of the American population are ok with it? Surely not.

[Kärnfysikern]

How much has the bible changed over the last 50 years. I would say less than the foundation of science.

Getting back to his statement, its letting a primarily Christian country know that things like embryonic stem cell research would not be funded by the govt...which most of his voters would agree with.

Im certain that your one of those people that thinks just because we can do it, we should do it,(with respect to science) but I would have to disagree.

Well Shakespears works hasnt changed either and it still doesnt mean I will pic Shakespear over science Neither the bible nor shakespear can build rockets, nuclear power plants, computers, develop medicine ect. Its silly to put a work of fiction oposed to science in the way Huckabee does.

We should do everything we can do to keep science progressing ever faster.

[Dagron]

It's not at all fair to characterize the bible as "fictional", historians have been trying for decades and decades to prove or disprove the bible even on a passage by passage basis to no avail... disbelief requires just as much faith, if not more so, than belief. Personally I can understand someone being an agnostic, though. Regardless, I fail to see what exactly would be so dangerous about someone who professes to be a Christian being a President, if they were to follow the book the way it is written then you would basically wind up with a Teddy Roosevelt in office

[RA]

Well Shakespears works hasnt changed either and it still doesnt mean I will pic Shakespear over science Neither the bible nor shakespear can build rockets, nuclear power plants, computers, develop medicine ect. Its silly to put a work of fiction oposed to science in the way Huckabee does.

We should do everything we can do to keep science progressing ever faster.

lol...smartass.

Thats where you and I differ. You call it fiction.

[RA]

The bible has not changed much in the last couple thousand years, but human society has certainly come a great way in that amount of time, wouldnt you agree?

I am one of those people that believe if we have the ability to do something great scientificly, that politicians and religious people should have no say in the matter. It does not directly affect them, Im not asking to do experiments on their children, so they should keep going about their everyday lives going to Church on Sunday and that be that. Additionally, if the religious and politicians alike want to bitch about the kind of advances we're making in science, I think that the next time any of them get cancer, they should refuse treatment and just say a prayer. Why would you want to benefit from scientific research that you denounce? You shouldn't, it would be hypocritical.

No one is denouncing all scietific research but there are those of us who think it should be eithical research and will vote accordingly.

And, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the governments didn't allow the bases, but how much pressure, and how much money do you honestly think changed hands behind closed doors. Our country has suspended Habeas Corpus, and subjects its people to warrantless wire tapping. Polls show the majority of the American public do not agree with it. Does that mean just because the politicians make a decision, that 100% of the American population are ok with it? Surely not.

Whether or not we gave money or favors those govts still agreed. It does not excuse the countless times we have been attacked. I dont believe for one second that the United States is the bad guy in all of this. They hit the wtc and killed 3000 people. Good enough for me..hit em all.

[Kärnfysikern]

Personally I can understand someone being an agnostic, though. Regardless, I fail to see what exactly would be so dangerous about someone who professes to be a Christian being a President, if they were to follow the book the way it is written then you would basically wind up with a Teddy Roosevelt in office

What is scary is if someone follows any religion strictly. Especialy the less nice parts of religion. Im not saying Huckabee is a fanatic, Im just saying that I find anyone that puts faith above science scary. Thats why I would not vote for anyone overly religious.

What is worrying about Huckabee is that someone like him might very well support notions that ID should be thought alongside evolution in science class. That is truly and utterly ****ed up and it opens up for all kinds of crackpot ideas.

I realy dont care if someone is religious aslong as they dont try to force their religious values on me. There is however a very long history of struggle betwen science and religion. Only difference is that nowdays the church cant kill those that prefer science.

lol...smartass.

Thats where you and I differ. You call it fiction.

I guess the objection I have towars Huckabee is that with statements like the one I quoted he shows a gross ignorance on what science is all about. For a nation built by science and a superpower because of science thats worrying.

[Kärnfysikern]

No one is denouncing all scietific research but there are those of us who think it should be eithical research and will vote accordingly.

But in what way does "unethical" research effect you? Let say hypothethicaly that embryonic stem cell research can cure a disease Im dying of, do you have any right to oppose a science that might have a direct impact on my life just because you find it unethical?

What about other areas of science, what about implants, cloning, longlivety treatment ect. You will always find someone that considers something unethical. Especialy those that run around saying we "shouldnt tamper with nature". Aslong as a research project doesnt hurt anyone unwillingly I dont se why anyone should try to stop it.

[RA]

There has to be a line. I could go kill 1000 innocent people and figure out how to fix spine injuries. One could argue that those 1000 would save millions but I dont think like that.

I disagree with abortion 100% and to me hacking up embryos for stem cells is unethical. Its not even a religious thing...its a common sense thing.

It doesnt matter that it doesnt affect me. If I see the neighbor bashing his kids head against the wall Im going to go stop it because its the right thing to do.

But in what way does "unethical" research effect you? Let say hypothethicaly that embryonic stem cell research can cure a disease Im dying of, do you have any right to oppose a science that might have a direct impact on my life just because you find it unethical?

What about other areas of science, what about implants, cloning, longlivety treatment ect. You will always find someone that considers something unethical. Especialy those that run around saying we "shouldnt tamper with nature". Aslong as a research project doesnt hurt anyone unwillingly I dont se why anyone should try to stop it.

[Dagron]

Evolution is more of a cult religion than any traditional religion; it requires faith to believe in since it has no real scientific evidence for the 'theory', and it st***es alternative views by masquerading as scientific through the public education system. I have a very serious problem with the idea being taught as fact, but not necessarily so if it is taught as a possible explanation, much as a student in a sociology course would study Marxism as a form of government and societal system.

The difference here is that evolution is, or was at least some 8 years ago when it was crammed down my throat, taught as if it were scientific fact; that a big bang and then an indescribably large slew of 1 in a trillion events over billions of years has brought us to modern day, and that the very idea of anything less is preposterous. That, to me, is whacky, nutty, and irresponsible, not the possibility of intelligent design.

[RA]

Thats why they call it a theory

Evolution is more of a cult religion than any traditional religion; it requires faith to believe in since it has no real scientific evidence for the 'theory', and it st***es alternative views by masquerading as scientific through the public education system. I have a very serious problem with the idea being taught as fact, but not necessarily so if it is taught as a possible explanation, much as a student in a sociology course would study Marxism as a form of government and societal system.

The difference here is that evolution is, or was at least some 8 years ago when it was crammed down my throat, taught as if it were scientific fact; that a big bang and then an indescribably large slew of 1 in a trillion events over billions of years has brought us to modern day, and that the very idea of anything less is preposterous. That, to me, is whacky, nutty, and irresponsible, not the possibility of intelligent design.

[Kärnfysikern]

Evolution is more of a cult religion than any traditional religion; it requires faith to believe in since it has no real scientific evidence for the 'theory', and it st***es alternative views by masquerading as scientific through the public education system. I have a very serious problem with the idea being taught as fact, but not necessarily so if it is taught as a possible explanation, much as a student in a sociology course would study Marxism as a form of government and societal system.

The difference here is that evolution is, or was at least some 8 years ago when it was crammed down my throat, taught as if it were scientific fact; that a big bang and then an indescribably large slew of 1 in a trillion events over billions of years has brought us to modern day, and that the very idea of anything less is preposterous. That, to me, is whacky, nutty, and irresponsible, not the possibility of intelligent design.

Well what is more wacy and nutty is to totaly disregard all observational evidence for both evolution and big bang simply because you dislike the theories. You make it sounds like scientists choose to "belive" in those theories. In reality they are doing their best to disprove them but the theories end up with the upper hand each time. That is how science works, test theory with experiment/observation. If it fits continue with new tests, it it doesnt fit throw the theory in the trashcan.

Let me guess your not that fond of relativity either? What about quantum mechanics?

[Kärnfysikern]

There has to be a line. I could go kill 1000 innocent people and figure out how to fix spine injuries. One could argue that those 1000 would save millions but I dont think like that.

I disagree with abortion 100% and to me hacking up embryos for stem cells is unethical. Its not even a religious thing...its a common sense thing.

It doesnt matter that it doesnt affect me. If I see the neighbor bashing his kids head against the wall Im going to go stop it because its the right thing to do.

Well killing innocent people is denying them their freedom to live. That research project obviously hurts someone.

But how can for example weapons research be ethical while embryonic stem cell research isnt? One is done with the pure intention of hurting someone, the other is done to save lifes and cure diseases.

[Dagron]

Are you being facetious? We're talking about a ridiculously improbable theory that is portrayed as factual to impressionable youth. I would suggest that if teaching alternative explanations is "crack pot" then perhaps the entire issue shouldn't even be brought up. It's not as if there's not a slew of other important subject matters to cover that simply get glossed over.

[RA]

Abortion denies those people their freedom to live as well. Its like saying we killed those 1000 people and that was wrong but now that they are dead lets cut them up for research. Its wrong.

I dont believe there is anything wrong with defending yourself against those who are attacking or would attack you.

Well killing innocent people is denying them their freedom to live. That research project obviously hurts someone.

But how can for example weapons research be ethical while embryonic stem cell research isnt? One is done with the pure intention of hurting someone, the other is done to save lifes and cure diseases.

[Kärnfysikern]

Are you being facetious? We're talking about a ridiculously improbable theory that is portrayed as factual to impressionable youth. I would suggest that if teaching alternative explanations is "crack pot" then perhaps the entire issue shouldn't even be brought up. It's not as if there's not a slew of other important subject matters to cover that simply get glossed over.

Ok so please present a theory that can explain the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure of the universe, the cosmic abundance of the light isotopes and a host of other observational evidence that validate the big bang theory.

There is no alternative to big bang theory that can explain all the observations. Big bang is accepted because it is the only theory that hasnt been falsified.