Clinton vs Obama: Who would be best for science?

[ThunderheadNebula]

John Holdren is Obama's appointed Science Czar. Like all Czars, they were not approved by the Senate, which is unconstitutional. He advocated in his book "Ecoscience", sterilization of the human population by adding a sterilization drug to the food and water supply and the government taking babies away from single mom's. GOOGLE “zombietime john holdren” and click on link.

[sy1234]

Haha, supporting the Duopoly.

[ssnatcherss]

McCain sends.... No one. Surprise, surprise.

[Di66en6ion]

Just think what all that non-existent cash getting thrown away in the war would do if it would have been redirected to all the science departments.

[operationturkey]

Well it looks like Hilary is out now. Hooray!

[1x93cm]

it should be obama vs mccain

[djancak]

so... did this debate ever happen? i assume it did not.

[Delenko]

Yes they will advance the study of higher taxes and implement thier findings.Also they will promote the "Disarm the people" theory of peace through Gun control.

[indiadrummer]

Shut up republican... McCain will pretty much just continue to go to war. You don't sound that clever buddy. The majority of americans don't actually want war.

[RobTheChief]

Yeah, let's continue to wage "war" without raising taxes. That will get us real far in terms of the value of the dollar.

[Meowianne]

Obama has made reference that he would "reconsider the cost benefit of manned space missions." Bottomline: Obama cannot grasp the space program & devalues it. If you want to support science, vote for CLINTON or MCCAIN. Obama will tighten those purse strings faster than you can say, "HOPE & UNITY." Ironically, my source is the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, a paper endorsing Obama. NASA is more than our bread & butter, it represents EXCELLENCE & TRUE HOPE FOR OUR FUTURE. Obama = JFK, Lightyears apart!

[zaiwo]

You attribute reasons to it (W).

The plausible bit is that they're not intelligent ones.

You write like a paid spokesperson.

[midnight9wanderer]

Obama would weaken our country and exhaust our budget so much on social programs we wouldnt have $ for anything. Seems everyone here is Dem so I guess you dont want to hear how defense spending boosts science but it is true nonetheless (DDR&E anyone? DOE?) anyway. Niel deGrasse Tyson once said he was hopeful about Republican presidencies b/c in the final analysis, Republicans hate to die broke and science brings home the bacon. We wont reverse climate change either - only a volcano could.

[badbuddhist]

You say its 'true' that defense spending boosts science, but what are you basing that on? What comparative analysis is out there so we know it's a *good* way to boost science? Your statement of 'truth' seems more an unquestioned political belief.

Certainly defense spending results in some good scientific research (how could you spend almost $500 billion on anything and not spend some on science), but is it an *efficient* and *effective* way to advance science? I can't imagine how it could be.

[Schemefighter]

akilahanahid: If you want grants based on party affiliation or political agenda than you want Hillary or Obama. However if you want grants based on who is best qualified for the grants and what projects best deserve grants for what's most likely to move our technology forward; then you ought to vote for someone else.

[Schemefighter]

akilahanahid: However if you're competent and what more real science you'd probably be best voting for someone else that is interested in real science instead of pseudoscience. Hillary Clinton and Obama are part of the global warming scheme mob that fires, uses violence and threats to intimidate and deny funding to real sciences. Much like the Nazis did with eugenics and such. If you want to promote real science and technological advancement you want to vote for someone else.

[Schemefighter]

akilahanahid: If you're incompetent and can't get a real job in science your best bet would be to vote for Hillary or Obama because there will likely be a lot of pork for junk science.

[Cadmus5115]

OBAMA 08!!

[JohnDeBunkTest]

Obama has a big supporter in Oprah. She is pushing the "law of attraction" which is not a law, but pseudoscience at it's worst, and mixed with a new version of mysticism.

Someone needs to ask Mr Obama about this, and get his views on "the Law of attraction" ...

It would be a sad thing if the USA went from the stupidity of a Christian fundamentalist right wing to a mystic silliness left wing, and missed a reality led government once again.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: I suggest that you enlighten yourself. Get the book called "Liberal Fascism" and educate yourself. I have many videos posted as examples of Liberal Fascism. I suggest you cast the rhetoric out of your mind and take a look at the real facts. Don't be part of the mob mentality, stick to the facts and use reason and morality. May you be enlightened.

[Schemefighter]

I think it is brainwashing to indoctrinate our children with fascist hysteria by telling them Santa Claus and their elves and reindeer are going to drown. Apparently the fascist liberals don't think Santa Claus, elves or reindeer can fly, walk, swim or migrate. It reminds me of the brainwashing by the Islamic Mickey Mouse.

[SqualorVictoria911]

phonysoldier: Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: "Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity"

Look beyond the rhetoric. Instead look into the deeper agenda of the fascist liberals; they want to increase taxes, which is an effective measure of taking power and choice away from the people and giving it to the government, which in some respects is forced national unity. Excessive taxation is a form of fascism.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: Don't you see that using junk science with the global warming agenda is a way (a means) to form and strengthen world government and an excuse to start world taxation? That gets the foot in the door for the fascists, for world domination through deceptive propaganda, political correctness and junk science. The fascist liberals don't just want to be a dictator of a country, they want to be the dictators of the world.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: It's not only global warming junk science that they are compromising our sovereignty with, it's also appeasing illegal aliens by granting them special rights, special treatment and citizenship. The liberal fascists are giving away our freedoms, rights, and sovereignty to effectively dissolve the borders to slowly form a world government.

[peacetrees]

Oh I do agree the highway from Mex to Canada is coming and we can expect to become the North American Union instead of the USA, but I do NOT agree global warming is junk science nor that liberals are responsible for the New World Order taking away our constitution, rights, freedom- that would be the Bush Administration and big oil. They are destroying nature without regard as well-anything for their record profits.

[SqualorVictoria911]

phonysoldier: Fascist Liberal is an oxymoron, a paradox.

Fascism: An authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: "Fascist Liberal is an oxymoron"

On the contrary. Phonysoldier is correct. Look beyond the fascist liberal rhetoric you have been spoonfed and gullibly believe. Instead look at the facts and the logic. Liberals are authoritarian. Take Al Gore for instance, he doesn't care about science, because he's going dictates "science" to scientists. Al Gore doesn't care about science, he's using junk science to advance his position as an authoritarian.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: Don't you see when Al Gore says "the debate is over" he trying to subvert and discourage science and free speech and civilized constructive debate. It reminds me of governments trying to dictate to science that the world was flat and that the universe revolved around here. When these fascist liberals try to intimidate scientists with death threats, vandalism, blacklists, withdrawal of funding, ect... just because scientists have a different view it is obviously very fascist.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: Don't you see much of the same methodology the fascist liberals are using is the same methodologies that the Nazis used?

Google

"Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence."

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: All you have to do is set aside the rhetoric and take an honest look at history, and the reasoning. Remember it was fascist liberal elitists that succeeded from the union to promote slavery. Remember it was the fascist liberals that tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. Remember it was liberals that knowingly elected Robert Byrd a KKK member (the longest-serving Senate member) KKK Byrd even served as party whip and majority leader

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: Remember it was overwhelmingly liberals that were against desegregation. Democrat governor of Arkansas Orval Eugene Faubus, threaten to start a second Civil War by ordering the Arkansas State Guard to blockade African-Americans from being desegregated. George Wallace Governor of Alabama as a Democrat who also lobbied and blockade against desegregation. Democrats have been overwhelmingly for "affirmative action" which is nothing more than racism of a different color.

[Schemefighter]

SqualorVictoria911: Not only are liberals disproportionately more fascist they are also disproportionately more racist. Just look at the voting record. Civil Rights Act of 1964 The original House version Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) The Senate version Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[rrhebert]

phonysoldier: I wish the problem were as simple as some secret cabal of power-hungry conspirators, but I think it's more complicated than that. Many people who introduce truly terrible and destructive legislation, such as crop subsidies or minimum wage laws, do so with good intentions filtered through completely misguided and ill-informed beliefs.

[rrhebert]

phonysoldier: You give your enemies too much credit. I agree that there are a disturbingly large number of organizations out there plaing dirty pool, using unobjectionable names to cover less than savory activities, but I do not believe it's part of some well-oiiled conspiracy machine, merely different people cut from the same cloth. I think you do a disservice to some of your more valid points when you use terms like "Lord Al Gore."

[aquamammal]

Science and politics should not and cannot be separated.

[PhonySoldier]

aquamammal: Josef Mengele and John Washington Butler, agreed, it takes government support for programs like the Einsatzgruppen. Of course I don't think it's a good idea for the government and scientist to join together to hijack legitimate science and use it as an excuse for bigotry and to promote racial supremacy and the extermination of others. I think the Scopes trial and Galileo are also good examples of how sometimes things can go wrong when science becomes politicized.

[PhonySoldier]

aquamammal: Of course there are some things that it is necessary for the government and science to work together, however it should not be exploited politically. National defense is legitimate, like when Einstein urged to the president to develop a nuke to fight fascism. I think great care should be made that science remain pure and that it doesn't become politicized. I don't mind the government and science working together. I don't like pseudoscience being used to advance a political agenda.

[aquamammal]

Einstein did not "urge" the government to develop the nuke. What are you talking about.

[Schemefighter]

aquamammal: I'm talking about facts and history.

In 1939, Einstein signed a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt written by Leó Szilárd warning that based on Szilárd's research the Third Reich might be developing nuclear weapons.

Einstein wanted to help build the bomb but he was considered a security risk.

[tmthymllgn]

einstein signed it. mostly cause it was obvious to scientists the technology was inevitable and the germans were close to developing it first (or so they thought). he later regretted it and actively campaigned against it.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: I think Einstein fell victim to Red propaganda. As was revealed in his security screening, he was left leaning and was subject to manipulation, that's why he was denied clearance for the Manhattan Project. Unfortunately the Manhattan Project was completely compromised by the Soviets, the Soviets detonated an IDENTICAL bomb shortly after we detonated ours.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: The US team much closer to nuclear attack than most people realize. Hitler realized that Germany was about to fall so he dispatched submarine U-234 with enough uranium that I estimate it could possibly make 1 to 2 fission bombs. The Germans didn't quite have the enrichment technology yet, however it is thought that the Japanese might have. The Japanese were also working on a fission bomb, as a backup plan they were planning to bomb the US with dirty bombs.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: The hard-core Nazis on U-234 were told not to surrender if there was a peace agreement, instead they were supposed to deliver their cargo to Japan. However the rest of the crew demanded that they surrender, so the hard-core Nazis committed suicide. Ironically some of the U-235 that was intended by the Germans and Japanese to attack the US, may have been used to attack Japan.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: Hitler would have probably developed the bomb first, if it wasn't for the brain drain, and the attacks on the power supply and heavy water facilities. Some questionable accounts even claim that Japan detonated a fission bomb.

[tmthymllgn]

Have you seen "Copenhagen"? Did Heisenberg purposely slow or divert the Nazi program?

Einstein was not a politician! He was politically naive. Have you ever seen his proposal to end Arab-Israeli conflict? It's mind boggling that a genius could be so daft. He was offered the job of first President of Israel by the way. Turned it down!

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: I haven't seen the play Copenhagen, but I may have seen the movie, and I have seen many documentaries on the subjects and have read a lot. However I have forgotten most of it. I suspect Heisenberg had a foot in each camp, I think he's much like Von Braun and didn't want the science to be used as weapons, however in their position they didn't have much choice.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: I think on one hand Heisenberg feverishly pursued the bomb, however on the other hand I do think he tried to steer away, stall and deceive the Nazis to some extent. Like many people in the scientific community, I don't think he was a simple man. Things are not normally black-and-white. I think he had mixed feelings and conflicts of interests like most people.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: I'm not familiar with Einstein's politics on Israel. Just because a person is a genius, doesn't mean they are not ignorant in some ways. Almost all scientists are a little daft, but then so is everyone. Charles Lindbergh wasn't exactly a scientist but he was a great aviator and promoter, some of his politics were quite lousy, he advocated siding with the Nazis. Many Manhattan Project scientists were leaning to the left.

[Schemefighter]

tmthymllgn: For the most part I think science and politics should be compartmentalized.

[Salladsdressing]

Wow! Great idea! Hope the debate get's alot of attentiion

[rrhebert]

Schemefighter: I don't know about all the New World Order stuff; I don't think New Scientist is a "front organization," just a group of well-meaning science journalists who are promoting certain viewpoints in areas where their expertise doesn't extend. I actually find New Scientist to be a good read in regards to less politicized science topics, but they lose my support and respect when they try to promote specific governmental policies or candidates.

[PhonySoldier]

Rrhebert: The fascist liberals have been forming or hijacking organizations and using them to advance their own political agenda and for monetary gain. Such as Lord Al Gore has hijacked environmentalism to advance the global warming agenda. Such as Oboma's using the front organization the Borgen Project being used to promote the Global Poverty Act. Such as phony soldiers that falsify war atrocities with veterans groups that are used as front organizations, that inadvertently promote terrorism.

[PhonySoldier]

Rrhebert: The fascist liberals are getting rich and are making a grab at power at the cost of increasing taxes, destroying our economy, compromising our sovereignty and aiding and abetting terrorism. A lot of people are duped into supporting these organizations thinking that they are doing good, however often they are destroying the economy and our security and tempting Armageddon.

[PhonySoldier]

Rrhebert: The Kyoto Protocol (the global warming scam), global poverty act, socialized medicine, ect... are being used as a means to increase taxes and slowly build power for a world government. The global warming hysteria and associated laws and regulations and taxes are causing industry and jobs to flood out of the US.

[Schemefighter]

"Clinton vs Obama: Who would be best for science?"

Isn't that like asking who would be best as a babysitter Jeffrey Dahmer John Wayne Gacy?

Fascist liberals are so stupid they think Al Gore is an expert climatologist and gun safety expert. Fascist liberals have been known to threaten the lives, intimidate, fire, withdrawal grants to legitimate scientists. Yet they want to give pork earmarks to pseudoscientists that support their political agenda.

[ArthBHx]

yeah i hate the bloody facist liberals.

[QueenOfTheMaggots]

Is it true that the NIH budget was cut by 800 million dollars this year?

[EyeOnTheTV]

Rock out with your barack out.

[jefboyardee]

That's a bold assumption, comparing the presidential merits between Clinton and Obama, with no mention of MaCain. But then again, they cite Climate Change as an actual scientific issue, not the moneygrubbing scam that it is.

[ourben]

I'm guessing you are one of them new wave religion idiots?

[rrhebert]

While I'm sometimes get frustrated by the tendency of New Scientist staff to dabble in politics (see argumentative fallacy "Appeal to False Authority"), I think they should be commended for promoting the AAAS Science Debate. I think voters deserve to know about the prospective candidates' views on science and its role in the policy.

[poseidon129266]

For sure

[Schemefighter]

Ditto rrhebert. I like how the fascist liberals think Al Gore is an expert climatologist and a gun safety expert.

The have a very bad influence on science, they politicize the science making it pseudoscience. They also have a long history of interfering with science and demonizing science. They also have a long history of discouraging industry and businessmen that fund science.

[4ourthofjuly]

jesus christ.

[Schemefighter]

rrhebert: This looks like another political front organization to advance the fascist liberal/socialist agenda of the Democrats. They are compromising our freedom, wealth, natural resources and sovereignty to get in the back pocket and to grab political power for a New World order (international Socialist government/taxes and laws). I wouldn't be surprised if that insider trader (George Soros) with Nazi links is affiliated with this front group.

[4ourthofjuly]

You sound like an expert.

I mean, you have a screen name, which is equivalent to a Ph.D in everythingness right?

[aquamammal]

You are an idiot.

[h0pp3rs]

I dont know much about american politics;

but im guessing that george bush's science advisors were promising improvements over clintons political views on science.

Isnt it just a big ol' repeat of whats gone before.

[AkiraBergman]

The greatest challenge for humanity is to transform the war economy, specially that of USA's, to a green one. Can that be done while the shepherd-sheep bondage dominates our democracies. Scientists should stop working for the greedy bully.

[peacetrees]

The current adminstration and his special interest groups do not support critical thinking because it's a threat to their power, control, and record profit corporate bottom line.

If people do not educate themselves and become aware, we will be led into WW3 and destruction of our world. Scientific education is vital to the survival of our species.

No politician is going to remove the "special interest groups" running our country for their profit, except for Ron Paul, or the power of the people.

[Psycarne]

They support criticial thinking in the field of weapons development.

[peacetrees]

You are right, I stand corrected. They can destroy the world several times over but they can't come up with the technology to save it. I do not think the current powers that be are interested in humanity or saving God's creation, they have lost their minds with greed and power. Clearly the priorities of technologies reflect this. Otherwise we would already have clean energy and clean vehicles. Face it big oil runs everything and all they care about is their record profits.

[peacetrees]

I like Hillary and Obama,I just do not think they will change anything unless they start addressing Aipac and the Fed reserve system.Neither will touch these issues- only RP)Until then science will advance towards greed and destruction instead of the best for humanity.Honestly I would vote for anyone but McCain,still RP is the only one who wanted to save our Constitution and bring the power back to the people.Imagine what we could do with science for the GOOD of humanity-we could save the world.

[JohnCocktoston]

Great video. Very interesting.

[JohnDeBunkTest]

Clinton and Obama have so few differences that they could become running mates. As expected, Clinton the more experienced candidate has a more detailed presentation, and Obama is open to new ideas.

It is nice to see them both interested in science.

[dafttool]

There are many hopeful changes we can expect this election, and one of them will be science finally being treated seriously by the White House. Bush has a lot of sad legacies, including his rejection & "redacting" of scientific findings, his poor funding of scientific research in both the private and public realm, his subversion of Evolution in classrooms, his stifling of stem cell research, etc etc. Head in the sand mentalities are antithetical to scientific development.

[subach]

The Free market will do a much better job with most of those issues, obviously the government will need to make a few decisions, but leave the rest to the free market.

[dafttool]

The free market is not the end all and be all of everything. Corporations jump in when there is money to be made; the free market only cares when there are products to sell. But they're nowhere to be found in unprofitable situations which abound in many fields of scientific research and technology development.

[poseidon129266]

Research spending doesn't work like that.

[colmmernagh]

Or they are 100% sure mccain will win.just like bush won his second term.

[DamienZshadow]

yea, that baffles me to this day! I'd be severely pissed if I was of voting age then.

[codename36]

Neither...they're both dumb, lol!

[marjan15]

Where are the numbers??