Kentucky Weighing in on Evolution *sigh*

[Skysooner]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/kentucky-evolution-act-testing_n_1789716.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


A group of Kentucky Republicans is up in arms over a state testing program that requires high school students preparing for college to have an understanding of biological evolution.

When the Republican state legislature voted in 2009 to link Kentucky's testing system to national education standards, it opened the door for biology exams that would test students' proficiency in the field of evolution. State Rep. Carl Rollins, a Democrat, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that this was standard practice, as ACT, the company that coordinates Kentucky's testing program, developed the material by surveying biology teachers across the country on which studies they believed should be included. They responded, rather unsurprisingly, that biological evolution was an important concept for incoming college students to grasp.

But state Republicans are now recoiling at their decision. They claim it doesn't give the theory of creationism a fair shake and places undue emphasis on the teaching of evolution, which they maintain exists only as a "theory."

"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," state Sen. David Givens (R) said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

Other Republicans voiced their concerns more colorfully.

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

State Sen. Mike Wilson (R) said he thinks the system could allow students to be "indoctrinated" by the study of evolution.


Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday responded to the lawmakers' inquiry, telling them that the test is “based on evolution as a theory, not as fact.” Asked by the Republicans why teachers couldn't simply include creationism as a counterpoint to lessons on evolution, Holliday reportedly reminded them that creationism is a religious belief and doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

The National Center for Science Education took note of the report, reminding that Kentucky has a history of combativeness toward the teaching of evolution:

Previous legislative activity aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution in Kentucky's public schools includes House Bill 169 in 2011 and House Bill 397 in 2010, both based on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; both bills died in committee. Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) on the books that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." Yet the Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."
While the debate has been rehashed countless times, Vincent Cassone, chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department and a member of the committee that helped developed ACT's testing curriculum, told the Herald-Leader that the Republicans' rejection of evolution was incomprehensible.

"The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."

It is this side of the Republican party that really puts me off. I feel equally as bad about the left-wing "environmentalists" that use money and total misinformation to get their point across. Still to advocate teaching creationism as a "scientific theory"?

[rock on sooner]

Well, it IS Kentucky, after all...certain that McConnell is proud...

[Skysooner]

Well, it IS Kentucky, after all...certain that McConnell is proud...

Kentucky, Kansas, etc.

[okie52]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/kentucky-evolution-act-testing_n_1789716.html?utm_hp_ref=politics



It is this side of the Republican party that really puts me off. I feel equally as bad about the left-wing "environmentalists" that use money and total misinformation to get their point across. Still to advocate teaching creationism as a "scientific theory"?

Ignorance is a pain in the azz..whether its about evolution or fracking.

[okie52]

Well, it IS Kentucky, after all...certain that McConnell is proud...

New England is right up there.

[Skysooner]

Ignorance is a pain in the azz..whether its about evolution or fracking.

I heard this on XM the other day. Some guy was saying that all natural gas flowed without fracking until we started drilling in shale. Some people just spout off stuff with no idea at all what they are saying. They parrot talking points. Ridiculous.

[okie52]

I heard this on XM the other day. Some guy was saying that all natural gas flowed without fracking until we started drilling in shale. Some people just spout off stuff with no idea at all what they are saying. They parrot talking points. Ridiculous.

I've heard guys that were so called "experts" on cable say the same thing....it's amazing what passes for "expert"...some guy that drove by a rig once or had a friend in the "bizness" .

[TitoMorelli]

Since this is no longer off-topic, some of you might enjoy this recent video interview with Trevor Rees-Jones, Chairman of Chief Oil and Gas, who discusses fracking, future gasoline prices, and related topics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HkCR9sEeEg

[jkjsooner]

I would think that evolution opponents would at least want to understand the theory so they could formulate intelligent arguments against it.

As it stands, from my experience most of those who argue against evolution demonstrate that they don't have the slightest understanding of the theory.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, I hate this kind of stuff. But then, "science" and "scientific leaders" are not the smartest bunch either. Case in point, that Australian who said for years ulcers were caused by bacteria and the scientific community shunned him - he was correct, same goes for the physicist/mathematician who proved that black holes were real and to be shunned for 50-60 years until they were "found". So all those people who say the theory is fact...you may just be proven wrong someday.

The difference here is one of religious doctrine more than science, IMO. Unless you are going to a religious school, I don't think a religious teaching should be promoted as a scientific theory. I do not see the strength of arguement from a scienfitic standpoint for creation, unless you were to teach that God created the realm we exist in and allowed the universe to evolve...

[okie52]

I would think that evolution opponents would at least want to understand the theory so they could formulate intelligent arguments against it.

As it stands, from my experience most of those who argue against evolution demonstrate that they don't have the slightest understanding of the theory.

Really? Its not really that hard to understand. Our president is evolving as we speak.

[badger]

As a Christian, I have never liked stuff from the Holy Bible taught and talked about alongside scientific crap that changes with every new edition of the science textbook released.

The Earth is flat! Now, the Earth is round! Now, the Earth can spontaneously generate living organisms. Now, it can't!

[jkjsooner]

As a Christian, I have never liked stuff from the Holy Bible taught and talked about alongside scientific crap that changes with every new edition of the science textbook released.

The Earth is flat! Now, the Earth is round! Now, the Earth can spontaneously generate living organisms. Now, it can't!

I'd like to see these science textbooks that show the earth is flat. This was not a "scientific" belief. By the time the scientific method developed it was a common belief that the earth was spherical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Scientific theories do change over time as new evidence comes about. That is something to admire about science.

It's funny how much science has revolutionized our modern world yet it is still subject to disdain in posts like this.

[badger]

I'm not dissing the science, jkj, I'm dissing the fact that people want to teach science and religion in the same classroom setting.

There's school for religion -- it's called Sunday School. There's school for science - K-12. Keep it separate!

[Skysooner]

I'm not dissing the science, jkj, I'm dissing the fact that people want to teach science and religion in the same classroom setting.

There's school for religion -- it's called Sunday School. There's school for science - K-12. Keep it separate!

That was the fallacy of their argument for the "theory" of creation. There is no way to prove the existence of a God in scientific thinking therefore the theory is disproven. It is theology. Keep it in churches.

[jkjsooner]

I'm not dissing the science, jkj, I'm dissing the fact that people want to teach science and religion in the same classroom setting.

There's school for religion -- it's called Sunday School. There's school for science - K-12. Keep it separate!

I got the main point and I agree with it but you were dissing science. You referred to it as "scientific crap", etc. Your post seemed to indicate the science was inferior.


It's funny that some in the Republican party have hitched their wagon to the anti-science movements. If there is one discipline in universities that tend to be more conservative than others it's the hard sciences. The anti-intellectual conservatives seem to be trying to drive these people away.

[yermom]

the legislators in Kentucky, like most creationists, it seems, don't even know what a "theory" is.

[hawaii 5-0]

Let's not have facts get in the way of beliefs.

5-0

[okie52]

I got the main point and I agree with it but you were dissing science. You referred to it as "scientific crap", etc. Your post seemed to indicate the science was inferior.


It's funny that some in the Republican party have hitched their wagon to the anti-science movements. If there is one discipline in universities that tend to be more conservative than others it's the hard sciences. The anti-intellectual conservatives seem to be trying to drive these people away.

OH, God. (pardon me if that's offensive). The dems hitch their ignorance to their own "causes"....just like energy, fracking, "imaginary green energy", etc...

[badger]

You referred to it as "scientific crap", etc.
I might have gotten A's in the courses, but I viewed the subjects as crappy. They were my least-favorite classes. There, I said it :)


the legislators in Kentucky, like most creationists, it seems, don't even know what a "theory" is.
Remember when Colbert asked a Congressman what the Ten Commandments were and he couldn't do it? I think that some of these legislators have no idea what "creationism" fully entails, yet they're begging it to be taught in schools. Sure, they could probably say "God created man," much like the Congressman could be like "Don't lie... don't steal..." but how much further could they go?


Let's not have facts get in the way of beliefs.
I believe that Hawaii can beat USC in their Sept. 1 opener. The facts disprove my theory :P

[hawaii 5-0]

Norm Chow has 'em convinced that Hawaii can stay with the Trojans till kickoff.

5-0

[badger]

Norm Chow has 'em convinced that Hawaii can stay with the Trojans till kickoff.

5-0

Nebraska beat Miami in the coin toss.

[jkjsooner]

OH, God. (pardon me if that's offensive). The dems hitch their ignorance to their own "causes"....just like energy, fracking, "imaginary green energy", etc...

That is true. Both side have those who misrepresent or misunderstand the science behind controversial issues.

However, that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a general attack on science that we see from some anti-intellectual conservatives. When it serves their purpose they dismiss entire fields of research, ridicule scientists, show distrust of the scientific process, and when all else fails dismiss science altogether by bringing up things like alchemy or the flat earth theories (which both predate the age of enlightenment and the widespread use of the scientific method).

Even if he or she doesn't believe in evolution or global warming, other scientists should be a little troubled how those who do study these fields are treated.

[okie52]

That is true. Both side have those who misrepresent or misunderstand the science behind controversial issues.

However, that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a general attack on science that we see from some anti-intellectual conservatives. When it serves their purpose they dismiss entire fields of research, ridicule scientists, show distrust of the scientific process, and when all else fails dismiss science altogether by bringing up things like alchemy or the flat earth theories (which both predate the age of enlightenment and the widespread use of the scientific method).

Even if he or she doesn't believe in evolution or global warming, other scientists should be a little troubled how those who do study these fields are treated.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood your post. I'm all for pragmatism, logic and science being used in running our government...and I just don't see one side solely wearing the dunce cap.

[soonercruiser]

I got the main point and I agree with it but you were dissing science. You referred to it as "scientific crap", etc. Your post seemed to indicate the science was inferior.


It's funny that some in the Republican party have hitched their wagon to the anti-science movements. If there is one discipline in universities that tend to be more conservative than others it's the hard sciences. The anti-intellectual conservatives seem to be trying to drive these people away.

I tend to agree with the general drift of Badger and SkySooners posts on the subject.
But, merely "keeping one's Faith in church only" is not American, as far as the Constitution and my understanding of "Freedom OF Religion".

That's like saying let's keep all the gay talk in San Francisco.

And, I do beleve that a lot of science and religion are not mutually "exclusive"...unless you listen too much to the so-called "intellectuals".....who are only useful as thought police.

[Skysooner]

I tend to agree with the general drift of Badger and SkySooners posts on the subject.
But, merely "keeping one's Faith in church only" is not American, as far as the Constitution and my understanding of "Freedom OF Religion".

That's like saying let's keep all the gay talk in San Francisco.

And, I do beleve that a lot of science and religion are not mutually "exclusive"...unless you listen too much to the so-called "intellectuals".....who are only useful as thought police.

I get what you are saying too. If we want creationism in school, let's have a theology class. It just doesn't belong in a science curriculum. That's my main objection. Don't mix up science and theology.

[IBleedCrimson]

OH, God. (pardon me if that's offensive). The dems hitch their ignorance to their own "causes"....just like energy, fracking, "imaginary green energy", etc...

This type of reasoning drives me INSANE! It ok for pubs to be retarded, because dems are opposite but equally retarded??!?!

Someone else's bad/dubious/unfounded opinion doesn't justify holding your own bad/dubious/unfounded opinion.

FFS. I learned that it wasn't ok for me to make bad decisions just because other ppl made bad decisions in the 3rd grade.

And for the record, I'm not a libtard. Both parties are equally stupid. But you would have an honest chance at my vote if (libtard/biblethumpers) didnt descend into such ridiculous partisan nonsense on a continual basis.



It's funny that some in the Republican party have hitched their wagon to the anti-science movements. If there is one discipline in universities that tend to be more conservative than others it's the hard sciences. The anti-intellectual conservatives seem to be trying to drive these people away.

Why are they doing this?!?! Its like these people are cutters. Whenever they are feeling a solid groundswell of support, they take a razorblade to their wrists. Where does that terrible destructive instinct come from?

And again, I'm not a progressive. In fact I lean conservative. I'm an independent, and this type of crazyness (not a word) is the reason why.

[KantoSooner]

I stomp my foot and DEMAND that we teach Chinese Creationism alongside all of the above. The Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. Earthquakes are when he moves around. See? PROOF!
And you can burn paper cars so that your ancestors can have smooth rides in heaven.
I've never met an ancestor who would gainsay one word of this theory.

[LiveLaughLove]

I get what you are saying too. If we want creationism in school, let's have a theology class. It just doesn't belong in a science curriculum. That's my main objection. Don't mix up science and theology.

That would be great. Tell the scientists and professors to quit bringing theology in to their conclusions.

If they will keep science strictly science instead of leaping to conclusions regarding the veracity of theism, our side wouldn't care a much. But when our youth are bombarded with these extra scientific conclusions then we have a problem.

[Skysooner]

That would be great. Tell the scientists and professors to quit bringing theology in to their conclusions.

If they will keep science strictly science instead of leaping to conclusions regarding the veracity of theism, our side wouldn't care a much. But when our youth are bombarded with these extra scientific conclusions then we have a problem.

If a high school teacher starts talking God (or lack thereof) in church then they should be fired on either side. In my and my kid's experience with school, God isn't brought up at all. Outside of high school, the separation of church and state doesn't really apply anymore. If certain politicians would stop bringing religion into legislation maybe we could agree to keep theological discussions inside of church. Trust me. We are just as tired of religion being brought into local, state and federal government as well.

[okie52]

This type of reasoning drives me INSANE! It ok for pubs to be retarded, because dems are opposite but equally retarded??!?!

Someone else's bad/dubious/unfounded opinion doesn't justify holding your own bad/dubious/unfounded opinion.

FFS. I learned that it wasn't ok for me to make bad decisions just because other ppl made bad decisions in the 3rd grade.

And for the record, I'm not a libtard. Both parties are equally stupid. But you would have an honest chance at my vote if (libtard/biblethumpers) didnt descend into such ridiculous partisan nonsense on a continual basis.


.

Well I'm not trying to get your vote nor was I talking to you. If you had bothered to read the discussion it was a dem basically stating they were the party of science while pubs ignored science. I was merely pointing out that the dems have their weaknesses in that area too.

I'm for pragmatic approaches rather than adhering to some ideological agenda. Neither party has a lock on stupidity nor should they be excused for their shortcomings. But I do prioritize issues and the pubs with me have the upper hand in that area....specifically energy and immigration.

Now if you'd like to discuss those issues and facts I'd be glad to accommodate you.

[Skysooner]

Well I'm not trying to get your vote nor was I talking to you. If you had bothered to read the discussion it was a dem basically stating they were the party of science while pubs ignored science. I was merely pointing out that the dems have their weaknesses in that area too.

I'm for pragmatic approaches rather than adhering to some ideological agenda. Neither party has a lock on stupidity nor should they be excused for their shortcomings. But I do prioritize issues and the pubs with me have the upper hand in that area....specifically energy and immigration.

Now if you'd like to discuss those issues and facts I'd be glad to accommodate you.

I agree that every party has their stupid points. I would disagree that the Rs have a lock on the best immigration and energy ideas. I actually think that falls on the individual candidate. We can agree that Obama is stupid where energy is concerned. We hope that Romney has a better idea, but in many ways, the Rs haven't been great for energy either when they have power.

[okie52]

I agree that every party has their stupid points. I would disagree that the Rs have a lock on the best immigration and energy ideas. I actually think that falls on the individual candidate. We can agree that Obama is stupid where energy is concerned. We hope that Romney has a better idea, but in many ways, the Rs haven't been great for energy either when they have power.

Where have the the Rs restrained exploration or persecuted the oil and gas industry? Windfall profits has solely been a dem attack along with shutting off the atlantic, pacific, Anwr, the Chukchi and beaufort seas and seeking to remove manufacturing deductions along with punishing ng under a unilateral cap and trade bill that passed the house with overwhelming dem support.

Now ng has dropped CO2 by 20% in 3 1/2 years in spite of dem efforts to harm it and we have a president that has done another about face (publicly) evolution to declare he is an ng guy....but what has he done? What do you expect him to do in his next 4 years to move the country towards energy indepence besides finding another solyndra to waste money on or have energy morons like waxman and markey try to punish it further than their cap and trader bill to where they deny the right to export it?

The only knock on the Rs for oil and gas in this country goes back to Reagan when he flooded the market with cheap oil via the saudis...it killed a bunch of oil companies and many of us oilies but the country benefitted from it as the economy took off. That ain't the world we live in now with china and India and the developing countries.

Which of the last 3 dem candidates for prez were for energy independence, offshore drilling, and expanding exploration....Gore, Kerry, Obama?...you've got to be kidding.

I get your social issues may override your economic ones but in no way in the last decade have the dems even been on the same planet with the pubs on energy realities or presenting the slightest objective approach to energy independence.

On immigration, it's true, the pubs have been often as bad as dems until Obama...who fought every state on curtailing illegals while installing amnesty measures to insure illegals will remain in this country.

[Skysooner]

Where have the the Rs restrained exploration or persecuted the oil and gas industry? Windfall profits has solely been a dem attack along with shutting off the atlantic, pacific, Anwr, the Chukchi and beaufort seas and seeking to remove manufacturing deductions along with punishing ng under a unilateral cap and trade bill that passed the house with overwhelming dem support.

Now ng has dropped CO2 by 20% in 3 1/2 years in spite of dem efforts to harm it and we have a president that has done another about face (publicly) evolution to declare he is an ng guy....but what has he done? What do you expect him to do in his next 4 years to move the country towards energy indepence besides finding another solyndra to waste money on or have energy morons like waxman and markey try to punish it further than their cap and trader bill to where they deny the right to export it?

The only knock on the Rs for oil and gas in this country goes back to Reagan when he flooded the market with cheap oil via the saudis...it killed a bunch of oil companies and many of us oilies but the country benefitted from it as the economy took off. That ain't the world we live in now with china and India and the developing countries.

Which of the last 3 dem candidates for prez were for energy independence, offshore drilling, and expanding exploration....Gore, Kerry, Obama?...you've got to be kidding.

I get your social issues may override your economic ones but in no way in the last decade have the dems even been on the same planet with the pubs on energy realities or presenting the slightest objective approach to energy independence.

On immigration, it's true, the pubs have been often as bad as dems until Obama...who fought every state on curtailing illegals while installing amnesty measures to insure illegals will remain in this country.


I said individuals not the parties. Don't buy all the rhetoric. There is tons you aren't talking about here with regards to federal drilling permits onshore, tax policy (beyond the rhetoric), etc. The first George Bush wasn't great for energy policy. Clinton was actually a pretty decent president in this regards. GWB wasn't all that hot although he made lots of noise. Obama hasn't been great although he hasn't been as obstructionist to onshore drilling as offshore drilling.

Also where did I ever say I was voting D at least for President this time. I'm voting Romney as you should well know after our talks on this. I am saying I will vote the individual rather than the party in most cases based on their stated policies. I'm only voting for Romney as I think he is much more middle of the road than he purports to be as he is pandering to his base. His history suggests he would be more progressive. Now put Ryan, Bachman or Santorum up there as a candidate, and I wouldn't be voting that way.

[okie52]

I said individuals not the parties. Don't buy all the rhetoric. There is tons you aren't talking about here with regards to federal drilling permits onshore, tax policy (beyond the rhetoric), etc. The first George Bush wasn't great for energy policy. Clinton was actually a pretty decent president in this regards. GWB wasn't all that hot although he made lots of noise. Obama hasn't been great although he hasn't been as obstructionist to onshore drilling as offshore drilling.

Also where did I ever say I was voting D at least for President this time. I'm voting Romney as you should well know after our talks on this. I am saying I will vote the individual rather than the party in most cases based on their stated policies. I'm only voting for Romney as I think he is much more middle of the road than he purports to be as he is pandering to his base. His history suggests he would be more progressive. Now put Ryan, Bachman or Santorum up there as a candidate, and I wouldn't be voting that way.

Clinton wasn't bad but he did veto a repub congress approved drilling of ANWR. That would be another million barrels a day of oil flowing to the states and $100,000,000 a day off of our current trade deficit. Clinton did help with offshore gulf coast leases though but he had the luxury of $20 a barrel oil for most of his presidency.

Where did Daddy Bush do anything to hurt the oil and gas industry? You were talking vertical wells with $20 a barrel oil and $2.00 an MCF gas...not a lot of economic incentive to be drilling
during his time in office.

W certainly tried to help although he did get misguided on ethanol in the 2005 bill. Finding NG onshore wasn't a big issue and didn't require a whole lot of help. Until the Bakken and Harold Ham came along in 2005 and oil prices started to spike above $55 a barrel there wasn't a huge need for W to do much more. He did, however, remove the executive ban on offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in 2008 which our current fearless leader has reinstated.

Obama and Salazar immediately reneged in early 2009 on the Utah lease sale regarding federal leases on unprotected federal lands.


I would disagree that the Rs have a lock on the best immigration and energy ideas. I actually think that falls on the individual candidate.

I pointed out the last 3 dem "candidates" for president since you look at the individual candidate...see an energy winner in that group (or immigration for that matter)?

Saying Obama hasn't been great for energy is like saying John Blake wasn't "great" for OU football. He has tried to empower the EPA with his own set of henchmen to punish the oil and gas industry. He has sought to remove the tax writeoffs that he would give any other manufacturer. You call it rhetoric....its a song he has been singing for quite some time even before his 2008 campaign unless you think he was just bluffing on cap and trade when it passed the house in 2009.

I could care less about "party" when it comes to issues. Carter, Reagan, Bush I & Bush II, Clinton, and Obama have all sucked on illegal immigration. But Obama has been the worst and proposes to be even worse the next 4 years. Romney at least will be an obstructionist to any amnesty and may provide some additional border security.

I've only been in this business for about 42 years so I can't speak about Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, etc...

[Skysooner]

Clinton wasn't bad but he did veto a repub congress approved drilling of ANWR. That would be another million barrels a day of oil flowing to the states and $100,000,000 a day off of our current trade deficit. Clinton did help with offshore gulf coast leases though but he had the luxury of $20 a barrel oil for most of his presidency.

Where did Daddy Bush do anything to hurt the oil and gas industry? You were talking vertical wells with $20 a barrel oil and $2.00 an MCF gas...not a lot of economic incentive to be drilling
during his time in office.

W certainly tried to help although he did get misguided on ethanol in the 2005 bill. Finding NG onshore wasn't a big issue and didn't require a whole lot of help. Until the Bakken and Harold Ham came along in 2005 and oil prices started to spike above $55 a barrel there wasn't a huge need for W to do much more. He did, however, remove the executive ban on offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in 2008 which our current fearless leader has reinstated.

Obama and Salazar immediately reneged in early 2009 on the Utah lease sale regarding federal leases on unprotected federal lands.



I pointed out the last 3 dem "candidates" for president since you look at the individual candidate...see an energy winner in that group (or immigration for that matter)?

Saying Obama hasn't been great for energy is like saying John Blake wasn't "great" for OU football. He has tried to empower the EPA with his own set of henchmen to punish the oil and gas industry. He has sought to remove the tax writeoffs that he would give any other manufacturer. You call it rhetoric....its a song he has been singing for quite some time even before his 2008 campaign unless you think he was just bluffing on cap and trade when it passed the house in 2009.

I could care less about "party" when it comes to issues. Carter, Reagan, Bush I & Bush II, Clinton, and Obama have all sucked on illegal immigration. But Obama has been the worst and proposes to be even worse the next 4 years. Romney at least will be an obstructionist to any amnesty and may provide some additional border security.

I've only been in this business for about 42 years so I can't speak about Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, etc...


It is easy to rail against the opposition when you know you don't have a chance in hell of passing something. This is what I mean about rhetoric. On Daddy Bush, it was mostly my father telling me this. At the time I was just out of college and worried about making a living. He just said that he wasn't good for our business, and he was very high up in a mid-major at the time. I'm saying individuals who might not necessarily have won. I look at the individual and honestly both sides haven't been great for energy over the last 20 years. It is almost a pick your poison situation.

On illegal immigration I tend to stay out of discussions as it isn't an area I pay enough attention to in order to have what I would consider a valid opinion.

[okie52]

It is easy to rail against the opposition when you know you don't have a chance in hell of passing something. This is what I mean about rhetoric. On Daddy Bush, it was mostly my father telling me this. At the time I was just out of college and worried about making a living. He just said that he wasn't good for our business, and he was very high up in a mid-major at the time. I'm saying individuals who might not necessarily have won. I look at the individual and honestly both sides haven't been great for energy over the last 20 years. It is almost a pick your poison situation.

On illegal immigration I tend to stay out of discussions as it isn't an area I pay enough attention to in order to have what I would consider a valid opinion.

I understand rhetoric but it often poisons the minds of the uninformed or party loyalists. When the facts so demonstrably betray Obama's and many dem's positions on energy (particularly oil and gas) you would think it would be a slam dunk on pursuing a pragmatic approach to energy independence. While most Americans support offshore drilling and expanded exploration, there is still opposition generated from some sectors that is purely based on ignorance or "rhetoric".

The main reason the dems often are against oil and gas is that oil and gas often pours more money into pub candidates. Why...because dems most often take anti oil and gas positions...a vicious cycle. The needs of the country are often lost in the battle.

The one area where the pubs have been lax IMO has been on energy efficiency and conservation. They haven't been obstructionist but they just haven't supported those areas like the dems. I really haven't seen the pubs be harmful or obstructionist on most energy matters such as nukes, oil and gas, coal, bio fuels, wind or solar, geo thermal, hydro, etc...If you have some information to the contrary please provide it.

[Skysooner]

I understand rhetoric but it often poisons the minds of the uninformed or party loyalists. When the facts so demonstrably betray Obama's and many dem's positions on energy (particularly oil and gas) you would think it would be a slam dunk on pursuing a pragmatic approach to energy independence. While most Americans support offshore drilling and expanded exploration, there is still opposition generated from some sectors that is purely based on ignorance or "rhetoric".

The main reason the dems often are against oil and gas is that oil and gas often pours more money into pub candidates. Why...because dems most often take anti oil and gas positions...a vicious cycle. The needs of the country are often lost in the battle.

The one area where the pubs have been lax IMO has been on energy efficiency and conservation. They haven't been obstructionist but they just haven't supported those areas like the dems. I really haven't seen the pubs be harmful or obstructionist on most energy matters such as nukes, oil and gas, coal, bio fuels, wind or solar, geo thermal, hydro, etc...If you have some information to the contrary please provide it.


No, I don't have any information on those sources. I would generally attribute that obstructionism on the radical left. Agreed rhetoric is poisonous and that applies across the board. I think we both agree on that. I can't stand the extremism on the far left or far right. Neither group is particularly focused on what is important to the country as a whole. It is Obama's rhetoric that has mainly driven me to Romney. While he hasn't really done anything ridiculously bad yet, he sure doesn't espouse a good energy policy and takes credit for technological innovation which was our industry and had nothing to do with government.

[BillyBall]

Remember when Colbert asked a Congressman what the Ten Commandments were and he couldn't do it? I think that some of these legislators have no idea what "creationism" fully entails, yet they're begging it to be taught in schools. Sure, they could probably say "God created man," much like the Congressman could be like "Don't lie... don't steal..." but how much further could they go?

I'll be honest, I couldn't name all 10. I think I could hit about 70% just by guessing the obvious though. So yeah, I don't go to bible studies...

[SoonerAtKU]

But, merely "keeping one's Faith in church only" is not American, as far as the Constitution and my understanding of "Freedom OF Religion".

What's your understanding of Freedom of Religion?