Obligatory political post...

Well, the results are in, let's find something good to bash every candidate for, below are the list of each candidate and why I think they are complete morons:

McCain: Opposes abortion, favors "equal opportunity," favors abstinence-only education, and favors vouchers for education.

These are all bad ideas because:
1) A fetus is not a human, in no way, shape, or form has any compelling argument been made to suggest that a fetus has the ability to think or feel. In fact, the destruction of a fetus or embryo is less the destruction of a human than cutting off your own hand.
2) Affirmative action or "equal opportunity" presents the problem of benefiting upper class minorities far more than the lower class, the very people it is supposed to help.
3) Abstinence only education fails.
4) Vouchers leave only the poorly performing students.

Next person: Obama, I'm going to truly be fair and explain why I think this guy is an utter numbnut and politician. He actually decided to answer the Science Debate 2008 questions, and for that, I applaud him, but he answered them in a completely indirect way dodging most of them and only giving, what I like to call, "post-modernism answers." There are no answers here, they only raise questions. Here's a good example which I posted on ERV earlier...

As a resident cynic, I must say his answers are written similar to much of the post-modern literary criticisms I have read. A good example of this is:

" First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:"

Ok, let's see what research he's talking about...

"Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals"

Well, that could be millions of possibilities, are they carbon-based alternative fuels such as biofuels or synthetic gasoline? Are these alternative fuels/chemicals including hydrogen? What about geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energy? This answers NOTHING, it just says "yea, I want to develop alternatives.." without saying anything about what they are. Next:

"Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing"

Really now? I don't think a more vague statement exists, are there any specific technologies you have in mind or is this just another generic "oh yea, I'm thinking of something."

"New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption"

Doesn't this go with the "alternative fuels" group?

"Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids"

Can't the previous two go together? And how would he "enhance" this research? It's ALREADY BEING DONE. Recent advances in Li-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and so forth are making it possible within the next 5 years to have a zero emission vehicles which are viable.

"Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants"

Which one? Also, CCS technology makes the plant require 25% more energy to operate thus meaning you actually use MORE hydrocarbons! Our problem isn't just CO2, it's also COST of hydrocarbon fuels.

"A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks"

Ok, which generation nuclear reactors? II? III? Invest in IV? Seriously, if you're going to make a claim as to what will happen, at least say HOW you plan on making it happen

I recently did a little quiz on On The Issues. My results were somewhat astonishing, I actually got a 45% agreement with one of them... Next up is candidate number 3, for this one we'll go on to the Socialist party. Brian Moore is also a complete fucktard and here's why:

Moore-on also supports school vouchers, doesn't want nuclear power, public ownership of all natural resources, and a $15/hr national minimum wage.

Here we go: school vouchers covered already, generation III and IV nuclear reactors are very safe and low on nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain makes a pretty safe place for storage. Top this off with research to develop fusion reactors after we've had nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. power sources can aid us in providing some augmentation to a nuclear infrastructure. Public ownership of natural resources means "natural" resources such as trees, streams, and so on are all the domain of the public. Of course, he's also wanting corporations to be removed, but hey, he's a socialist...

Next up is Cynthia McKinney.
Do I really need to explain why I think the lady arguing a conspiracy theory and screaming "racism" every chance she gets is a complete waste of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and space. Perhaps we can toss her into a fusion reactor later...

After her, Bob Barr, Mr. Libertarian that thinks same sex marriages in one state shouldn't be required to be accepted by other states, but at the same time, he criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. I don't know where he really stands on anything (or if he does) and those few things he does have a firm standing on I disagree with. Namely the "God Bless America" on schools and vouchers for private schools.

Now I'll move on to Alan Keyes and Chuck Baldwin: these two I can take out with one fell swoop; that is abortion rights. Both think abortion is equivalent to murder and embryonic stem cell research is bad. They are both very extreme in this with Keyes thinking "snowflake babies" shouldn't be experimented on either and Baldwin saying abortion is a holocaust. They also both like the idea of drilling in ANWR.

SOMEONE PLEASE FIND ME A DECENT CANDIDATE! Someone that could defeat this guy in a debate and possibly has IDEAS that MIGHT work.