How important is a candidate's stance on science compared to the rest of their platform?
Do you feel that allocating 50% of our budget to scientific education and research improvements is too much?
Mike Gravel purports to not accept any money or gifts from lobbyists. Is this an important issue and how might it impact his ability to campaign effectively? Do you feel that a citizen driven movement would be sufficient?
And finally... Mike Gravel for President of the United States? Why? Why not?
Let the madness begin,
Sapient and Kelly
P.S. Ron Paul thinks evolution is "just a theory." (proudly not hosted on Rational Tube) He seems to have no clue that the "theory" behind it is comprised of hundreds of thousands of facts. He apparently also knows a creator! How the hell did he become a physician? No biology class for physicians these days? Has science education gotten so bad that it sucks at the doctorate level as well? Mike Gravel for scientific literacy in America?
I don't know whether to be amused or sickened that their campaign managers wanted to use our "Blasphemy Challenge" on YouTube as a model for their online strategy. I really don't want to contribute to his success in any way.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
