Addressing the foundations of humanity's problems?

[Nusc]

Just like those doing research on stem cells had problems during the Bush administration, those who want to do more research on energy that doesn't involve wind mills and solar panels won't be getting any bread from the Obama administration. That's why science is better off if Government kept it's mouth shut and did only what is necessary.

Then again this is the typical thinking of a conservative, no interested in the growth of a society. Government should intervene where there is potential benefits, not strictly limit itself from society.

Maybe that's because Steven Chu who's a physicist and your secretary of energy has greater priorities. He, as a scientist, is more entitled to know what's important and what is not.

 

[Nusc]

Singular individuals are not the measure of a whole spectrum of ideology.

They do represent the spectrum of the ideology and those that voted for them. Who's to blame?

I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. The US has in fact been rather prosperous for quite some time. It has unfortunately fallen behind the times in certain respects though.

How do you define prosperous? Sarah Palin 'almost' became your president, the fact that she got that far because of the millions of people that voted for her or the party, knowing that she would represent it, is scary.

Putting an educational requirement on political offices is certainly not something I would be averse to.

Even if they belong to both sides of the spectrum?

 

[Galteeth]

Then again this is the typical thinking of a conservative, no interested in the growth of a society. Government should intervene where there is potential benefits, not strictly limit itself from society.

Maybe that's because Steven Chu who's a physicist and your secretary of energy has greater priorities. He, as a scientist, is more entitled to know what's important and what is not.

I am reminded by your post of a couple of quotes.


"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. "- George Orwell



"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. "- George Washington


Government intervention means changing people's behavior by the threat of force if they don't comply. In other words one group of people forcing their will on everyone who might disagree. There are very good reasons for the tradition of limited government. The basis of the traditional American idea is that the government should intervene with force only when absolutely necessary and leave everything else up to the individual or the people.

"Government should intervene where there is potential benefits" Any government action could potentially have benefits to someone. This is pretty much a blanket rationale for totalitarianism.

 

[Nusc]

I am reminded by your post of a couple of quotes."So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. "- George Orwell
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. "- George WashingtonGovernment intervention means changing people's behavior by the threat of force if they don't comply. In other words one group of people forcing their will on everyone who might disagree. There are very good reasons for the tradition of limited government. The basis of the traditional American idea is that the government should intervene with force only when absolutely necessary and leave everything else up to the individual or the people.

"Government should intervene where there is potential benefits" Any government action could potentially have benefits to someone. This is pretty much a blanket rationale for totalitarianism.

I have, based the conservative ideology by those who represented them as a whole on your recently history.

In your case, your exaggerating the notion of government control. Was there a liberal government that operated as a totaltarian? What about Bill Clinton? These people try to do the best for wellness of your country and you shove them off.

In the states you have enormous amounts of law suits and it's ridiculous what people sue for down south. Like that judge that sued those korean laundry mat owners and other stuff. When you watch programs such as judge judy, you see parents suing their own children, it's ridiculous - why raise children to begin with?

We've discussed this matter throughout this post and I will not comment further as it just brings back to where we started.

The need for more intelligent politicians has been pointed out, in particular, the need for more intelligent conservatives to lead their party.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They do represent the spectrum of the ideology and those that voted for them. Who's to blame?

Quite a few conservatives did not like Bush. Quite a few voted for him because they felt we was the lesser of two evils. Many people here in the US vote that way. Perhaps that does not make sense to you since you don't have the same two party dominance where you are but that is they way it often goes. Many Liberals voted for Kerry not because they liked him but because they didn't like Bush. I think this time around a lot of centrists and right leaning people people voted for Obama because they really didn't like McCain and Palin. You can see that the health care reform bill had less than 50% approval until just recently.

I have, based the conservative ideology by those who represented them as a whole on your recently history.

You mean Bush? And McCain as a nominee? There are far more political offices in this country than just president and senator. Senators represent about 50% of anyone state (if that) and considering the incredibly large population that the President represents there is no way one could conceivably consider the person who holds that office to be a proper ideological representative of even 50% of the country.

How do you define prosperous? Sarah Palin 'almost' became your president, the fact that she got that far because of the millions of people that voted for her or the party, knowing that she would represent it, is scary.

Palin was only almost Vice President. Many many conservatives held their nose as they voted for McCain because of her and the race probably would have been much closer had it not been for her. And again I have no idea how this relates to the point. You seem to be the king of non sequiturs.

Even if they belong to both sides of the spectrum?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think that political offices ought to have educational requirements. A political office has no party affiliation.

In your case, your exaggerating the notion of government control. Was there a liberal government that operated as a totaltarian?

Cuba maybe?

In the states you have enormous amounts of law suits and it's ridiculous what people sue for down south.

Note please that conservatives in this country are the ones pushing for tort reform and stricter controls on litigation. Of course part of that motivation, at least in some cases, is that they are supported by major corporations that can easily lose millions (probably even billions now a days) defending and paying out in tort cases.

 

[Nusc]

Nusc
Most of my 'fellow' liberals seem to think we are in a war and we need to try to get rid of the conservatives.

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important. Picking through the little details distracts from the greater picture.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h/

 

[Galteeth]

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

Ok, I think I can summarize your world view here.

Liberals=Enlightened, Noble, benefactors of the people

Conservatives= Evil, Stupid

Well, ok. But such an overly simplistic world view is going to be detrimental to really understanding how to be effective politically.


Also, this has nothing to do with science.

 

[Nusc]

Not evil just primitive.

The idea was to see what science can do but that discussion was diverted into something entirely different. But I don't regret talking about it, regardless of how incoherent it was haha

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nevertheless, conservatism is most likely to become obsolete in the distant future.

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important. Picking through the little details distracts from the greater picture.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h/

I see. A test of 46 people shows that conservatives are all scardycats.

There will always be 'conservatives'. The republicans and democrats as they are today have little resemblance to what they were less than one hundred years ago. Your characterization of 'what conservatives are like' is based almost entirely on current negative and closed minded stereotyping. In the distant future there will still be conservatives and liberals, only the lines will be drawn differently and the issues will have changed.


Edit: note also, in response to the article, that liberals are fear mongers too, they just don't like to admit it. Just in recent years we had all sorts of claims of federal agents listening in on your phone calls, republicans wanting to take away a womans right to vote, Row v Wade was going to be overturned, be careful or you might wind up in Gitmo, our right to free speech is being taken away, our leaders are fascists and nazis, and on and on and on...

 

[D H]

I haven't taken the time to carefully write what I've said which resulted in the number of errors and logical fallacies but I don't care as it's not that important.

Nuff said.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.