Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

Seems to me that the question is whether the US federal government should have to fund this type of research.  I think that Perry is questioning whether you, me, and the other millions of Americans should pay money to do this research.  That seems like a legitimate concern. 

Well, science should probably be free of politics, inasmuch as possible. Politics should at most set policy around whether a nation will support science, and the scale of that support.  But actual decisions about what type of research has scientific value should weigh more heavily on the scientists.  Don't get me wrong, if the scientists cannot communicate the value of the science they are pursuing, perhaps there is not much value to communicate.  But political ideology from the current party in power should not generally drive scientific discovery.

And I think at this point, given a preponderance of evidence, most are looking for federal funding to jump start new energy programs, not to pay for ongoing primary research. C-R, is that what you are proposing to the Fed?

 “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.“

I'm appalled. 

Wait, this is the worst quote you can find from Obama?  

All I said was all politicians say stupid things. 

I voted for Obama both before and after he said that.  I still think I have a right to say that was a stupid thing to say. 

I can sense the hopey changey context.  But still... really... future generations will see that by choosing Obama as the Democratic candidate will be the moment in time when hunger, joblessness, environmental damage, and war ends?  It's a little much eh?  And when 4 years later there is more hunger, higher unemployment, more environmental damage, and just as many wars... what then?  When someone gets a peace prize for doing nothing and thinks their rise to power will be like the comming of the messiah I can see why people on the right hate him.  And frankly, as a lefty it annoys me.  I despise polarization.  So I despise current politics. 

 “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.“

Are these statements incorrect?  Are they stupid?

All I said was all politicians say stupid things. 

 

I voted for Obama both before and after he said that.  I still think I have a right to say that was a stupid thing to say. 

 

I can sense the hopey changey context.  But still... really... future generations will see that by choosing Obama as the Democratic candidate will be the moment in time when hunger, joblessness, environmental damage, and war ends?  It's a little much eh?  And when 4 years later there is more hunger, higher unemployment, more environmental damage, and just as many wars... what then?  When someone gets a peace prize for doing nothing and thinks their rise to power will be like the comming of the messiah I can see why people on the right hate him.  And frankly, as a lefty it annoys me.  I despise polarization.  So I despise current politics. 

So, basically none of what I said in interpreting his words and the historical events that he was attempting to invoke made any sense to you. You're not even willing to engage my explanation--reducing it to "hopey changey context." 

Your claim that Obama's remarks here were on the same level as Gov. Perry's attack on science seems to me totally unjustified. Do you really believe this? Obama's remarks make sense exactly within the context of his whole campaign (a successful one, I might add), and are an attempt (perhaps naive) to inspire us to be the heroes of our own age. This seems to me to be nothing like an attack on the reputation of scientists or the scientific method, which was the claim you made.

(Okay, I should back off now.)

it only sounds stupid because, since Obama is doing the exact same thing, he is in the context of now saying "I am irresponsible. I am unpatriotic". 

Except that Bush did it during VERY different economic times. Ignoring that difference is missing everything entirely.

Well I'm glad you didn't mean it that way then.  I hope you see that people have plenty of reasons to dislike him for words and actions (whether you agree with their viewpoint or not), it would seem awfully presumptuous to assume that people that don't like him or find him polarizing are more likely racist than anything else.

 

Once-upon-a-time Colin Powell was considering a run.  I don't recall the same level of polarization then.

I haven't heard the spewing of hatred toward any previous president that I'm hearing now.  I need to never turn on AM radio, I know.

Among the more moderate people, don't you think anyone will tend to see a president of the opposing party as more polarizing than one of their own?  I know I'm guilty of this.

I haven't heard the spewing of hatred toward any previous president that I'm hearing now.  I need to never turn on AM radio, I know.

I don't know dude, I heard a lot of nasty things said about Bush.  As far as personal nasty stuff goes, Bush got as much if not more than Obama.