Lifticus,
“I don’t think there is going to be anymore growth with the current trend of underfnding research.”
There is plenty of research being funded - you are just seeing it through the lens of government funding.
The private sector is responsible for most of our R&D that results in technology improvements, innovations, etc.
The fact that your particular enterprise may not be getting checks from Uncle Sam does not mean that the economy is not investing in research on the whole.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The republican party didn’t teach me personal responsibility and empowerment–my parents did. Saying republicans are the only people who can is very ignorant.
[/quote]
Are you kidding me with this? You believe in personal responsibility and empowerment, and you vote GREEN? Do you even understand how ridiculous that is?
In this scenario, there are a few possible causes: 1)Your parents were bad teachers. 2) You were a bad student. 3) You don’t understand what
“personal responsibility” and “personal empowerment” mean 4) You have no idea what the green party stands for.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Oh, by the way, even with the slaves, the North had three times more people than the South.
Oh, per capita, you need to look into how much more productive the North was.
Slave labor=unwilling laborers=less productivity.
Argue that one, comrade.
“In case you don’t remember the southern democratic states were extremly dependant on slave labour.”
No shit. Hence, less productive.
“Don’t confuse two issues. I’m talking about issues relative to the millenium I live in.”
Nice turn of phrase, dimwit.
I would argue that the compassion of Republicans is germaine to every era.
Not to mention people like Marion Barry say things like, “Lincoln wasn’t a Republican.”
History baby!!! Need to read some. Need to establish patterns!!!
Oh, hell. I’ll take it if you just read once in a while.
I’m not that picky.
Oh, Green party!!! Fantastic!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Now the part where everyone jumps down my throat about how great Lincon was. I know what history was written by white men in the history books sold to my high-school by rich republicans. I don’t buy it. The north had more people but lacked the economic development of the south. The south was the bread basket. Four score and 7…yada, yada, yada. Show me where slave labour was less productive.
As an other point of fact–I remember somewhere that slaves were to be counted as 5/7 or 2/5 or some number less than one of a vote. The republican north realizing that the democratic south might actually be able to take back some government used this as a reason to abolish slavery–along with unfair labour advantages–not because of some deluded reasons of granduer that you have in your head about honest Abe and the GOP.
BTW dimwits believe everything they read. Moron.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What’s being destroyed, again?[/quote]
Solidarity.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lifticus,
There is plenty of research being funded - you are just seeing it through the lens of government funding.
The private sector is responsible for most of our R&D that results in technology improvements, innovations, etc.
The fact that your particular enterprise may not be getting checks from Uncle Sam does not mean that the economy is not investing in research on the whole.
[/quote]
I realize that a majority of funding is private. We have many private funders–but when we don’t come back with the answers that our private funders want to hear–the checks quit coming. I understand peoples need for rapid advance. The truth is it is a slow time coming. Research needs to remain independant and dominantly government funded other wise we get into conflicts of interest that do not seek truth but rather answers.
This is way off topic–I know–but I felt it important to answer from my own personal experience.
[quote]Cream wrote:
Are you kidding me with this? You believe in personal responsibility and empowerment, and you vote GREEN? Do you even understand how ridiculous that is?
[/quote]
Never said I voted green. I am a registered green because the only way to learn what other parties stand for–and try not to choke is–go and listen to them speak at their conventions or whatever.
[quote]Cream wrote:
In this scenario, there are a few possible causes: 1)Your parents were bad teachers. 2) You were a bad student. 3) You don’t understand what
“personal responsibility” and “personal empowerment” mean 4) You have no idea what the green party stands for.
[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
The north had more people but lacked the economic development of the south. The south was the bread basket. Four score and 7…yada, yada, yada. Show me where slave labour was less productive.
…[/quote]
Wrong. The North had all the industry. The Southern aristocrats owned slaves and controlled most of the wealth. Most of the poor white slobs lived in the nineteenth century equivalent of trailers.
The war was fought over slavery, taxes (tarriffs) and control of the western territories (slavery in the western territories)in no particular order.
Slavery was not going to be allowed/abolished in the western territories, and the South realized their power would be diminished. They knew they could not repeal the tarriffs that were protecting the Northern industries and that the hand writing was on the wall for slavery in the Southern states. So they seceded.
If the South would not have seceded Abe Lincoln would not have signed the Emancipation Proclaimation, rather slavery would have been eliminated with a series of smaller changes, such as declaring escaped slaves in the north free men, and it likely would have taken a few decades.
Slave labor was extremely unproductive in the western territories, that is why it was abolished prior to the war.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong. The North had all the industry. The Southern aristocrats owned slaves and controlled most of the wealth. Most of the poor white slobs lived in the nineteenth century equivalent of trailers.
[/quote]
Thank you for clearing the facts up in a non-demeaning way. Seriously. However, I got way off topic. I just want the GOP quit telling us how great they were for freeing slaves–as if this makes them patrons of civil rights. That was my only point.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now the part where everyone jumps down my throat about how great Lincon was. I know what history was written by white men in the history books sold to my high-school by rich republicans. I don’t buy it. The north had more people but lacked the economic development of the south. The south was the bread basket. Four score and 7…yada, yada, yada. Show me where slave labour was less productive.
As an other point of fact–I remember somewhere that slaves were to be counted as 5/7 or 2/5 or some number less than one of a vote. The republican north realizing that the democratic south might actually be able to take back some government used this as a reason to abolish slavery–along with unfair labour advantages–not because of some deluded reasons of granduer that you have in your head about honest Abe and the GOP.
BTW dimwits believe everything they read. Moron.[/quote]
This is categorically inaccurate. Let’s take apart your factually incorrect assessment.
1)“The south was the bread basket” – Is this why slave labor was employed? Gee, that’s funny. I thought that the North was able to feed itself, while the south was exporting 75% of its cotton crop and starving. That’s right – slaves were primarily employed picking COTTON. Not corn, not squash, not wheat… COTTON!
The south was the largest importer of food from the northern states before the civil war. The south was faced with food rationing and shortages during the war, as they planted one of their greatest cotton crops ever. The union states continued to export food around the world during the war, using their large, free, food-producing population of small farmers.
It was proposed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, an anti-slavery representative. Anti-slavery politicians wanted to have NO slaves count for the vote. The South, at the founding, wanted to count all its slaves. Think about what this would have meant – each free southerner’s vote would have been worth much more proportionally than anyone else’s. The 3/5 compromise, as Wilson intended, limited the power of the slave states to protect slavery in the government.
Frederick Douglas, the great black abolitionist, said that the 3/5 compromise was: "a downright disability laid upon the slave-holding states? depriving them of ?two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.?
So your statement that freeing the slaves is absolutely illogical, and as usual, wrong. By freeing the slaves and granting the right to vote, the Southern states gained millions of votes and an increase in their representation in the government. Of course, the voting preferences of the pre-war South and the South that included free blacks was a little different…
3)“The north had more people but lacked the economic development of the south.”
The North had more people, that’s correct. It was far more developed industrially and, as I mentioned, both fed itself and exported food to the rest of the world and the South. It’s agricultural development, in terms of food, was far superior to the south’s. The ONLY areas that it lagged behind were those that the North could not compete in, because the conditions did not exist for them to compete. Just like today, you can’t grow cotton in Michigan, or rice in Minnessota. Are you arguing that Texas and Arkansas produce far more cotton today than Michigan and Minnessota because of their high number of 2005 slaves?
Alexis de Tocqueville did this several hundred years ago. If you want the actual numbers of the day, Lincoln gave them all the time at his speeches to free farmers and laborers. Look them up. If you want more recent examples, look at the output of the slave laborers in the second world war versus the production of the free countries.
Lincoln understood people like yourself and your party. He also made some pithy puncturing of the failed green ideals.
“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.”
I guess this puts you in the category of believing things that you don’t read?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cream wrote:
Are you kidding me with this? You believe in personal responsibility and empowerment, and you vote GREEN? Do you even understand how ridiculous that is?
Never said I voted green. I am a registered green because the only way to learn what other parties stand for–and try not to choke is–go and listen to them speak at their conventions or whatever.
[/quote]
This is getting more and more bizarre. Why don’t you register as a member of the US Taxpayer Party? The US Communist Party? The Libertarian Party?
Well!!! Well!!! Well!!!
I submit, we need more 17-19 year olds who think they know it all.
I like them when they are aggressive in their ignorance!!!
I’m right because I say I am!!!
Let’s have some fun. Shall we?
thinkusminimus wrote:
“I know what history was written by white men in the history books sold to my high-school by rich republicans.”
I love it. It’s his way of refuting facts in advance. Everything is biased by those evil, white Republicans!!!
“I don’t buy it. The north had more people but lacked the economic development of the south.”
I love this!!! So damn easy!!!
“There was some manufacturing in the antebellum South. Cotton and water power made textile manufacturing profitable. But southern manufacturing was small in scale compared with the North; only 15 percent of the nation?s manufactured goods came from the South in 1860.
In 1810 South has more manufactures than New England; cotton displaced everything else after War of 1812. Meanwhile industry booms in North;
Southern capital put into cotton and slaves; by 1850 North far ahead, and South becomes economically dependent on North.”
You are so much fun!!!
Exactly what were you contending about the Southern Economy again?
“The south was the bread basket.”
This guy is wonderful!!!
“And northerners had an interest in keeping the South as a good customer of its food and manufactured products. The South grew more cotton than food and was importing its food from the North”
Bread basket of what?
Imported food from the North!!!
“As an other point of fact–I remember somewhere that slaves were to be counted as 5/7 or 2/5 or some number less than one of a vote. The republican north realizing that the democratic south might actually be able to take back some government used this as a reason to abolish slavery”
That’s funny. I don’t remember anything of the sort.
In fact:
The Northern population in 1860:
31,443,321
Southern population (including slaves)
11,953,760.
What was that 3:1 (with slaves)
Ok, my memory is far superior to yours.
“-along with unfair labour advantages–not because of some deluded reasons of granduer that you have in your head about honest Abe and the GOP.”
Really?
“At bottom, slavery was a stagnant and inefficient labor system that wasted talent and energy.”
“BTW dimwits believe everything they read. Moron.”
There are few things worse than some stupid kid spouting falsehoods without reading. It’s trully sad that you are so aggressive in your ignorance.
Oh, in the various sources (that were so very easy to find) I didn’t ask them whether they were white or Republican.
Anything else?
JeffR
P.S. God, that was fun!!!
Wow, quotation marks around your facts–I believe them even more now. Yes, you caught me I’m not a historian. My ignorance of history is noted. The north was great the south wasn’t, whatever–please just quit telling me how great the GOP is for freeing slaves. I apologise for mucking this thread which was supposed to be about howard dean.
[quote]Cream wrote:
This is getting more and more bizarre. Why don’t you register as a member of the US Taxpayer Party? The US Communist Party? The Libertarian Party?
[/quote]
Huh?
Wow about the librarian party? What was the point of this post? Is it okay with you that I vote in my own interests? Is it okay with you that I registered as a green? For the rest of you–quit telling me how superior you are by deaming my choices. You live in your own delusions and I’ll live in mine.
“Is it okay with you that I vote in my own interests? Is it okay with you that I registered as a green?”
I would argue that it IS in your best interest to educate yourself and vote responsibly, which no American would be doing if they supported the green party.
“For the rest of you–quit telling me how superior you are by deaming my choices.”
English, please.
“You live in your own delusions and I’ll live in mine.”
Or, you could continue to learn, and to make informed decisions based upon real information and consistent philosophy.
Then discuss and argue and see how your views hold up.
Admit that it is as possible that your political views might be as ignorant as your historical ones. This is particularly important when you start to color your voting with judgements based on faulty understandings.
[quote]Cream wrote:
I would argue that it IS in your best interest to educate yourself and vote responsibly, which no American would be doing if they supported the green party.
Or, you could continue to learn, and to make informed decisions based upon real information and consistent philosophy.
Then discuss and argue and see how your views hold up.
Admit that it is as possible that your political views might be as ignorant as your historical ones. This is particularly important when you start to color your voting with judgements based on faulty understandings.[/quote]
As I stated abouve I never voted green. Not once. I once thought I wanted to so I registered. I then realized what a mistake it would be in an election that was going to be so close. So, I, as they say, took one for the team. Am I happy about it? No. But unfortuantely third party politics don’t work in this country.
And yes I agree on most everything the greens preach–that being
ecology, social justice, grass roots democracy, and nonviolence.
Or you could continue to learn that not everyone will agree with your political positions. I know why I believe what I believe and it’s not up to me to validate it. Just as you believe the way you do.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, I wanted to compliment you. You suprised me when you wrote:
“Yes, you caught me I’m not a historian. My ignorance of history is noted.”
On a serious note, I do appreciate that. No one is right on all the time.
Admitting error is tough, however, it is one of the hallmarks of a mature adult.
There may be hope for you!!!
JeffR
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Or you could continue to learn that not everyone will agree with your political positions. I know why I believe what I believe and it’s not up to me to validate it. Just as you believe the way you do.[/quote]
It’s only up to you to validate it if you’re responsible, at least to yourself.
For instance, your claim that Republicans are not “compassionate”. When confronted with pretty strong evidence to the contrary, you made up a bunch of stuff to defend your position. You have to be honest about your positions and your philosophy, and anyone worth listening to is constantly re-evaluating their positions (not neccessarily changing --mind you – but reassessing).
Similarly, if I said ardently “HIT is the only way to train” and then started training using the conjugate method and got a shitload stronger and bigger, I would have to re-evaluate my previous statement.
If you make a position statement and then have to make things up to defend it, you are not being honest, and it’s probably not a very thoughtful position.
What you’re saying, essentially, is that “Well I believe what I believe and you should just accept that.” I might be wrong, but usually when I hear that I think that someone doesn’t know enough about their position to discuss it past the bare surface. Like a guy wearing a Che Guevara shirt.
If you didn’t come onto a politics forum to discuss and possibly take the heat, why come on? It’s a great way to check and see if your own viewpoints hold any water.
[quote]Cream wrote:
It’s only up to you to validate it if you’re responsible, at least to yourself.
For instance, your claim that Republicans are not “compassionate”. When confronted with pretty strong evidence to the contrary, you made up a bunch of stuff to defend your position. You have to be honest about your positions and your philosophy, and anyone worth listening to is constantly re-evaluating their positions (not neccessarily changing --mind you – but reassessing).
[/quote]
No, I have no one to validate my opinions to. And as I stated earlier I already know why I believe the way I do. I see no evidence to suggest that conservatives are compassionate-at least not enough to deserve the title. And as far as I know I didn’t make anything up–merely suggested that republicans aren’t compassionate just because they helped free slaves. Elitism isn’t very compassionate to me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cream wrote:
It’s only up to you to validate it if you’re responsible, at least to yourself.
For instance, your claim that Republicans are not “compassionate”. When confronted with pretty strong evidence to the contrary, you made up a bunch of stuff to defend your position. You have to be honest about your positions and your philosophy, and anyone worth listening to is constantly re-evaluating their positions (not neccessarily changing --mind you – but reassessing).
No, I have no one to validate my opinions to. And as I stated earlier I already know why I believe the way I do. I see no evidence to suggest that conservatives are compassionate-at least not enough to deserve the title. And as far as I know I didn’t make anything up–merely suggested that republicans aren’t compassionate just because they helped free slaves. Elitism isn’t very compassionate to me.
[/quote]
Elitism?
As in the Kennedys? As in John (my intellectual nose is in the air) Kerry with his megabuck wife Therezzza.
As in higher taxes and bigger government, translation: “give us your money we are smarter than you and know what to do with it.”
As in (here’s one the liberals hate)most major universities with their high brow attitude and politically correct speech…
As in…ah never mind you get the idea. There is enough “elitism” to go around huh? 
[quote]Cream wrote:
100meters wrote:
I think he gets made fun of because he the classic PIPA study republican, i.e. believing things that are not true. Remember Jeff was comparing the safety of large U.S. cities to Iraq! Whoa Nelly! It’s scary that Jeff actually votes believing this kind of crap.
This is made all the more funny by the fact that the Republican party now dominates government at both the state and federal level, and the margin keeps increasing as the dems keep putting forward candidates who think and talk like this to be their frontmen.
This is a formula for losing again and again and again. No matter how high your blood pressure gets and no matter how obtuse you are, you don’t get elected by being the most out of touch with voters.
[/quote]
Noooo. You don’t win unless you convince a tiny portion of voters that they should be scared of gay married terrorists having late term abortions. Dems are IN TOUCH with the issues, By WIDE WIDE margins. However dems seem to have little desire in frightening voters in the 6 months that matter with gay married terrorists. (I can’t imagine why?)