Confessions of a Former Republican

[kimmy]

A lot of sentimental nonsense that does not address the core issues: the big spending policies of the last 40 years are not sustainable in the long run. Government budgets must be balanced and the ability to tax is limited. This means a responsible government cannot afford to worry about every sob story out there. The republicans are the only party which at least acknowledges the problem even if their no-tax increase obsession is part of the problem.

The Republicans? What a joke!

-they've promised to increase military spending

-they've promised to cut taxes.

-they have not named one "entitlement" that they're actually willing to cut.

-they've assured voters that they *won't* cut Medicare and Social Security, which are the biggest of the big entitlement programs you're complaining about.

It appears their strategy depends entirely on the hope that dumb-ass rednecks will believe Willard can save a trillion dollars a year by de-funding Planned Parenthood and taking food-stamps away from the swarthy-folks.

-k

[dre]

Republicans increase spending because existing entitlement programs consume ever increasing amounts of funds. They don't create new programs which will only make the problem worse.

Thats full on crap. The republican prescription drug plan under Bush was the largest entitlement program enacted in modern history, and the DHS was the largest expansion of government in modern history.

Edited September 14, 2012 by dre

[BC_chick]

Your posts are a strange mix of innuendo and smiley icons... reading between the lines, that was my conclusion.

If you don't have a problem with the question, then dispense with the silly posts. If you do, then stop beating around the bush and have the guts to say what you mean.

OMG, you nailed it, I could never put on finger on it, but that's it. She makes implications, denies it and then responds very antagonistically. I have to 'review' her answers with her all the time and I've often had to ask her to just spell it out, whatever her point is.

As for that little spat at guyser, yep, I'm with the rest of you. Strange reaction to a very innocent question.

Edited September 14, 2012 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

I thought this might be a good article to read and perhaps have some discussion about the ideological pigeon-holing that's going on in the US with the Culture Wars over the last 30 some odd years.

That was a great article, thank you.

[TimG]

The Republicans? What a joke!

The trouble is democrats are even worse. They promise to cut nothing and spend even more on entitlement programs. They have also promised to keep the 2 trillion dollar hole in the budget created by the bush tax cuts for the middle class. They are also ideologically wedded to labour and enviro nuts which is much much worse than the social conservative nonsense coming from republicans because the democrat ideological obsessions damage the economy. Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

They are also ideologically wedded to labour and enviro nuts which is is worse than the social conservative nonsense coming from republicans because their ideologically obsessions damage the economy.

This is where I'm torn. The Republican submission to religious dogma and opposition to scientific education and scientific progress may well impede scientific and technological innovation, which is one of the greatest driving factors of the economy. Sinking into the mire of social conservatism could leave the US looking like other theocracies around the world.

[TimG]

The Republican submission to religious dogma and opposition to scientific education and scientific progress may well impede scientific and technological innovation.

That is where I have the least concerns. Republicans may pass laws that teach 'creationism' in school but they can't change the minds of millions of Americans who disagree. Frankly, in the Internet age the influence of text books and course curricula is much less than people believe it to be. Don't believe that any 'innovator of tomorrow' would ever be hurt by any number of 'equal time' requirements because these innovators will find out on their own that it is nonsense.

You also have to remember that democrats are more than willing to trash science and develop their own ideological fantasies when it comes to things like GMOs or Nuclear Power so if you worry about anti-science republicans you have to worry about anti-science democrats too.

Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

That is where I have the least concerns. Republicans may pass laws that teach 'creationism' in school but they can't change the minds of millions of Americans who disagree. Frankly, in the Internet age the influence of text books and course curricula is much less than people believe it to be. Don't believe that any 'innovator of tomorrow' would ever be hurt by any number of 'equal time' requirements because these innovators will find out on their own that it is nonsense.

So you think eroding the quality of science education will have no impact on the quality and quantity of scientists and engineers that will be working and innovating in the US economy? Not to mention, how the heck would you attract eminent scientists from around the world to immigrate to the US and work there if they have to face the prospect of their children being inundated with religious dogma in school?

Furthermore, if brainwashing in schools is implemented, a larger and larger portion of the population may start to oppose research in all kinds of fields that they deem unholy, like stem cell research, genetic engineering, and other facets of biology and biological engineering. If enough people don't like it, governments will defund and then eventually ban such research, causing the US to fall behind in these fields. And all scientific fields are interrelated, once you start to fall behind in an entire discipline, you will start to lose you lead in all the rest as well.

No, until the Republicans get the religious extremist wing of their party under control, I'll be just as wary of them as the democrats. Besides the economic issues, the shear imbecility of people trying to ram their religious crap in everyone else's face pisses me off to no end.

[TimG]

So you think eroding the quality of science education will have no impact on the quality and quantity of scientists and engineers that will be working and innovating in the US economy?

What evidence do have that the 'erosion' brought on by ideologically motivated teaching in a few niche topics is going to have any impact on the over all quality of science education? IMO, the spectacle of "respected" scientists like Mann publishing junk science and being defended by various "respected" institutions does more to undermine the quality and quantity of scientists and engineers in the US than any elementary school teaching.

Not to mention, how the heck would you attract eminent scientists from around the world to immigrate to the US and work there if they have to face the prospect of their children being inundated with religious dogma in school?

It would not bother me because I teach my kids to be aware of the dogma coming from all sides of the political spectrum.

Furthermore, if brainwashing in schools is implemented, a larger and larger portion of the population may start to oppose research in all kinds of fields that they deem unholy, like stem cell research, genetic engineering, and other facets of biology and biological engineering.

We already have to deal with ideological opposition to GMOs or Nuclear Power. When it comes to anti-science brainwashing the republicans have no monopoly. That is why I can't figure out why you are specifically concerned about republicans. Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

What evidence do have that the 'erosion' brought on by ideologically motivated teaching in a few niche topics is going to have any impact on the over all quality of science education? IMO, the spectacle of "respected" scientists like Mann publishing junk science and being defended by various "respected" institutions does more to undermine the quality and quantity of scientists and engineers in the US that any elementary school teaching.

What teacher that actually cared about science would teach in a classroom where he is forced by statute to promulgate creationism? No one with a passion for science would do this. The quality of teaching is all about the teachers. Good teachers make all the difference in the world. And I can guarantee that bringing in religious ideology into the curriculum would reduce the number of good science teachers.

It would not bother me because I teach my kids to be aware of the dogma.

That is admirable. I'm sure I'll do the same when I have kids some day. But that does not change the fact that the education system plays a significant role in shaping the minds of children as they grow up.

Or GMOs or Nuclear Power. When it comes to anti-science brainwashing the republicans have no monopoly.

Perhaps not, but in my opinion the republican flavor of anti-science is more outrageous, more corrosive. In the end, I find it more offensive.

Now, none of this means I support the democrats either. I find much of what they do offensive as well. What the US needs is Canada's Conservative party I think

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bonam

[TimG]

Perhaps not, but in my opinion the republican flavor of anti-science is more outrageous, more corrosive. In the end, I find it more offensive.

I used to think that way until I realized the appalling abuse of the scientific process that is condoned by various scientific bodies in order to promote the anti-CO2 political agenda. I see these abuses as infinitely more corrosive because many people refuse to acknowledge that this is going on. The republican bugbears are so obvious and are a lot easier to refute with accurate information. Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[kimmy]

The trouble is democrats are even worse.

The record proves otherwise. Reagan, Bush, and especially Bush Jr are the worst things to happen to the US debt since WWII. Keep in mind that when Clinton left office the US was posting annual surpluses and was on a pace to pay off WWII. Under Bush Jr, those turned into massive deficits, even before the global economic meltdown.

Also, the Democrats are committed to ending the rich-guy tax cuts, which is one step towards addressing the debt. Also, they're committed to defense cuts, which is another.

The Democrats have committed to two steps that will reduce the deficit, and the Republicans have committed to two steps that will make the debt worse. Yet you're convinced that the Republicans are the better choice.

They promise to cut nothing and spend even more on entitlement programs. They have also promised to keep the 2 trillion dollar hole in the budget created by the bush tax cuts for the middle class. They are also ideologically wedded to labour and enviro nuts which is much much worse than the social conservative nonsense coming from republicans because the democrat ideological obsessions damage the economy.

The record proves otherwise. The record proves that it's the Republican ideological obsessions-- tax cuts, deregulation, and defense spending-- that are the threat to America.

-k

[TimG]

Keep in mind that when Clinton left office the US was posting annual surpluses and was on a pace to pay off WWII.

Presidents don't act alone. They need congress. The Clinton balanced budget was a republican congress. If you look at the stats at the state level you see that republicans are generally better at keeping finances in order:

Red States in America are in a better overall economic, budget, and debt position relative to Blue. If one looks closely at the economic data of all 50 states there is overwhelming agreement with this conclusion. The correlation is so strong that one will be hard pressed to find exceptions to this pattern.

http://www.moneychanges.org/2012/04/blue-state-budget-blues/

Also, the Democrats are committed to ending the rich-guy tax cuts, which is one step towards addressing the debt. Also, they're committed to defense cuts, which is another.

Nonsense. Democrates want to lynch a few rich people but they refuse to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the middle class that put a 2 trillion dollar hole in the budget. The willingness to go after the small change while ignoring the big ticket items shows that the democrats care more about symbolic gestures than actually solving the problem.

The Democrats have committed to two steps that will reduce the deficit, and the Republicans have committed to two steps that will make the debt worse. Yet you're convinced that the Republicans are the better choice.

The democrats refuse to reform entitlement programs and actually want to expand them. This means their "plans" are nonsense. The Ryan plan is the only one that comes close to addressing the structural issues but it has other problems. The fact is neither of the parties have credible plans to deal with the deficit.

The record proves otherwise. The record proves that it's the Republican ideological obsessions-- tax cuts, deregulation, and defense spending-- that are the threat to America.

The record at the state level proves otherwise. Republican states are doing better. Blue states are destroying themselves. Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Nonsense. Democrates want to lynch a few rich people but they refuse to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the middle class that put a 2 trillion dollar hole in the budget.

Thats the big knock on Democrats? They wont cancel the Republican tax cuts fast enough for you?

This isnt about democrats or republicans. A decision was made a long time ago to try build America and maintain a higher standard of life than Americans actually earn by selling bonds to both Americans and foreigners then mitigating the yields they needed to pay out on these bonds by depreciating the dollar.

You also have to realize that contrary to popular believe the debt is not really increasing. Its only increasing in terms of dollars, which are just meaningless paper tokens. If the US settled this debt in gold TODAY it would take less ounces of gold than it would have 15 years ago. If it settle the debt in bushels of wheat it would take less bushels to settle the debt than it would have 15 years ago. So the ammount of real purchasing power that the US needs to surrender to settle the debt is in fact declining.

If they debase the currency enough they will be able to settle the debt with breakfast at IHop.

[cybercoma]

She makes implications, denies it and then responds very antagonistically.

It's passive aggressive and the very definition of trolling. She's gaslighting all of us.

[guyser]

What teacher that actually cared about science would teach in a classroom where he is forced by statute to promulgate creationism? No one with a passion for science would do this. The quality of teaching is all about the teachers. Good teachers make all the difference in the world. And I can guarantee that bringing in religious ideology into the curriculum would reduce the number of good science teachers.

But that does not change the fact that the education system plays a significant role in shaping the minds of children as they grow up.

Spot on.

If a teacher inspires a child for science or unearths some talent for same then the benefits are huge.

Remove the science foundation and replace it with creationism and what do you get?

Deniers?

[TimG]

Remove the science foundation and replace it with creationism and what do you get?

Remove the science foundation and replace it with knee jerk environmentalism and what do you get? Whining about the anti-science aspects of the republican platform is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge the equally odious anti-science basis opposition to GMOs and nuclear power.

[Smallc]

Remove the science foundation and replace it with knee jerk environmentalism and what do you get?

[guyser]

+1

[The_Squid]

+1

Yes... the paranoia by some right wingers that science = environmentalism has occurred due to the science uncovering truths that go against what these people stand for or are associated with.

It has been no different for hundreds of years. A round earth? Ridiculous!

We aren't the center of the universe??? Blasphemy!!

We evolved from other creatures? More blasphemy!

THe earth is warming and we are the cause? But greed is good!!

[TimG]

the paranoia by some right wingers that science = environmentalism has occurred due to the science uncovering truths that go against what these people stand for or are associated with

The complete and utter idiocy of most left wingers when it comes to environmental pseudoscience is the reason why it is attacked. From my perspective there is absolutely no difference between a creationist and an environmentalist. Both think science is a tool to be manipulated in the service of their ideology. Both groups are so blinded by their ideology that they are incapable of recognizing that they are manipulating science for political purposes and insist that only they are the "true" defenders of science. Edited September 14, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Double post

Edited September 14, 2012 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

The complete and utter idiocy of most left wingers when it comes to environmental pseudoscience is the reason why it is attacked. From my perspective there is absolutely no difference between a creationist and an environmentalist. Both think science is a tool to be manipulated in the service of their ideology. Both groups are so blinded by their ideology that they are incapable of recognizing that they are manipulating science for political purposes and insist that only they are the "true" defenders of science.

That says more about you than it does about environmentalists I'm afraid.

[Black Dog]

I'd like to see some real specifics of this apparent anti-science ideology that is so widespread on the left. But I know Tim is good with the generalizations (perhaps that's what the "G" stands for?), not so good on the proof thing.

[dre]

+1

+2