Posted on 09/04/2011 6:34:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
Unfortunately, you are exactly right - I’ve met and had to work with too many scientists and engineers who have absolutely no idea of how the economy, government or market works. Nor, do they have any interest in finding out. All too often they believe themselves to be either ‘above’ or ‘untouched’ by politics or what happens in government. In other cases, they see that as being irrational and go with what they ‘feel’ is right. A disaster either way.
After WWII, the power of science to understand and control the great forces of the universe was obvious and indisputable. This dismayed the irrationalists, who saw their control over the terms of "the great conversation" slipping away. The strength and confidence of America, its power to shape the world culturally and technologically, was a horrible setback to them.
It took many years for them to implement their response, but they are as patient as the Devil himself.
Part of their response was to debase the prestige of science. One of the ways this was accomplished was through the proliferation of all these bogus "sciences," economics and political "science" (as you rightly put it) being just two of these; you can, I'm sure, think of several others.
These fields attract wannabees, second- and third-raters, of whom John Maynard Keynes was a typical, humdrum example... except that his body of "work" gave politicians a license to expand central control over economies. For this reason, he has been virtually canonized by the elites, his nonsense taught to generations of fellow-wannabees in halls of higher learning built by the wealth of better men.
Are the incidents of "flash mob gangs" higher now than 4 years ago?
Are the incidents of ambushing law enforcement officials for the purpose of assassinating them higher now than 4 years ago?
Are there more people on "government assistance" now than 4 years ago?
Was the US more respected overseas 4 years ago than now?
Did the US have better manned space capability 4 years ago?
Were there more jobs available per capital 4 years ago than now?
Is anything better now than 4 years ago? Anything?
After all, one need only examine the policies of California to see how well it works!!!
I'm not a conspiracy nut - but you were were going to make one up this would be a good one...
We did things your way in 2000. Voting for a "moderate" "he can win" "compassionate conservative" that the left then demonized anyway got us a Democrat majority in congress in 2006, once those "compassionate" policies of "reaching across the aisle" predictably failed.
We did things your way in California when, after two successful conservative governors in Reagan and Deukmejian we elected "moderate" Pete Wilson. He, with Carl Rove's help, gutted the CAGOP conservative base and installed his crooked corporate gamesters. Within two years California elected Gray Davis and headed predictably down the tubes.
We did it again with "fiscal conservative" Arnold Schwarzenegger. The results were even worse.
If you go back in history, the ONLY Republican presidents who were followed by another, albeit "moderate" Republican, were Coolidge and Reagan, both conservatives.
Electing RINOS as some kind of intermediate step toward conservatism fails, every time, because the policies they enact NEVER undo what the left has done. They are merely watered down progressivism still headed over the communist cliff.
So, I'd like YOU to "take a bow" for the disaster GWB inflicted upon this nation.
No more traitors. No more RINOS. I'm not doing things your way in 2012.
The Soviets gave Marxism-Leninism sixty years to work - and then gave up.
As Jane Fonda stated the only reason communism failed is because the people fail to grasp it.Obama seems to have the same mind set.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
One thing Gov. Pataki (R) of NY taught this conservative: nothing gets the Democratic agenda enacted faster than a left-leaning Republican.
The problem with conservative voters in 2008 is the primary field was so full of conservatives that the vote didn’t just split, it shattered - leaving the lone left-leaning R to gather a plurality, take the nomination, and give the Right a choice between evil and evil lite.
The other problem with the 2008 field was Fred Thompson's fan dance. It precluded conservatives selecting and organizing behind a committed conservative candidate until it was too late. Sarah Palin might well be playing the very same role.
So I will take that bow for trying even if I end up with a RINO and then I’ll assume you will take that bow for BHO - because you didn’t.
So if you want perfection in your politics you won't get it, unless you are the king. If the choice is evil and evil lite I'd probably go with evil lite, and join a Tea Party to change and try harder to change my choice in the future.
A vote for Reagan is a vote for Brown!!!
A vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamante!!!
It wasn't nearly true then, and it isn't true now.
I'll warn you politely now: The reason I pinged JR is that your rhetoric is exactly coincident with that played by FairOpinion, now banned. We've had it with RINOs here on FR. The historical record proves that electing them backfires. The historical record proves that electing conservatives leads to more Republicans. What we must accomplish is to rid the Party of it's country club corporate "progressive" leadership at every level. Let them decide whether they'd rather have a socialist than a conservative in the general election. Reagan's success, despite the same arguments you are making now, proves that conservative governance is worth the risk. The people already know what they're going to get from the left, good and hard. They've had it with crooked government too.
All we have to prove is that corporate racketeering is even more true of the left than it is of Republicans, that they are owned not only by unions but by global banking, real estate, and transnational investment exporting American jobs. Sure, they pander to the welfare queens in order to buy a majority with other people's money, but look at how that has worked out for the poor. Conservatives are the friend of the little guy. It isn't hard to prove.
Dog feces. They never anticipated and frankly disapproved of political parties. You can take that Hegelian dialectic and stick it where the sun don't shine.
How can you disapprove of something you never anticipated?
Either way, we're no more likely going to stop the two party system then the world is to throw away all nuclear weapons. No parties would become one party against a multitude of helpless factions.
Ironically, the lesser of two evils two party system is itself the lesser of two other evils. ;-)
Nicely taken out of context. I was speaking of the TWO party system in the post to which I was responding. I should have anticipated your ilk doing that and apologize to the forum for the lack of specificity.
Either way, we're no more likely going to stop the two party system then the world is to throw away all nuclear weapons.
How positively Whiggish of you. I'm not so clairvoyant, nor am I advocating such; I was instead clarifying the historical record. The very idea of a Democratic Republican Party, Inc. was unknown at the time the Constitution was written and implemented.
Ironically, the lesser of two evils two party system is itself the lesser of two other evils. ;-)
Go ahead and support said bald-faced assertion. I want a cogent argument supported by fact or reference.
I would hazard a guess that you actually would rather have liberal dems like BHO than a conservative you don't agree 100% with. Which makes you just as much as a danger to the conservative cause as any DUmmy.
Take your rhetoric to the foothills and build a wee fort and leave the adults to govern, and quite polluting the party with your do or die crap... it is your ilk in part I can thank for the economy.
I'm tired of you people electing dems because you don't get your way...
I want someone as conservative as I can get - I just won't tell everyone that they should sit out if the person I want doesn't make it.
not much of history buff are you Carry.
I never said the founding fathers approved or disapproved of political parties.... I said they didn’t agree.... which is part of the political process.
BTW - I don’t want RINOs I want conservative repubicians first, republicans second.
Your second choice looks like democrat.
It took Hitler 3 months to control radio and print news in Germany. Our technology is holding Obama in check - thanks to the internet we still have the daily news at our fingertips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.