[General Battuta]

When did I say that we don't need scientists.  What I said was a skilled tradesman is worth AT LEAST as much as a scientist.

The former point was only asserted by NGTM-1R. The latter has been refuted now.

[Mongoose]

I'd be careful Mongoose, Nuclear1 started doing that sort of rant and now he's a liberal.

Don't worry, I haven't become quite that disillusioned.  At least not yet.

I do agree with your main assertion, though.  No matter what lip service they may pay to "small government," the modern-day Republican party has practiced anything but over the past several years, and anyone who thinks otherwise really is self-delusional.  If people would simply recognize a spade for a spade, and see that the two main parties are for the most part moving in the same general direction (albeit along different paths), we might actually have some sort of viable third-party as an alternative.  Given what I've seen, though, I don't hold out any hope for spades to be called spades anytime soon.

As for the religious association with the Republican Party, it is a rather odd mixing of seemingly-contradictory factions at face value, though some differing aspects of the modern Democratic Party are perhaps not much less strange.  It'd take someone far more familiar with American political history than I to explain how that sort of intermingling began to establish itself.  I kind of wonder, though, if it isn't just an extension of the differing issues and bents that most of us amalgamate into our personal political views. I have a generally traditionally-conservative economic outlook, and there are a few small instances where I'd probably go so far as to say I'm somewhat libertarian, but there are other areas, particularly environmental issues, where I'd probably fall under the modern description of "liberal."  As far as the common religious-associated issues go, there's one that I'm completely unwilling to compromise on, several that I'm far more open-minded about, and several more in which I'm in flat-out disagreement with the general vocal majority out there.  Amalgamate all of that together, and you get me.  I don't think I can be pigeon-holed into one particular narrow belief field any more than the rest of you, and maybe that's also the case for the large-scale institutions that our two major parties have become.

[Spicious]

When did I say that we don't need scientists.  What I said was a skilled tradesman is worth AT LEAST as much as a scientist.

No you didn't.

The problem with trades is that they are unglamourous and way under-appreciated.

The same applies probably even more so to sciences, and to a lesser extent to engineering.

[iamzack]

I kinda agree with the sentiment that tradesmen are, on a practical level, more important than scientists. You need tradesmen first for scientists to really be of any use. But I don't think that lessens the importance of scientists or intellectualism. I just see it as a Maslow's hierarchy type of thing.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but without the scientists, all those necessary tradesmen would still be hauling pyramid chunks for the local Pharaoh.

One scientist can do a lot more good than one tradesman. A community of scientists even more so when compared to a community of tradesmen. But they're both valuable roles.

[Ford Prefect]

This is silly-- we all know musicologists are more important than either one of those.

[Axem]

Just wait until scientists invent von Neumann Machines. Then we're all boned.

[Kosh]

When did I say that we don't need scientists.  What I said was a skilled tradesman is worth AT LEAST as much as a scientist.

Without scientists, we would only have a bronze age ish level of technology for the tradesmen to work with. The transistor for example was invented by physicists.


Actually if we look at the list of nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 until the start of world war 2, Germany had 2.5 times as many as the US. If we look at the prizes for chemistry in the same time period Germany had 17 while the US only had 3. Why? Because the Imperial German government was heavily invested in basic scientific research linky, while the US did not.

[iamzack]

Don't misunderstand me. :[ I don't argue the importance of scientists at all; I agree they are vital to the advancement of civilization. I only argue the relative importance of tradesmen. I just think we need the basics before we can even think beyond them. We don't have scientists without tradesmen. Thaz all.

[StarSlayer]

You don't get either unless your farmers can produce enough surplus to free up the population from subsistence farming   To be honest only arrogant jack holes under appreciate the trades, at least until they need a pipe fixed.  The fact that most folks have little to no trade skills means a skilled plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. generally are doing quite well for themselves. 

[Kosh]

Don't misunderstand me. :[ I don't argue the importance of scientists at all; I agree they are vital to the advancement of civilization. I only argue the relative importance of tradesmen. I just think we need the basics before we can even think beyond them. We don't have scientists without tradesmen. Thaz all.

Um, I'm pretty sure it was liberator who said that, not you........

[karajorma]

As far as the comment Kara made about

What you get in America though is "The party of big government" and "The party of big government that retards think is a party of small government"

I can't refute it.  The primary difference between the Dems and Repups is the speed they're taking in getting to the same destination.

No. The primary difference is the area that they meddle in that causes the most ire from the other side. The democrats like big social projects. The Republicans like curtailing personal freedoms. Personally I'd far rather have the former. You simply prefer the Republicans because for all your talk about wanting small government you actually want those personal freedoms curtailed.

[SpardaSon21]

Or it could be that in the days of Reagan the Republican party actually stood for things like the rights of the individual and small government instead of Dubya's and McCain's big-government semi-fascism.  I'm only a member of the Republican Party because I have hopes that one day they may rediscover their roots.

[General Battuta]

I'd go for that. Socially liberal, but I'm all for a more fiscally restrained government (though mostly in the military and pork; I'd love to have more government spending on science, health care, and infrastructure.)

[StarSlayer]

I dunno why everybody looks to Reagan as pax Republicanism

I think these two are a much better examples worth emulating:

[NGTM-1R]

I dunno why everybody looks to Reagan as pax Republicanism

Neither of those two are acceptable to modern conservative morality.

[Turambar]

I propose we clone TR and bring him back to be the next president.  We need some of his tough love on some big business around here. 

[Thaeris]

I propose we clone TR and bring him back to be the next president.  We need some of his tough love on some big business around here. 

 

That, my friend, would be amazing.

[karajorma]

Or it could be that in the days of Reagan the Republican party actually stood for things like the rights of the individual and small government instead of Dubya's and McCain's big-government semi-fascism.  I'm only a member of the Republican Party because I have hopes that one day they may rediscover their roots.

You've got to be kidding me. Reagan was when the Neo-cons first started getting into power. Maybe it wasn't quite as obvious back then but that is pretty much when it started.

You've got to go back a bit further to find the Republicans actually being conservative.

[MP-Ryan]

I do agree with your main assertion, though.  No matter what lip service they may pay to "small government," the modern-day Republican party has practiced anything but over the past several years, and anyone who thinks otherwise really is self-delusional.  If people would simply recognize a spade for a spade, and see that the two main parties are for the most part moving in the same general direction (albeit along different paths), we might actually have some sort of viable third-party as an alternative.  Given what I've seen, though, I don't hold out any hope for spades to be called spades anytime soon.

As for the religious association with the Republican Party, it is a rather odd mixing of seemingly-contradictory factions at face value, though some differing aspects of the modern Democratic Party are perhaps not much less strange.  It'd take someone far more familiar with American political history than I to explain how that sort of intermingling began to establish itself.

What I totally fail to understand is why representatives gravitate toward two large parties with such a varied mix of views and policies.  Most other democratic countries have started to see the emergency of new, more special-interest parties that force a coalition of interests to work together (hell, even Canada, which can almost be called US-Lite, is starting to see this).  It baffles me why Americans put up with an absolutely broken two-party system  In fact, I distinctly recall that one of the founders of the United States warned AGAINST a two-party system.