Have Republicans ever been right?

[MKSheppard]

Has ZerObamaMang actively opposed or countermanded the Super Shrub Era's policy on nuclear power, or has he just nodded his head and just left it essentially untouched?

He terminated Yucca Mountain on bullshit grounds. Fuck him.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, on:

1) Nuclear power. They're right but for the wrong reasons: they have no respect for science (we've seen that from global warming, contraception, Terri Schiavo, environmentalism in general, Grand Canyon creationist propaganda, etc), but they do love big industry and nuclear power is big industry.

2) Unions. They're right but once again, for the wrong reasons: the unions are dangerous (as GM showed us) because there are not enough checks on their power, but the Republicans hate unions just because they hate anything which threatens shareholder value for any reason.

I'm not counting the period when Republicans were actually liberals and Democrats were conservatives. In general (apart from their well-documented religious stupidity), Republicans are Wall Street's Bitch and that's why so many of their policies are problematic for society, because Wall Street is engaged in a constant project to take as much money from the rest of the people as they can. The Democrats are also Wall Street's Bitch, but they're the second Bitch of choice. The Republicans are the Favoured Bitch.

PS. I'm sure Axis Kast will eagerly point out that many of the rank-and-file Republicans sincerely believe in their stated ideological justifications for their various positions and are not just being Wall Street's Bitches, but they're like the dumb Confederate foot soldiers who died for rich white slave-owners during the Civil War: stupid cannon-fodder, easily manipulated with stupid talk of God and flag and tribalism. It doesn't change the fact that the underlying reasons for the movement involve bending over and spreading cheeks for Wall Street.

[Guardsman Bass]

Currently, they're right on nukes (nuclear weaponry and nuclear power), missile defense, and some of them are right on some defense issues (like the F-22, although the Republicans were divided on that). Historically, they were right on slavery and often civil rights (before they became the Party of the South), and while some of their pro-business policies were brutal, the US got serious long-term economic benefits out of things like the trans-continental railroad in particular and the Industrial Revolution in general were huge.

[Darth Wong]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

The real ideological schism in America is not Republican vs Democrat; it is North vs South, Urban vs Rural, and it has been since the 19th century.

[Knife]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

The real ideological schism in America is not Republican vs Democrat; it is North vs South, Urban vs Rural, and it has been since the 19th century.

True, but you could probably distill that a bit further into: Federalist and anti-federalist.

[fgalkin]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

How do you think the Republican Party became the pet party of Big Business that we know and hate today in the first place?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Knife]

The Industrial Revolution was a feature of the progressive North and was pretty much ignored by the conservative South. I don't think we should really treat the 19th century Republicans as if they are equivalent to modern Republicans.

How do you think the Republican Party became the pet party of Big Business that we know and hate today in the first place?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I would say that since they originate in the industrialized north upon their creation, they picked up the friend of the Big Business bit up there; however, I think it got reinforced and cemented in modern times with the lazie-faire bent due to the anti-federalist ideology of the south.

[fgalkin]

Uh...how do you explain things like sucking Robber Barron cock during the Gilded Age and opposing FDR's New Deal, then?

The Republican Party has ALWAYS been pro-big business, it's not just a recent thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[MKSheppard]

I like the claim that the GOP has no respect for science.

It's pretty ironic considering that a pretty large portion of the Democratic party has pretty much spent the last 40 years assfucking SCIENCE without lube.

SST cancellation in 1970; I'll quote Nixon here:

Another immediate impact results from waste. The SST prototype phase is now 50 percent complete. Halting work now—and destroying a development effort well on its way to completion—would be a waste of nearly $700 million of our national resources. It would be like stopping the construction of a house when it was time to put in the doors. There is another aspect to this waste : It would cost nearly $278 million in contract terminations under the present law to simply close down this project--only slightly less than the $290 million being sought at this time to continue the program.

Or the Texas SSC project in 1993 -- the only remnants of it now are a few buildings built in Texas, some holes dug in the ground, and pieces of prototypes on display in the Smithsonian American History Museum. Clinton probably could have saved the program if he had been a convert to it much earlier -- but since the SSC program was approved by Reagan in '87; Clinton was lukewarm to it until it was too late.

Fun fact, the guy who led the commitee which terminated funds for it -- William H. Natcher (D-KY); from 1970 to 1973 repeatedly blocked Metro funding; delaying the start of construction until he lost a vote on that issue in '73.

Or how Nuclear Power is banned in West Virginia.

[MKSheppard]

I think the best part of Democrat assfucking of science is their stance on Yucca Mountain/Nuclear Waste Disposal:

10 Democrat/Environmental Line: "We should build no nuclear plants until we can safely dispose of the waste."

20 Republican/Nuclear Power Line: "Uh, we could bring Yucca Mountain online."

30 Democrat/Environmental Line: "No! We must study the issue over Yucca Endlessly!"

40 Republican/Nuclear Power Line: "Um, the place is actually pretty geologically sound, and how can glassified waste leak from casks?"

50 Democrat/Environmental Line: "The site must remain safe for 10,000 years!!!oneeooneone1"

60 Republican/Nuclear Power Line: "Uh, that's longer than pretty much most of human civilzation. And wouldn't we make sure the site is safe by continually modernizing/repairing it as we find defects?"

70 Democrat/Environmental Line: *places fingers in ears and hums Kumbaya, and launches a new round of lawsuits by environmentalist organizations*

80 Republican/Nuclear Power Line: "WTF, mang?"

90 Democrat/Environmental Line: "My name is B-Rock Obama, and I'm cancelling Yucca Mountain!"

GOTO 10

[Frank Hipper]

The real ideological schism in America is not Republican vs Democrat; it is North vs South, Urban vs Rural, and it has been since the 19th century.

Make it Secular vs Religious and that gets pushed back to the 18th century.

[Gil Hamilton]

Or the Texas SSC project in 1993 -- the only remnants of it now are a few buildings built in Texas, some holes dug in the ground, and pieces of prototypes on display in the Smithsonian American History Museum. Clinton probably could have saved the program if he had been a convert to it much earlier -- but since the SSC program was approved by Reagan in '87; Clinton was lukewarm to it until it was too late.

Fun fact, the guy who led the commitee which terminated funds for it -- William H. Natcher (D-KY); from 1970 to 1973 repeatedly blocked Metro funding; delaying the start of construction until he lost a vote on that issue in '73.

You know that ALL of congress, including the Republican part of it, voted to shut down SSC, on the basis that it was poorly managed and 8 billion dollars overbudget. Congress was informed that it was going to cost 4.4 billion dollars and it was up to 12 billion dollar and still being built, having not pushed accelerated a single particle, by the time they shut it down. This is combined with the fact that the initial political impetus for starting it, making a bigger particle accelerator than anything in the Soviet Union, didn't matter anymore.

Even then, Bill Clinton still attempted to try and save it in the end, though he lost that battle due to not having an answer for why large piles of money should be burned in the middle of Texas on a ridiculously mismanaged project.

However, if SSC had been actually managed by people who weren't monkeys and actually even got CLOSE to their stated budget, Texas would have a big fucking particle reactor.

I noticed you only touched on nuclear power. What about Republicans on climatology, geology, biology, physics, sociology, et cetera? Which party pushes abstinence only education with tremendously bad scientific methodology or is out there leading the fight against biology again?


But, let's talk about conservatives and research, using the university system I'm currently in. University of Arizona is the biggest research university in the region and has ALOT of important projects, particularly related to space travel, chemistry, and energy production. However, the conservative legislature views all of this as an enormous waste of money and CONTINUALLY slashes the budget on research. There is a reason even the conservative teachers around here have serious problems with the Republican party, because when ever it comes time to make threats of cutting the budget, Republicans put research at front of the line because it's all "education stuff". Legislatures are pretty hostile to research as it is, and it only gets worse when they are conservative, because conservatives seem to have less value in supporting research at universities.

[Samuel]

I'm pretty much with Red Imperator on this. I might be willing to say nice things about the Republicans if they support Project Orion, though.

Or we could just mass produce booster rockets. Isn't that more cost effective in the long run?

Are you a rich, white, heterosexual Christian male?

I'm conflicted.

I am only 50% WASP (father's side is anglician church of england from canada; mother's side is catholic).

Does that mean my Minority oppressing license is taken away? Or do I get added "hypocrite" points on my license for being a minority myself (deaf)?

No one can take away your right to oppress minorities. Except the minorities. Which is why many of our members support the right to bear arms.

[Darth Wong]

I like the claim that the GOP has no respect for science.

It's pretty much ironclad, despite your weapon-wanking.

It's pretty ironic considering that a pretty large portion of the Democratic party has pretty much spent the last 40 years assfucking SCIENCE without lube.

SST cancellation in 1970;

You actually think that development of new airplanes and/or rockets and missiles somehow constitutes support for science? Or that cancellation of such projects is an attack on science? Do you even know what science is?

Or the Texas SSC project in 1993

And you're saying that the people who canceled it did so because they objected to the science?

Or how Nuclear Power is banned in West Virginia.

Yes, I already agreed that the Democrat position on nuclear power is bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that the Republicans despise science, and do everything in their power to shut down research as a waste of money, muzzle scientists who say things they don't like, ignore any scientific research which does not fit their social conservative or pro-business ideology, etc.

[Patrick Degan]

I like the claim that the GOP has no respect for science.

It's pretty ironic considering that a pretty large portion of the Democratic party has pretty much spent the last 40 years assfucking SCIENCE without lube.

Uh huh. Which party supports "abstinence-only" sex education? Which party is the home of anti-evolution & "global warming is a MYTH" troglodytes? Which party is the home of the people who endorse the Talking Snake story? Which party is the home of the people who endorse the Flood story as explanation for human history, geology, and the end of the dinosaurs? Which party disbelieves continental drift?

[Pablo Sanchez]

You actually think that development of new airplanes and/or rockets and missiles somehow constitutes support for science? Or that cancellation of such projects is an attack on science? Do you even know what science is?

Science is a thing that defense contractors use to design weapons systems.
Public policy is a thing that funds weapons systems.
Foreign policy is an opportunity to deploy weapons systems.

Make it Secular vs Religious and that gets pushed back to the 18th century.

This statement doesn't jibe with history. What's the religious conflict underpinning tariff fights, canal building, or Nullification? Even in issues where religious feeling really did play a strong role, like the Mexican-American War or Slavery, it doesn't work, because in both cases the overtly religious position was also the leftist position.

[Lord of the Abyss]

the Second Amendment (so the right to keep and bear arms).

As far as I can tell, their strategy is to get people so worked up about the Second Amendment that they are easy to manipulate ( "Obama's a gun grabber!" ), and so they will ignore any attempts to take their other rights away. The rights that actually matter; the rights that the pro-gun types seem to think owning guns will protect ( but don't ). I don't really think them using the Second Amendment as a tool for whipping up and distracting the mob really counts as them being "right".

[Darth Wong]

It's funny how so many other countries do not have a version of the second amendment and yet they still somehow manage to have human rights, democratic elections, etc.

[Oscar Wilde]

It's funny how so many other countries do not have a version of the second amendment and yet they still somehow manage to have human rights, democratic elections, etc.

It's just the damnedest thing isn't it? It's almost like "having a closet full of guns" isn't a necessity to life...

[Samuel]

Even in issues where religious feeling really did play a strong role, like the Mexican-American War or Slavery, it doesn't work, because in both cases the overtly religious position was also the leftist position.

Er, what? The whole "God wants you to have slaves" is an entirely religious stance. You could say it was just being manipulated... except it was explicately supported by scripture.

[Gil Hamilton]

This statement doesn't jibe with history. What's the religious conflict underpinning tariff fights, canal building, or Nullification? Even in issues where religious feeling really did play a strong role, like the Mexican-American War or Slavery, it doesn't work, because in both cases the overtly religious position was also the leftist position.

What are you talking about? Those were the conservative positions. The abolitionists were the progressives of the time.

[Duckie]

Everyone's trying to backfit history way too much. Secularism was really hard to find in the 1800s slavery debates- the abolitionists were liberal christians, the slaveholders literalist christians.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Science for the Republicans has always seemed to be an issue of convenience. If it supports their stand, or has some warfighting potential, sure... But when it contradicts their idealogy or some religious stance, it's time to start to time a witch hunt hunting down those errant pesky scientists.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm with the Republicans on missile defense, gun control, and nuclear power. Everything else, they can go eat a dick.

I'm dittoing this pretty hard.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What are you talking about? Those were the conservative positions. The abolitionists were the progressives of the time.

Er, what? The whole "God wants you to have slaves" is an entirely religious stance. You could say it was just being manipulated... except it was explicately supported by scripture.

Have you guys heard of William Wilberforce? John Brown? Harriet Beecher Stowe? Elijah P. Lovejoy? The Quakers? I could go on and on naming major figures whose abolitionism was predicated on religious belief, because abolitionism was essentially a religious movement to begin with. Some anti-slavery activists, Abraham Lincoln being the most prominent example, were secular, but the movement generally and radical abolitionism specifically had very strong religious overtones. I'm seriously appalled that people don't know this, it's that basic to understanding the subject. Look it up.