Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Nice...now lets get this done.

Let's not. It's a waste of time and doesn't accomplish anything useful. The Russians aren't going to nuke us, and we aren't going to nuke them. The countries I'm worried about getting/using nukes are Iran and N Korea. Pakistan is also a concern. Those are the three that should be focused on, not a couple of countries that were Cold War enemies 20+ years ago.

 

[BassAle]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

... science and engineering tend to skew conservative (something about needing facts and evidence and things of that nature)

what planet do you live on? I work at a genetics research laboratory with over 1200 employees and I can say that I don't know a single scientist that identifies themselves as conservative or republican (a few do identify themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal). If you see a conservative bumper sticker on a car 9 times out of 10 it is an animal care technician or maintenance/custodial worker. Of my coworkers I know with their PhDs in biology, genetics, physics, statistics, computer science, I wouldn't consider any conservative. Apparently these scientists don't need facts and evidence

 

[BassAle]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Last I knew all the waste from Maine Yankee in Wiscasset is still sitting in concrete tombs in a parking lot at the site. The amount of electricity that place produced in its 20 something years of operation is unbeleiveable and to have all the waste sitting there in a pretty small footprint makes its more unbelieveable. The waste includes what came from the destruction of the containment building

the only waste left on site is spent fuel, all of the other waste, including the reactor core and low level waste & demolition debris (concrete containment dome) was hauled out of state by barge and rail.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Let's not. It's a waste of time and doesn't accomplish anything useful. The Russians aren't going to nuke us, and we aren't going to nuke them. The countries I'm worried about getting/using nukes are Iran and N Korea. Pakistan is also a concern. Those are the three that should be focused on, not a couple of countries that were Cold War enemies 20+ years ago.

Commie. The fact that you hate America makes the Baby Jesus cry.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

what planet do you live on? I work at a genetics research laboratory with over 1200 employees and I can say that I don't know a single scientist that identifies themselves as conservative or republican (a few do identify themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal). If you see a conservative bumper sticker on a car 9 times out of 10 it is an animal care technician or maintenance/custodial worker. Of my coworkers I know with their PhDs in biology, genetics, physics, statistics, computer science, I wouldn't consider any conservative. Apparently these scientists don't need facts and evidence

The only engineers I've met who are conservatives are mid- or low-level and were trained in the military -- southerners who escaped economic but not intellectual poverty. In our parking lot if you see a McCain sticker there is always, and I mean always, an army or marines sticker too. I've met some computer science people who are libertarian, but they're basically glorified HVAC repairmen.

Every scientist and mathematician I've met has been either apolitical or liberal. It's the reality-based community.

I'm sure there are plenty of educated conservatives out there, but most places I have worked have had a distinct left/right split between white collar and blue collar, with the concomitant educational expectations, but again that's compounded by a civilian/military split.

I would expect high educational achievement conservatives in law (maybe 50%) and business (maybe 67%). I would expect it to be lower in medicine (higher among doctors, lower among researchers) and vanishingly small in anything research or theory-orientated (i.e. the scary smart people). And obviously in the fine arts the right doesn't exist.

On the other hand, conservatives seem to be off the charts in the financial sector, real estate, positions of athletic leadership and among whites in the military.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The only engineers I've met who are conservatives are mid- or low-level and were trained in the military -- southerners who escaped economic but not intellectual poverty. In our parking lot if you see a McCain sticker there is always, and I mean always, an army or marines sticker too. I've met some computer science people who are libertarian, but they're basically glorified HVAC repairmen.

Every scientist and mathematician I've met has been either apolitical or liberal. It's the reality-based community.

I'm sure there are plenty of educated conservatives out there, but most places I have worked have had a distinct left/right split between white collar and blue collar, with the concomitant educational expectations, but again that's compounded by a civilian/military split.

I would expect high educational achievement conservatives in law (maybe 50%) and business (maybe 67%). I would expect it to be lower in medicine (higher among doctors, lower among researchers) and vanishingly small in anything research or theory-orientated (i.e. the scary smart people). And obviously in the fine arts the right doesn't exist.

On the other hand, conservatives seem to be off the charts in the financial sector, real estate, positions of athletic leadership and among whites in the military.

I can't decide if this is more hilarious or scary. But, unfortunately it's the way people tend to think in America, where all the smart people by definition are on your side and the stupid people are against you. Wake up and come back to the real world. I know plenty of folks across the spectrum, from top notch scientists to menial laborers, and there are conservatives and liberals sprinkled throughout. To think that one is reality based and right and the other is out of touch with reality and wrong is such a grossly simplistic way of thinking, I'd expect this to come from Rover or someone like that and to not be serious.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I can't decide if this is more hilarious or scary. But, unfortunately it's the way people tend to think in America, where all the smart people by definition are on your side and the stupid people are against you. Wake up and come back to the real world. I know plenty of folks across the spectrum, from top notch scientists to menial laborers, and there are conservatives and liberals sprinkled throughout. To think that one is reality based and right and the other is out of touch with reality and wrong is such a grossly simplistic way of thinking, I'd expect this to come from Rover or someone like that and to not be serious.

Are these the same scientists that can provide us no actual scientific evidence that disproves evolution?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

all the smart people by definition are on your side and the stupid people are against you.

Nice strawman, mixed in with a little self-pity. The point has nothing to do with intelligence*, and everything to do with how intelligence is expressed. Certain personality types gravitate towards certain ideologies and also certain lines of work. That is how the real world works, and no amount of "now then, we shouldn't say things like that" political correctness will change it. These assumptions are born out by numbers that say things like 6% of scientists identify as GOP and 9% as conservative. We should expect to see the exact opposite numbers with white, evangelical preachers. Your dentist? Who knows? Your tax attorney? Yeah -- I've got a pretty good guess. Your interior decorator? Don't ask, don't tell.


* In the interests of declaring one specific bias, yes, it is fair to say I think people who claim scientific credentials and also claim to be Creationists are either bad scientists or good con men. But it's not the religious faith that Creationism is hiding that's the problem, it's the masquerade as a testable hypothesis. In contrast, for example, opposing abortion doesn't in any way connote a lack of scientific rigor. That's the difference between expressing an article of religious faith as a testable truth (dumb) or as a normative religious principle (neither smart nor dumb -- well, maybe, if it's good or bad theology -- Abelard > Dobson -- but not on the science scale, anyway).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Are these the same scientists that can provide us no actual scientific evidence that disproves evolution?

Your usual substantive contribution to discussions.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The only engineers I've met who are conservatives are mid- or low-level and were trained in the military -- southerners who escaped economic but not intellectual poverty.

Either "engineers" is the wrong word here, or it's a regional thing. MTU has always been overwhelmingly conservative (while the faculty, of course, is a buncha libs). You go down the road to the liberal arts-oriented NMU, and it's the liberal kids, from the same region, studying librarianism and flute. They are most definitely not engineers.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Your usual substantive contribution to discussions.

So you still can't provide any scientific evidence to falsify evolution past lies and misrepresentations? It's impressive that you think you have some kind of high ground to look down at Scooby for bringing up that you aren't exactly trustworthy when discussing anything scientific.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Nice strawman, mixed in with a little self-pity. The point has nothing to do with intelligence*, and everything to do with how intelligence is expressed. Certain personality types gravitate towards certain ideologies and also certain lines of work. That is how the real world works, and no amount of "now then, we shouldn't say things like that" political correctness will change it. These assumptions are born out by numbers that say things like 6% of scientists identify as GOP and 9% as conservative. We should expect to see the exact opposite numbers with white, evangelical preachers. Your dentist? Who knows? Your tax attorney? Yeah -- I've got a pretty good guess. Your interior decorator? Don't ask, don't tell.


* In the interests of declaring one specific bias, yes, it is fair to say I think people who claim scientific credentials and also claim to be Creationists are either bad scientists or good con men.

Fine. Keep being an ostrich and think that only those you identify with are the smart ones based in reality. Really sad to see a relatively reasonable poster like you take such a backward view of people. It scares me what people with this type of mentality will do after they've debased those they oppose in their own minds. Do that to people and it's a lot easier to discriminate and do all sorts of things to these lesser people. Of course, linking this whole discussion to being GOP and conservative is a bit squishy, as those philosophies can entail folks who believe or don't believe a variety of things, with an economic conservative often having little in common with a social conservative.

I'll give you one example of someone I know. He's a physicist with a masters in physics from Cornell and a PhD in physics from ASU and he received an award as an undergraduate at the University of Washington as the outstanding student his senior year. The guy does basic cutting edge research on microchips for a major firm. The guy is blow me away brilliant. And he'd find your claims laughable. He's told me a number of times that there are lots of folks he crosses paths with in science that have similar beliefs to what he does, but also that there's a good number of folks that have very different viewpoints. To categorize people's mental capacity, ability to be in touch with reality, honesty, etc. to whether they are considered conservative or liberal or whatever is a really staggering leap of logic and rational thinking that I'm really shocked to hear it coming from you. From Scooby or Rover or those types, yah, that'd make a lot more sense.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So you still can't provide any scientific evidence to falsify evolution past lies and misrepresentations? It's impressive that you think you have some kind of high ground to look down at Scooby for bringing up that you aren't exactly trustworthy when discussing anything scientific.

And thank you also for your usual substantive contributions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Either "engineers" is the wrong word here, or it's a regional thing. MTU has always been overwhelmingly conservative (while the faculty, of course, is a buncha libs). You go down the road to the liberal arts-oriented NMU, and it's the liberal kids, from the same region, studying librarianism and flute. They are most definitely not engineers.

The split between liberal and conservative colleges is probably driven more by geography than anything else, though it would be interesting to look at populations of students who go out of state as opposed to control groups of kids who stay in state, and see if there are differences.

Also, life is statistical, not deterministic. The strongest formative influence on political ideology, like religion, stronger even than the influence of personality, is what parents and peers think. (Terrible Truth #485: very few people actually make up their own minds on these things. The cement is set long before they're even conscious of it.)

But I take your point that there's a rank ordering where flute and librarian are even MORE liberal than engineer. I live in a dead red county, and I don't think it's sending a lot of kids to Julliard, but it does send kids to VaTech.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Fine. Keep being an ostrich and think that only those you identify with are the smart ones based in reality.

Not what I said. I know, I know, there is that whole "those snob liberals always look down on us working class hero conservatives" inferiority complex. But in this case it has no bearing on the dicussion. This isn't about smart vs dumb. While the smartest people I've personally met have been liberals, that's because of selection bias. If I hung out at Cato or Goldman, it would be exactly the opposite.

Of course, linking this whole discussion to being GOP and conservative is a bit squishy, as those philosophies can entail folks who believe or don't believe a variety of things, with an economic conservative often having little in common with a social conservative.

Agree 100%. It's much better to take R v D political ID out of the equation completely and split out economic from social conservatism/liberalism. A better target plot is the old SPQ 2x2 matrix (caveat: questions loaded to benefit that particular ideology, but we could come up with a real quiz). That would actually be an interesting exercise that I invite you to take a stab at with me: can two people with (apparently) opposite beliefs but a commitment to being honest design serious and fair questions of that type that neither feel biases the respondant? More fun than spitting at each other, anyway.

I'm really shocked to hear it coming from you. From Scooby or Rover or those types, yah, that'd make a lot more sense.

Hey, now. I don't call you Patman or dtp, so let's leave the personal insults out, shall we?

 

[BassAle]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I've met some computer science people who are libertarian, but they're basically glorified HVAC repairmen.

?
"computer science" people aren't the guys that fix your computer

That is like comparing the guy that changes your oil with the guy that designed the transmission in your car.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I would tend to think scientists in academia would trend strongly leftward (since they likely believe that no matter how inconsequential their research is, it's "for the benefit of everyone/the world"). OTOH, research scientists working for various corporations should trend more conservative given the for-profit nature of their work aligning more strongly with their ideology. I don't have any idea why mathematicians would be political in either direction - given the jokes we've seen for federal budgets over the years from both sides, I find it hard to believe any mathematician would take the political parties seriously.

And Kepler, you ran into trouble with your throwaway line about mathematicians/scientists being apolitical or liberal *and* being "reality-based". That obviously implied conservatives wouldn't be in a "reality-based" profession/group. You basically undermined your entire post with that one line, and Bob zeroed in on it and reacted predictably to it. I nearly did likewise and decided to ignore it and focus on the other statements instead.

As far as the nature of the conservatives that would be scientists, I would hazard a guess the bulk of them would not be social conservatives and would skew strongly toward the numbers side (fiscal). While they *might* hold socially conservative viewpoints, they would probably be more weakly expressed than their views on things like taxes/regulation/budget priorities of the federal government.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And thank you also for your usual substantive contributions.

Your usual substantive contribution to discussions.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Your usual substantive contribution to discussions.

Thank you for your originality in posting.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Agree 100%. It's much better to take R v D political ID out of the equation completely and split out economic from social conservatism/liberalism. A better target plot is the old SPQ 2x2 matrix (caveat: questions loaded to benefit that particular ideology, but we could come up with a real quiz). That would actually be an interesting exercise that I invite you to take a stab at with me: can two people with (apparently) opposite beliefs but a commitment to being honest design serious and fair questions of that type that neither feel biases the respondant? More fun than spitting at each other, anyway.

What are you talking about? This doesn't seem like a loaded statement:

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.