If Obama were elected... [no flaming]

[Mr. Happy]

Degree from Harvard yes, but I said he was president of the Harvard law review. which is really really really really impressive, and means basically "I know more about laws and government than 99.99999999999% of the people in the world"


Sacul15, I didn't say more intelligent and I'm sorry if you took it that way Basically what they are saying is that there is a general correlation between the genetics, personality, and political aliance. People whom are more open minded and think about things tend to vote liberally, people whom prefer routine and not questioning their allegiances vote conservative. I was kinda making a joke :/ but I wanted you guys to actually read the article and see what it says and it seems that happened!

Just listen to Obama answer a detailed question, ya, that's right, he stops, thinks, and gives more of a real answer than any other politician (which is the only reason why I'm voting for him rather than writing in Kucinich)

The idea that McCain goes against his own party is a complete misconception. He's a flip-flopper, re-inventing himself every few years to match a constituency he thinks he needs to please. If you can name one instance in which he hasn't reveresed his "maverick" opinion to better fit the party standard since getting the nomination than kudos to you.

We should have a contest to see who can trump one another, i.e. I say something bad against McCain or pro-Obama, and someone else has to trump it etc. For example, McCain is a criminal hypocrite who broke a law he wrote and "he secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral." Yes, he took taaxpayers money and used to to get a loan for his campaign.

[Sorrow]

Oh I did read something interesting the other day whilst doing some exams for fun, apparently people who vote look at the candidates face and judge him (not for his/her handsomeness) by certain characteristics eg. trustworthy, friendly, pedo, dominant etc.

In a time of war people will vote more for a candidate with a dominant face (sort of masculine I suppose) and in peace time they'd rather vote for someone with a "family-man" face.

Which leads me to believe that all voters are stupid, but then again how can you vote for someone who is anti abortion, anti gay, anti stemcell research? It's all constricting your liberties right? People with cancer have a right to live too and if we can cure diseases by using living material (no not a person) than why shouldn't we?
(because god says blablabla) which is funny because when people say that it reminds me of Star Wars...
having seen Star Wars, I "know" it to be true and the Jedi code says "blablabla".

anyway yeah think about the first bit and laugh about the second.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Oh I did read something interesting the other day whilst doing some exams for fun, apparently people who vote look at the candidates face and judge him (not for his/her handsomeness) by certain characteristics eg. trustworthy, friendly, pedo, dominant etc.

In a time of war people will vote more for a candidate with a dominant face (sort of masculine I suppose) and in peace time they'd rather vote for someone with a "family-man" face.

Which leads me to believe that all voters are stupid, but then again how can you vote for someone who is anti abortion, anti gay, anti stemcell research? It's all constricting your liberties right? People with cancer have a right to live too and if we can cure diseases by using living material (no not a person) than why shouldn't we?
(because god says blablabla) which is funny because when people say that it reminds me of Star Wars...
having seen Star Wars, I "know" it to be true and the Jedi code says "blablabla".

anyway yeah think about the first bit and laugh about the second.

As for the first bit, I'm not so sure that it's conscious. Most likely, these little cues are registered unconsciously, which does not mean that a voter is stupid, only that they allow their unconscious a good deal of power. But yeah, it would be interesting to see some statistics about this(if it is even possible to attain them).

As for the second part, the controversy over stem cell research is about whether the government should fund it, which to me is a bad idea in general. The last thing we need is more government funded programs. The government should not be the entity charged with such responsibility but private enterprise instead. Our greatest technological advances have stemmed from private business and research efforts. It doesn't seem the best idea to leave it in the inefficient hands of the national government. Really, the recent political controversies have been about federally funded research, not just research at all. Remember that.

For comparison, just because the government doesn't fund the press to publish newspapers doesn't mean that our freedom of speech is being violated.

Sorry about that, I know you were making a joke. But I still wouldn't mock people's faith.

[Mr. Happy]

That's funny. All those years ago I looked at John Kerry's picture adn just knew the idiot would be the democratic nominee. Just looked like it.

[RobQ]

The last thing we need is more government funded programs.

Wow. Totally wow.

The government should not be the entity charged with such responsibility but private enterprise instead.

Private enterprise exists to make money. Companies will conduct research that they predict will be profitable.

If you want to do some searches on your own look into who will research aspirin. It's a likely miracle drug, but no one has the patent on it and they can't make any money off of it. If you need some more, think about who funded the first Internet, and compare spaceflight from today to space flight in 1969. Which company will research global warming, and would you trust their profit driver results?

Private enterprise often picks up the research trails first blazed by the government (and their proxies - academic groups like public universities).

It doesn't seem the best idea to leave it in the inefficient hands of the national government.

The government "outsources" much of the research. Just like there's no government factories making tanks or fighter jets.

So... uhh... quick, someone tie this back into the presidential race.

[Sacul15]

If the government must be spending money, then yes, I think it should go to things like space exploration and health research before it goes to individuals in the form of welfare or "free" health care. But since we are trillions in debt, the last thing the government should be doing is spending money on things that aren't necessary. Sure, it's nice to know more about the universe and what not, but what exact economic or political purpose does space exploration serve? There really isn't one. And the parts which do have some benefit have been taken up by private companies. There are dozens of privately owned satellites and flights that take people up into space are becoming more and more popular. It's the government's job to allow these businesses to continue researching, by granting them patents and other securities to maintain their intellectual property rights, not to take taxpayers' money and use it to fund programs that aren't beneficial to really anyone.

[BillyDa59]

There will always be the national deficit. I think national health care would be excellent. One way to think about it is an engine that keeps itself oiled runs more efficiently.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

.

The last thing we need is more government funded programs.

Wow. Totally wow.

Please explain your position rather than simply attempting to mock me. Face it, the deficit is much higher than it should be. Whether its raising taxes or cutting programs, something needs to be done.

Private enterprise exists to make money. Companies will conduct research that they predict will be profitable.

Yes, and why is that a problem? Even if stem cell research produced viable results in one form or another, those treatments would all cost money. If there was promise in stem cell researching, there would be profit also, and thus companies would invest as they could capitalize upon it. Regardless, I was merely saying that our rights were not being violated simply because the government would not fund the research.

If you want to do some searches on your own look into who will research aspirin. It's a likely miracle drug, but no one has the patent on it and they can't make any money off of it. If you need some more, think about who funded the first Internet, and compare spaceflight from today to space flight in 1969. Which company will research global warming, and would you trust their profit driver results?

Most of today's technological and medical breakthroughs are from private enterprise. Notice that most medical drugs are researched and produced by private corporations, be it for altruism or profit. We live in a capitalist society wherein competition between private firms accelerates progress quite quickly. Look at computers. They would never have reached this level of advancement had it not been for capitalism. And yes, I would trust the companies. I have tired from this prevalent fear and distrust of big business. It's inane and subversive. Yes, some companies do abuse their power and wealth, but compared to the vast number of firms in existence, it is a small number. People simply hate corporations as a matter of principle, sadly. But the truth is that corporations provide many things for us that we need. And we cannot forget the charity of which they are capable, look up Bill Gates. Even companies like UPS donate millions each year for charitable causes. Stop distrusting and hating corporations simple because they try to make money.

The government "outsources" much of the research. Just like there's no government factories making tanks or fighter jets.

Right, private companies do all the work and are paid for their products, like Boeing. But I do not believe that our government should allocate more money into a sector that clearly has enough already, unless it is paying for a service.

So... uhh... quick, someone tie this back into the presidential race.

This is one of the reasons that I would disagree with nationalized medicine, like what Obama supports and Clinton supported. For one thing, this eliminates the competition factor that I so strongly support. Plus, it has to do with incentive. Doctors and medical professionals have a greater incentive to perform their best and provide the best service when they can be guaranteed the freedom and profits involved with independence with national government. I am not saying the current system is not without its flaws. But many of the problems with it stem from the intrusions and injustice of John Edwards. In his legal career, he worked on a number of malpractice court cases. And let me just say this: the majority of malpractice cases are utter BULLSHIT! They are mostly greedy idiots willing to destroy the system just to make some money. Since their have been so many malpractice court cases, malpractice insurance has gone up dramatically in price. This is why doctors must charge as much as they do, because otherwise they won't be able to afford the insurance, and then if they're sued by a greedy client, they're screwed. This whole situation has been caused by John Edwards and people like him, which is why I am glad that he is no longer in the race. While nationalized healthcare seems like a good solution to this problem, it is only fixing a symptom of a much greater problem. The problem? Human stupidity. The true area in need of fixing is the court system. As long as stupid jurors are willing to side with greedy and destructive plaintiffs, we are screwed anyway. This may not be the only problem with the current system, but it is a dire one nonetheless.

Sorry about that, I got a little carried away.

[RawMeat3000]

This whole situation has been caused by John Edwards and people like him, which is why I am glad that he is no longer in the race.

Actually Obama is considering him for VP.

[Sacul15]

We cannot forget the charity of which they are capable, look up Bill Gates. Even companies like UPS donate millions each year for charitable causes. Stop distrusting and hating corporations simple because they try to make money.

I completely agree with you, but why is a businessman's (or woman's) worth is always determined by his or her donations to charities? Sure, Bill Gates has donated billions to AIDS research and other causes and it has certainly helped, but has it benefited society more than his selfish interests? The computer revolution was a direct result of his selfishness. Because of his so called "evil" want to make money, everyone is now better off.

Obama and the Democrats want to implement policies that will seriously hinder businesses which have the potential to achieve similar goals. McCain's certainly got his problems, but he's a much better choice than Obama and his comrades.

[Dionysos]

We cannot forget the charity of which they are capable, look up Bill Gates. Even companies like UPS donate millions each year for charitable causes. Stop distrusting and hating corporations simple because they try to make money.

I completely agree with you, but why is a businessman's (or woman's) worth is always determined by his or her donations to charities? Sure, Bill Gates has donated billions to AIDS research and other causes and it has certainly helped, but has it benefited society more than his selfish interests? The computer revolution was a direct result of his selfishness. Because of his so called "evil" want to make to money, everyone is now better off.

I wouldnt exactly say the world is better off because of microsoft... there were other systems and os's around at the time you know. The computer revolution wasnt caused directly by gates, although he contributed by selling his pc's cheaper than for instance apple (part of the reason why DOS grew more I gather).

Obama and the Democrats want to implement policies that will seriously hinder businesses which have the potential to achieve similar goals. McCain's certainly got his problems, but he's a much better choice than Obama and his comrades.

The thing is, even though private research often is more motivated (what motivates more than money nowadays?) it is often not for the "common good" for the same reason. The point being, a company might decide to research something because it could make them rich, not because society or people need it. However, if the government would make it profitable by paying for that research, something could be produced/researched that would not necessarily make a huge profit, but just something thats is good for society/people/etc. The unregulated market, and that includes private research, does not take the interests of society at heart, but rather that of those with the moneyz. Often that process does yield positive results for society (a lot actually, especially in the beginning), but it can be equally dangerous.

[Sorrow]

yeah about the deficits you're all wanking over right now,

stop the


perhaps?

FOOOOOOOOOOOOOLS!

[RobQ]

Your example of medicine is a good one, I totally agree - many of the best advances are going to come from profit oriented researchers. At least as long as they are operating on a level playing field. But you don't have to dig far to find examples of medical researchers hiding bad results because they were funded by corporations.

You're totally discounting things that are profitable now that weren't before, and would have never arrived without government funding. Or things that will never be profitable but that we still need government funding and research for. Some examples:

-the Internet, ethernet, first web browser, first web server, email
-satellite communications
-satellite weather forecasts
-GPS
-MRI, other medicine related spin offs from high energy physics
-the military spinoffs are endless - unmanned flight, advanced radar, lasers, sonar, computers, jet engines, supersonic flight
-study of prehistoric life (think: validation of global warming theories)
-quantum computing, nanotechnology (two good examples of research now moving into the corporate realm)
-basic AI
-genetics

I can't think of much corporate funding going into:
-social sciences
-history
-crime
-fusion energy
-study of earthquakes, storms, flooding, natural disasters, global warming


Trusting large companies is a whole new thread. I'll just leave you with some starters: salmonella in your vegetables, mad cow burgers, contaminated medicine from China, lead paint, automobile safety, seat belts, fuel efficiency, pollution, dioxin, mercury, airline safety, job/occupational safety, Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Standard Oil, cigarette health claims. I'm not going to go on - look at any of the common government regulatory bodies and look at who they target.

[RawMeat3000]

I completely agree with you, but why is a businessman's (or woman's) worth is always determined by his or her donations to charities? Sure, Bill Gates has donated billions to AIDS research and other causes and it has certainly helped, but has it benefited society more than his selfish interests? The computer revolution was a direct result of his selfishness. Because of his so called "evil" want to make to money, everyone is now better off.

I agree completely, but it isn't because of the mere fact that businesses make a lot of money that I generally dislike them, it's that they make ridiculous amounts money at the expense of so many people. They pay people pennies a day and in the process become rich, they contaminate ground water, destroy landscapes, they make us all fat and die of heart disease. And it's all for just a little bit more money, millions to add to the billions they don't need.

[Sacul15]

I wouldnt exactly say the world is better off because of microsoft... there were other systems and os's around at the time you know. The computer revolution wasnt caused directly by gates, although he contributed by selling his pc's cheaper than for instance apple (part of the reason why DOS grew more I gather).

I didn't mean to accredit the whole thing to Gates. Jobs, Dell, and others certainly had a huge impact. I just referenced Gates because he is obviously the most famous, both for his work with computers and for charity.

The thing is, even though private research often is more motivated (what motivates more than money nowadays?) it is often not for the "common good" for the same reason. The point being, a company might decide to research something because it could make them rich, not because society or people need it. However, if the government would make it profitable by paying for that research, something could be produced/researched that would not necessarily make a huge profit, but just something thats is good for society/people/etc. The unregulated market, and that includes private research, does not take the interests of society at heart, but rather that of those with the moneyz. Often that process does yield positive results for society (a lot actually, especially in the beginning), but it can be equally dangerous.

Except a business cannot survive without appealing to the needs of society. If a product is created that nobody needs or wants, the business doesn't make any money. Likewise, if a product is made that does benefit society (like flu vaccinations), then people want to buy it.

Stop the military spending.

Yes, supporting the military is costly, but it doesn't even compare to other government spending. In 2007, Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory spending (services which the government must provide if the recipient qualifies for them, no matter what) came to about 53% ($1.45 trillion) of total government spending, where as defense came only to about 20% ($549 billion). Cutting back on defense might help a little bit, at least for now, but the real problem lies in all of these programs that either aren't necessary, or are way too large to support themselves.

I agree completely, but it isn't because of the mere fact that businesses make a lot of money that I generally dislike them, it's that they make ridiculous amounts money at the expense of so many people. They pay people pennies a day and in the process become rich, they contaminate ground water, destroy landscapes, they make us all fat and die of heart disease. And it's all for just a little bit more money, millions to add to the billions they don't need.

Nobody is forcing people to work for them for pennies a day. If they are unhappy with working conditions, they should go on strike. If the company just hires different workers, then obviously the conditions aren't that bad. Now, it's different of course if people are actually getting hurt at work, or if the company's production is hurting people who did not purchase their products (in my opinion, if you have a heart attack from eating too many Big Macs, it's your fault, not McDonald's'). Sometimes, the government should step in. But most of the time, consumers have a huge power (and responsibility) to limit the actions of businesses. If you don't like the way a company treats animals or the environment, don't buy from them. That's the beauty of capitalism. Remember the free market describes freedom for consumers as well as producers.