Congratulations, Al Gore!

[Canerican]

This very well may be the case.  Politicians are despicable.

I think that most were well intentioned to start. Has anyone read All The Kings Men? I have a feeling that it is a good look into the way politics might affect a good person. I have always wanted to get into politics, but working with politicians has really made me discouraged. I worked with a County Executive who had a huge fall from grace and may be the most hated man in my area (his approval rating went from about 90% to 8% in about a month). Yet we elected a new executive from his same party - which suggests that people care more about the person than the party.

[Scoundrel]

I saw that they had made a movie called 'All the Kings Men'....didn't know it was a book first, I'll have to check it out...glad I haven't seen the movie

[islander]

Canerican, I agree with you.  You reflect my thoughts to the T.  

islander: Canerican's "behavior" on this thread has not been "absurd".  He has merely stated his points that happen to conflict with yours and poor knight's.  

It's okay to disagree about things and so far, I have not seen any behavior from either side that deserves reprimand.

The topic was about Gore winning the peace prize over the issue of global warming.

In Camerican's fist post he states:

"We have tamed a civil war in Iraq, and Iraq has the strongest economy ever, Baghdad is seeing the highest percentage of people with basic services that it ever has."

What the heck does that have to do with topic of the environment?

I enjoy reason and a logical thought process. Not a bunch of misinformation.

Are you going to argue that the front runner Mike Huckabee didn't make the claim that republicans have been the last ones to adopt a responsible environmental policy?

If you want to make claims that have zero truth that is absurd.

later

 

[Canerican]

I'm sorry, but your reading abilities have to be seriously flawed if you didn't see that I was responding in part to Poor Knight's statement that "(Gore's Nobel Prize win was) one of the very few proud moments we have been able to share on the world stage in the past seven years."
I don't know that Mike Huckabee said that and I won't fall into your trap. I don't like Huckabee anyway, but he is right that Republicans have been slow to pursue a more pro-evironment view, however if you look at some of the bi-partisan bills that just went through the Senate, having to do with environmental issues, people did not vote along party lines at all, even Democrats voted against fuel efficiency increases because it will kill the auto industry.

If you think that mankind and animals can't evolve look at what happened to the moths in England at the height of the Industrial Revolution. They turned black to disguise better with the plant life that was largely covered in soot.

Here is a link that you might find interesting, look at the signatories, I only saw 2 that weren't related to global warming.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

[poor knight]

I have some serious disagreements with Canerican, but it is true that I expected my initial post to generate some debate on politics more broadly. So, I appreciate a reasoned discussion on this topic, as I think we've had.

I don't have time to reply to Canerican's last post -- which I believe completely oversimplifies the reality of the situation, and is what I would expect as political spin from a staffer to a member of Congress (I don't suppose you'd tell us who that is. I would actually -- this is going to be tongue in cheek -- love to know of a Republican Rep who is intellectually evolved enough to have a Dostoevsky fan on his staff) But I do hope we can all let this thread continue to be a good place to discuss current politics.

Not exactly our own little Petrashevsky Circle, but thank God we don't have to worry about the censors.

[Canerican]

Well, I won't give his name, but there are a lot of academics on both sides of the aisle. You have just touched on the thing that makes my blood boil. Democrats seem to think that they are the only ones enlightened enough to understand complex philosophy, this is however not true at all.
There are stupid Republicans, there are stupid Democrats, the fact is that if you can justify your philosophical or social position (I mean ideology) through rational argument, the authors that you have read are irrelevant.
Yes more Liberals read fictional books than Conservatives, Conservatives listen to more Classical music that Liberals, does this mean that Conservatives are the sole ones that understand music and Liberals dominate rational thought and common sense? From a centrist point of view the answer is a strong no.

And on oversimplification - I like simplification. I use the theory of Occam's razor as much as I can and it is a great theory that will ensure that you are correct 9 out of 10 times.

[poor knight]

I agree of course that there are intelligent republicans. I know many myself. But here are some facts: Of the 16 states with average population IQ's over 100, all voted for Kerry in 2004. There are only three states with IQ's less than 100 that voted for Kerry (The Economist).

Of the 15 states with the highest % of college graduates, 11 voted for Kerry. The 15 with the lowest all voted for Bush. (Census Bureau).

If you want to apply Occam's razor to that, it certainly simplifies things to say that Republicans are a whole lot less smart than Democrats on the whole.

Your application of the same theory, however is being misused. Occam meant that to apply to phenomenon: natural, physical and maybe today that would include economic. I actually think the guy gets too much credit, because all he really said was that things take the path of least resistance. Which is simply obvious. Things take the simplest path because it involves less energy as is more efficient and evolution and natural selection weed out those things that aren't efficient (a little bit ironic for you, eh...)

Your simplification that essentially because Congress is liked less than Bush, Bush must actually be doing a reasonably good job is not a proper application of Occam's razor any more than it would be to say that because it is easier to believe God made the sky blue since studies show that blue is mankind's favorite color, rather than because of the complex physics in the refraction of sunlight in the atmosphere, the former is more likely to be true. The complexities of Republican filibustering, veto threats, Democrats who have won elections in republican districts, etc.. all weigh into it. How then do you explain that Bush's popularity is in the low 30's and the popularity of most democrats in congress, within their own districts, is above 50%?

I don't think it is an oversimplification myself to say that in the Republican political universe, the strategy has been for the last 20 years to give the voting base single, simple messages to fixate on (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, taxes) so that the voter doesn't have to actually consider the complexities of civic life. So in that sense I can see how you might like the Occam's razor idea. The unfortunate reality, though, is that life is not that simple, and Occam's razor is simply wrong. Why is a poor single black mom unable to afford health insurance for her four kids? Simple: she's too damn lazy to get a job and she shouldn't have had all those kids out of wedlock. The reality: her husband was killed in Iraq and the stay-at-home mom was unable to collect death benefits from the government (NYT 2006)...

[poor knight]

Can't you give me a hint? Red or blue state, current or former member, House or Senate, any letter in their name that would score 4 or more in Scrabble (oh wait, Scrabble is a word game...)javascript:replaceText(' ')
Wink

Seriously, I hope you know that those digs are not personal, just for fun.

[Scoundrel]

Both parties are one in this country...besides a few social issues that they cling to, like gay marriage,abortion, things like that---things that they never do anything about anyway........In all seriousness, how can Bush even consider being referred to as a conservative after the past seven years of spending and expanding the governments role....there just isn't any good candidates these days...I often wish I had lived a hundred years ago.......Now we've got Bush senior and Clinton hanging out on the weekends, and another Clinton running for office...frankly, I've had enough of the damn Clinton/Bush brigade

[Canerican]

Couldn't agree more Scoundrel.

Poor Knight, don't you remember the nuclear option in 2005?

I agree of course that there are intelligent republicans. I know many myself. But here are some facts: Of the 16 states with average population IQ's over 100, all voted for Kerry in 2004. There are only three states with IQ's less than 100 that voted for Kerry (The Economist).

That has been debunked, there has never been a study on which states have the highest IQ scores (at least that is what I have read from a couple of sources).
Besides, you know the critiques of the IQ, my IQ says that I am a genius yet I never announce it because a) I don't want to sound like a braggart b) I don't find IQ tests fair at all.
Did you know that one of the 10 highest known IQs in the world belongs to Republican from New Hampshire? You can look him up if you would like, but like I said, the IQ means nothing, I mean, Jumma had an IQ of something like 180 and he was an idiot  

Three hints for Scoundrel.:And I live in one of the most Conservative districts in the country, but live in one of the bluest states. My state is north of Kansas.
Have fun! You should be able to to do it with everything I have told you.

[poor knight]

Oh Canerican, I expected something a bit more thought out from you. The IQ study I mentioned was actually based on SAT scores calibrated to IQ. So the basis was SAT scores, which I suppose you could debunk, too, but really, your argument's a bit lame don't you think.

As for the nuc-u-lar option, I guess the fact that Democrats aren't threatening to subvert the 200 year traditions of the Congress is a reasonably noble thing to do.

And hey, give me credit, I was the one who asked the ? about where you are from. But maybe I'm not as smart as I think. There are several blue states north of Kansas, if you go east and west. Or are we talking about a particular state with a particular comedic twist to its current senate race?

[Canerican]

As for the nuc-u-lar option, I guess the fact that Democrats aren't threatening to subvert the 200 year traditions of the Congress is a reasonably noble thing to do.

What about the fact that the Democrats weren't allowing Republicans to introduce legislation in the House, or Barney Frank throwing a fit when the Republicans wouldn't yield their time and wanted to offer another amendment to a bill.

And I am not sure if you have heard of this website, but it has been accurate in the past in is very well known for its accuracy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

And I'm not taking it personally, its a good debate, I'm having fun.