Conquer Club

Mr_Adams wrote:And what economic text have you ever read that wasn't presented to you in a lecture by some wacko Liberal college proffesor?

Limbaugh does get out of line occasionaly, but he is definetly inteligent. I'll listen to what he says, and then check it. this can be very enlightening.

Really? You'll bring up the enviroment platform of of whichever canidate you will undoubtably be voting for? Do you drive around in a private jet like said canidate does, making them the biggest hypocrits on Earth... or did you not know that almost all major politicians have private jets (including the one's spoutting the enviromental argument).

Why don't we turn this to the original topic... why ARE we, conservatives, more happy? Maybe because we aren't constantly making nightmares about the enviroment, and unfairness, and all that for ourselves. And thier just that... NIGHTMARES, BAD DREAMS. Wake up people!

okay, okay. you can have all of my change. no, really, i want you to have it. here's, it's um, only 78 cents, and it's all i can spare. i need the rest of my money to buy SEPTA tokens.

... Can't put my finger on the article, but found two related.

... The wealthy states donate the least*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276796/posts

... And the evil Dick Cheney gives away 3/4 of his income!! That surprised me. (compared to Al Gore's meager $350 donation).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615415/posts

...

Nobunaga wrote: ... And the evil Dick Cheney gives away 3/4 of his income!! That surprised me. (compared to Al Gore's meager $350 donation).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615415/posts

...

okay, this is ridiculous... they're commenting on Al Gore's donation in 1997 -- when the COMBINED income for the two Gore's was under $200,000. Cheney still cleared a million according to that article -- not to mention the fact that Cheney already has a Scrooge McDuck size fortune to live on. He hasn't needed to work for some time. Gore, on the other hand, has been devoted to public service for so long, i'm rather certain he had to get by with every bit he could during the 90s. And since he was honest, and not taking kickbacks, well, they probably needed that income.

i mean, this whole thing is ridiculous, the only way in which Gore and Cheney are similar is that they're both VPs. But everything else is so different, it's a completely fallacious comparison. come on, Nobunga, you should be better than this -- i thought you were a doctor, or something. or are you rationalizing all of the ridiculous leaps of logic away, as per the article that lead off this thread?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that Nappy is unlikely to ever grow up.

It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that joecoolfrog is unlikely to ever get an IQ.

IQ tests are a bit odd , if you are good at puzzles then you will score well as I did.
What really matters is life experience though, have you run a company,travelled extensively, had any type of sexual relationship, watched friends die, buried family members,raised children....no in short you have done nothing and know nothing little boy because you dont learn about life from books.

greenoaks wrote:you must be average in the looks department. your face is only half covered.

I think I mentioned it in another thread; I got better with age.

joecoolfrog wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that Nappy is unlikely to ever grow up.

It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that joecoolfrog is unlikely to ever get an IQ.

IQ tests are a bit odd , if you are good at puzzles then you will score well as I did.
What really matters is life experience though, have you run a company,travelled extensively, had any type of sexual relationship, watched friends die, buried family members,raised children....no in short you have done nothing and know nothing little boy because you dont learn about life from books.

But he can write fancy words! Surely that must count to something. Honestly speaking though, "the world is all black & white" people tend to either be A) very priviledged/disadvantaged, B) young or C) plain stupid. On Nappy's case I'd go for B. He will learn.

Jucdor wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that joecoolfrog is unlikely to ever get an IQ.

IQ tests are a bit odd , if you are good at puzzles then you will score well as I did.
What really matters is life experience though, have you run a company,travelled extensively, had any type of sexual relationship, watched friends die, buried family members,raised children....no in short you have done nothing and know nothing little boy because you dont learn about life from books.

But he can write fancy words! Surely that must count to something. Honestly speaking though, "the world is all black & white" people tend to either be A) very priviledged/disadvantaged, B) young or C) plain stupid. On Nappy's case I'd go for B. He will learn.

Well now Jucdor old bean I'd say that's a rather unfair accusation, I may not be terribly aged and wizened but I certainly don't view situations ads black and white. Feel free to present any evidence for this from my posts if you want to though, i'd be delighted to discuss it with you.

As for the ever-ridiculous joethingame, unfortunately, you do learn about economics from books. Still I guess, I should congratulate you: seeing as how you've run a company and travelled the world, without learning proper grammar. But seriously, you do learn things from books...just try reading one: it's what I might call, a life experience...kthnkbi, see you after my successful acquisition of your company and subsequent termination of your employment.

What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

...I thought this had already been covered in several other threads.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

...I thought this had already been covered in several other threads.

if people stopped posting things that had been covered at somepoint by someone on the forum, you might as well just archive the thing and make it a read only.

got tonkaed wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

...I thought this had already been covered in several other threads.

if people stopped posting things that had been covered at somepoint by someone on the forum, you might as well just archive the thing and make it a read only.

Fine, I'll explain it anyways.

First of all, it seems that HungrySomali is getting the idea that all Conservatives are Religious, that generalization is quite false. There are quite a few Conservative Atheists and Agnostics, and are actually quite good at Science.

Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

Last of all, Science has yet to disprove that God exists, and that many Christians (take a look at OnlyAmbrose for proof of this, me as well) believe that Science allows us to learn more about how God created the Universe, because relying on Science alone as the sole explanation for the Universe is about the same as Creationists in many aspects. Take a look at the Big Bang Theory. The Universe starts out as a tiny little object, then suddenly explodes and expands. Some of the problems with this are, where does this thing that created the Universe come from in the first place? What is the Universe expanding into? Along with several others. So to think that Science alone has the answers is pretty naive.

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

That's not true, I am a conservative and I believe in Science!

Now I don't believe in wierd science; really the idea of puting a bra on your head and using a barbie doll is no proper way of getting a real date.

In fact I may be showing my age here, but she blinded me with science!

tzor wrote:

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

That's not true, I am a conservative and I believe in Science!

Now I don't believe in wierd science; really the idea of puting a bra on your head and using a barbie doll is no proper way of getting a real date.

In fact I may be showing my age here, but she blinded me with science!

you weren't the only one.

HungrySomali wrote:What a connundrum since Conservatives dont believe in Science...

Only in your world buddy. You see "science" in my world is physical facts which can be proven through a series of tests or expieriences. "Science" in your world seems to be far from this. You seem to define "science" as "evolution" and "the big bang". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but those two definetions don't even seem to be tangent... So, if you can show me a series of tests and expierements that prove the "sciences" which I don't believe in, I must say that I do believe in ALL scientificly proven things. (unless I see a flaw in the expirements)

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Well now Jucdor old bean I'd say that's a rather unfair accusation, I may not be terribly aged and wizened but I certainly don't view situations ads black and white. Feel free to present any evidence for this from my posts if you want to though, i'd be delighted to discuss it with you.

Hmmm... I give you that that you didn't get offended by my remark even though it was first time I made a slightly sarcastic remark on you. Good for you and I mean it without any hypocrisy or slandering.

On your questions though I tried to look for few familiar posts you've made recently, but it seems you're way too active in this forum for me so I'll go by the memory. Economics: Free trade is the divine way to go and wellfare state has no positive sides what so ever and it only makes people lazy. Or history is absolute, there is constantly "The Single Truth(TM)" to be found as in what French heritage is measured, what it consists of and so forth. I remember you writing like it was something you could measure in a cup.

I don't want to derail this from the original topic, but history was my major in university and I can say that for example things like existance of Jesus isn't that solidly prooved. There's only three mentions about him in historical sources, but they could just as well talk about three different people. I mention this to level with the discussion on French heritage. Although Charles the Great indeed was great, we mainly know that because he happened to have a historian in his court. Which is why we know about Charles who couldn't read himself, but we don't know that much about his rivals. Which on turn should reflect how absolute truths you can have about Gauls and French. I mean in Finland there's constant debate on our civil war and that was only a hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago. We could talk what archeology can tell which is a lot, but that's another story.
On economics, the closest we've ever been to a free trade isn't nowadays, but in 19th century - you know the period when it was ok for small children to work in the mines for 12 hours a day to profit the mine owners. On the other hand if we remove the indiviual from the chance to profit from his work then efficiency is lost - so indeed the truth again is somewhere in the middle - how to support the people to have a chance to make their lives better and how to limit them as little as possible.

But mainly my black & white accusation was due to your tendency to resort to insults if someone doesn't agree with you or if someone hasn't understood what you meant. However as I said here you showed a true charachter for not pissing off by my bad words and if we kept talking like this then I would end up with a bad reputation instead of you. So keep it up like that.

For the rest of you - sorry for going off-topic.

reminisco wrote:

Nobunaga wrote: ... And the evil Dick Cheney gives away 3/4 of his income!! That surprised me. (compared to Al Gore's meager $350 donation).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615415/posts

...

okay, this is ridiculous... they're commenting on Al Gore's donation in 1997 -- when the COMBINED income for the two Gore's was under $200,000. Cheney still cleared a million according to that article -- not to mention the fact that Cheney already has a Scrooge McDuck size fortune to live on. He hasn't needed to work for some time. Gore, on the other hand, has been devoted to public service for so long, i'm rather certain he had to get by with every bit he could during the 90s. And since he was honest, and not taking kickbacks, well, they probably needed that income.

i mean, this whole thing is ridiculous, the only way in which Gore and Cheney are similar is that they're both VPs. But everything else is so different, it's a completely fallacious comparison. come on, Nobunga, you should be better than this -- i thought you were a doctor, or something. or are you rationalizing all of the ridiculous leaps of logic away, as per the article that lead off this thread?

... Just having fun, actually.

... But Cheney gives away 2/3? Doesn't that surprise anybody but me?

...

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Everybody in their right mind knows it goes:

Jimmy "peanut man" Carter (Iran, anyone? That aside, he blamed the deaths of the 1980 St Helens eruption on the few idiots who ignored the Federal and State warnings when most of the deaths occured WAY outside the area the government, HIS administration, had set in place. And this scumbag has the audacity to appear in the News after all this?!)

Followed closely by....

Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton (this miserable prick had the chance to nip Al Queda in the bud by taking out Osama but didn't have the balls. But somehow he had the balls to cheat on his wife.)

Bush Sr. (said "no new taxes" and then hiked the damn taxes. 'Nuff said.)

Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon (can be summed up in one word: Watergate.)

Lynden B. Johnson (oversaw the complete mishandling of Vietnam; Reason #1 why we lost. Reason number two is also his fault, that moron Westmoreland.)

Herbert Hoover (He had the nerve to say that nothing bad was happening as people began to starve durring the Depression.)

From there, we move into the more mundane, unimportant Presidents like Filmore and eventually into good ones like Teddy Roosevelt.

joecoolfrog wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote: Napster has a point: All a welfare system does is bleed the economy dry and create unemployment.

Best reason yet for a nanny state

Read with me:

Over

My

Rotting

Corpse

Meaning, you'll have to kill me to make it happen. And I promise you, it will not be easy.

muy_thaiguy wrote: Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

Ahem... Care to present some arguments where you base that opinion?

Does anyone else get the urge to stab jucdor in the neck?

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Everybody in their right mind knows it goes:

Jimmy "peanut man" Carter (Iran, anyone? That aside, he blamed the deaths of the 1980 St Helens eruption on the few idiots who ignored the Federal and State warnings when most of the deaths occured WAY outside the area the government, HIS administration, had set in place. And this scumbag has the audacity to appear in the News after all this?!)

Followed closely by....

Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton (this miserable prick had the chance to nip Al Queda in the bud by taking out Osama but didn't have the balls. But somehow he had the balls to cheat on his wife.)

Bush Sr. (said "no new taxes" and then hiked the damn taxes. 'Nuff said.)

Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon (can be summed up in one word: Watergate.)

Lynden B. Johnson (oversaw the complete mishandling of Vietnam; Reason #1 why we lost. Reason number two is also his fault, that moron Westmoreland.)

Herbert Hoover (He had the nerve to say that nothing bad was happening as people began to starve durring the Depression.)

From there, we move into the more mundane, unimportant Presidents like Filmore and eventually into good ones like Teddy Roosevelt.

Wow...that's some fucking impressive own general knowledge. You ever consider going who wants to be a millionaire?

Jucdor wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

Ahem... Care to present some arguments where you base that opinion?

I suppose I could but I can't really see a reason why I should. I mean everyone hates the Roman Catholic Church. In America it is a part of our fine Protestant Tradition. In France it was all a part of the revolution and the justification for the secular state (even if they did for a while start worshiping reason as a goddess). It is still the only group you can insult without worrying about political correctness. And we don't start bombing people whenever we see an insult in a comic, newspaper for forum thread.

No let's not consider the efforts of the monks and friars of old who basically spent their day praying and laying the groundwork for modern scientific research. Let's not consider who established the universities. Or who pushed for the invention of the mechanical clock (really a sundial was good enough for most people) which enabled a whole lot of scientific advancement. Or who pioneered the science of heredity long before we discovered DNA? Let's instead talk about child molestation and the Spanish Inquisition or perhaps the Crusades.

tzor wrote:

Jucdor wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

Ahem... Care to present some arguments where you base that opinion?

I suppose I could but I can't really see a reason why I should. I mean everyone hates the Roman Catholic Church. In America it is a part of our fine Protestant Tradition. In France it was all a part of the revolution and the justification for the secular state (even if they did for a while start worshiping reason as a goddess). It is still the only group you can insult without worrying about political correctness. And we don't start bombing people whenever we see an insult in a comic, newspaper for forum thread.

No let's not consider the efforts of the monks and friars of old who basically spent their day praying and laying the groundwork for modern scientific research. Let's not consider who established the universities. Or who pushed for the invention of the mechanical clock (really a sundial was good enough for most people) which enabled a whole lot of scientific advancement. Or who pioneered the science of heredity long before we discovered DNA? Let's instead talk about child molestation and the Spanish Inquisition or perhaps the Crusades.

Are you saying that because Mendel was a monk which gave him a lot of free time for his experiments and made sure he didn't have to do any real work to pay for food and things like that the catholic church is a pioneer of genetics?

tzor wrote:

Jucdor wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

No let's not consider the efforts of the monks and friars of old who basically spent their day praying and laying the groundwork for modern scientific research. Let's not consider who established the universities. Or who pushed for the invention of the mechanical clock (really a sundial was good enough for most people) which enabled a whole lot of scientific advancement. Or who pioneered the science of heredity long before we discovered DNA? Let's instead talk about child molestation and the Spanish Inquisition or perhaps the Crusades.

Yes, the monks and friars in their monasteries really did an awesome job preserving what little was left of the western culture. Sure they were the centers of knowledge in the West, but when compared to other cultures of the time, Europe was the savageland filled with ignorant barbarians and mainly petty little countries. That was in the medievals if you were referring to the monks and friars and no matter where you compare western culture during the medievals, we lost hand down. But yes, I didn't even intend to question that during the time when people in the west knew nothing, the only ones to have some education to advance science it was mainly the monks (but one should also remark that muslims not only preserved the Greek culture and science, but also spread it to Europe when Europe again showed interest to such things). But that happened already in the medieval times.

He talked about renaissance however and during that time church is pretty much was the organisation to prevent science from spreading. Earlier crusades had shown that the other cultures weren't the savages pope said they were, it also showed that muslims were far ahead of Europe and there were pressure to question church's authority. New ideas about the Earth, discory of the new world, printing press that took away church's monopoly on information - all that put church at a risk and during the renaissance, not the medievals there were witch hunts and herecy claims on anyone who dared to question church's dogma. So sure, before reformation all christian countries were catholic, but pope and his church's influence on things was mainly negative, not positive and the scientific revolution took place in spite of catholic church, not thanks to it.

Jucdor wrote:

tzor wrote:

Jucdor wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote: Secondly, Conservatives (yes, even us Religious ones) DO believe in Science, especially since it was thanks to the Roman Catholic Church that the Sciences were preserved and expanded, especially during the Renaissance.

No let's not consider the efforts of the monks and friars of old who basically spent their day praying and laying the groundwork for modern scientific research. Let's not consider who established the universities. Or who pushed for the invention of the mechanical clock (really a sundial was good enough for most people) which enabled a whole lot of scientific advancement. Or who pioneered the science of heredity long before we discovered DNA? Let's instead talk about child molestation and the Spanish Inquisition or perhaps the Crusades.

Yes, the monks and friars in their monasteries really did an awesome job preserving what little was left of the western culture. Sure they were the centers of knowledge in the West, but when compared to other cultures of the time, Europe was the savageland filled with ignorant barbarians and mainly petty little countries. That was in the medievals if you were referring to the monks and friars and no matter where you compare western culture during the medievals, we lost hand down. But yes, I didn't even intend to question that during the time when people in the west knew nothing, the only ones to have some education to advance science it was mainly the monks (but one should also remark that muslims not only preserved the Greek culture and science, but also spread it to Europe when Europe again showed interest to such things). But that happened already in the medieval times.

He talked about renaissance however and during that time church is pretty much was the organisation to prevent science from spreading. Earlier crusades had shown that the other cultures weren't the savages pope said they were, it also showed that muslims were far ahead of Europe and there were pressure to question church's authority. New ideas about the Earth, discory of the new world, printing press that took away church's monopoly on information - all that put church at a risk and during the renaissance, not the medievals there were witch hunts and herecy claims on anyone who dared to question church's dogma. So sure, before reformation all christian countries were catholic, but pope and his church's influence on things was mainly negative, not positive and the scientific revolution took place in spite of catholic church, not thanks to it.

First of all, it was the Byzantines that had preserved the culture and science of the Greeks during the Dark and Middle Ages (especially since the Byzantines kind of controlled the area), also the Roman Catholic Church had some of the works of the Ancients, and it was during the Renaissance that these works (both science and stories) came back into the public.
Also, one needs to think of the Popes as individuals, and not all of them lumped together as a single person. The only things that they had in common was that they were Catholic, the Pope, and the Religious leader of the Roman Catholics. There were Popes that were generals, ones that were artists, ones that were major supporters of Science, and many more with varying interests.