"Robert Miller" <stargazzr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cuOdnQSdDtSVboXcRVn-qw@hemc.net...

I my experiance most people who produce wealth or want to produce wealth
are conservative, and those who want to live off the fat of the land or
liberal.
Robert Miller
Liberals think not their heads but with their hearts. An organ wholly
unsuited for the task.

Scientists and Engineers for Kerry, will turn researchers' anger
over the Bush administration's treatment of science into a major
political force. In the run-up to the election, they will attempt to
recruit scientists across the country to deliver speeches on Kerry's
behalf and to campaign for his election.

Nature Magazine - Aug 4, 2004

Nobel laureates spearhead effort to put Kerry in the White House
Geoff Brumfiel & Emma Marris

Researchers hit the campaign trail for the US presidential
election

Washington - A group of high-profile researchers is to hit the
campaign trail on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John
Kerry.

Planners hope that the group, known as Scientists and Engineers for
Kerry, will turn researchers' anger over the Bush administration's
treatment of science into a major political force. In the run-up to
the election, they will attempt to recruit scientists across the
country to deliver speeches on Kerry's behalf and to campaign for
his election.

"It's very hard to anticipate, but I think we're going to get a very
strong response," says Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of
American Scientists in Washington, who is working independently from
that organization to spearhead the group. Kelly, who helped put
together a recent letter from 48 Nobel prizewinners endorsing the
Kerry campaign (see Nature 430, 4; 2004), believes that the group of
researchers will be far larger than any ever brought together on
behalf of a presidential candidate.

Kelly has so far secured three Nobel laureates from across the
scientific disciplines to head the group. Harold Varmus, a
geneticist and former director of the National Institutes of Health,
has agreed to co-chair the committee with Mario Molina, an
atmospheric chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
and Burton Richter, a physicist and director emeritus of the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California. Others may join
them.

"I have never trotted out my Nobel prize for a political campaign,"
says Richter. But he says recent allegations that the Bush
administration has manipulated committees and worked to misrepresent
and suppress academic findings have stirred him into action. "Under
Bush, science is being distorted for political ends," he says.

This is not the first time that researchers have lined up behind a
presidential candidate. Most recently, a 1992 group calling itself
Scientists and Engineers for Clinton/Gore brought together more than
60 researchers, including 12 Nobel laureates, to endorse the then
presidential hopeful. But that group met with only modest success,
organizing relatively few events and meeting only once with a
high-ranking member of the campaign - Al Gore, who was then the
vice-presidential candidate.

Lewis Branscomb, a professor of public policy at Harvard University
who has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations on
scientific issues, says he is sceptical as to whether the new group
will have an impact on the election this November. "I doubt it will
amount to much," he says. Despite signing a statement by the Union
of Concerned Scientists denouncing the Bush administration's
treatment of science, Branscomb says he is unlikely to join the
Kerry group.

Impact factor

David Leiter, who spent six years as Kerry's chief of staff and is
currently helping in his campaign, says he is hopeful that the group
will have a real impact. "The Bush administration is disinvested in
science and R&D and who better to bring that to the public's
attention than scientists and engineers," he says.

Already, science has taken an unusually high profile in the Kerry
campaign. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, mentioned the Hubble
Space Telescope and the Cassini mission to Saturn in her speech at
the Democratic National Convention last week.

And stem-cell research has emerged as a particularly hot issue. In
his speech officially accepting his nomination as the Democrat
candidate last week, Kerry asked: "What if we have a president who
believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like
stem-cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?" Ron
Reagan, the son of two-term Republican president Ronald Reagan,
spoke at length during the convention about the promise of stem
cells and criticized Bush's policies, which limit the number of cell
lines available for federally funded research.

No firm date has been set for the launch of the scientists' group,
but Kelly is optimistic that it will be up and running this month.

"Robert Miller" <stargazzr@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . I much prefer Neal Boortz. I have never read Ann Coulter.
Limbaugh is fine to listen to, as long as you know and understand his

bias,

and don't put much stock in what he says. He does have a better grasp

the Ameican political situation than anybody else the average person has

the

ability to listen too.

Not true. He SEEMS to have a grasp of the American political situation
because he agrees with YOU. But I've listened to that claptrap a few

and if he said something worth listening to, he said it on days I didn't
listen to him.

Neil Bortz is just one of the newest gabbers, and he makes about as much
sense as Limbaugh and Coulter. I've heard him a few times, and I've seen
some of the columns, and it's the same stupid liberal bashing, a lot of
which you repeat here. You know nothing because you listen to
know-nothings.

It is possible to be a collage graduate and not get educated! For

I'm not talking about education degrees. One of the most worthless and

easiest

degrees to obtain. I've known many educators that have never had to
compete in the work place, either they are incapable of doing so or

to try. So they try to teach others how to do so. Never realy
understanding what it's like. Fortunately I went to a very difficult
private school where teachers were required to have worked in
the industry they taught about.

I learned a lot from this paragraph above. First, I agree with the remark
about college graduates: You can get a college degree and not be educated.
You can also be educated without a college degree. You're an example of a
person who's achieved a PROFESSIONAL degree, so you think you're educated
because you now have something to offer the job market. But you're so
entrenched in the system, and too stupid to question what it's all about,

even open a sensible discussion.

That's why I avoid it. It's all clichés
with you, all stupid ***** about liberals and everything else It's smug

stupid, coming right out of talk radio. You're an empty-headed bafoon,
puffed-up and arrogant because you succceeded in the "competion." You're

man without vision, a knuckle-dragger who learned how to make a club, and
that's all you are. Everything you say is just one artless cliché after

other. Even your comments about educators is just a trite saying. Most
educators, and this definitely applies to educators on the college level,
are well read, and they use what they read to hone their thinking.

The second thing I learned was, private schools aren't that good. It's

the individual brings to it that matters. And you didn't bring much to

I see, or take much away from it. I know your remark was intended to
impress me, but only one thing can impress me, and that's what you say

here.

And if you look at the other maroon who entered this thread, with his
comments about the level of education of conservatives, and see what's in
evidence by his writing, and if you're truly educated enough, you'll see
that I now have TWO examples that prove the very opposite of the argument
they're trying to make. And do either of you have the education or
intelligence to put together anything nearly as sophisticated as what I

said?

Most of the collage graduates I know have degree's in engineering, math,
science, and finance. These people generally produce wealth.
There are many collage subjects that do not teach how to produce wealth,

but

spend it, or spend someone else's wealth if not down right take it from
them.

These people you extoll don't produce wealth. They work for corporations
and become cogs. They're not your lower-paid cogs, but they're cogs
nonetheless. You're just an arrogant puffed-up cog, because you get paid
better than other cogs. But you're just a cog with an inflated ego, and a
mind full of silly clichés. And the other thing you said -- about people
possessing degrees different than your own, people possessing degrees in
education -- that's just another example of the stupid talk-radio-styled
things you say.

I my experiance most people who produce wealth or want to produce wealth
are conservative, and those who want to live off the fat of the land or
liberal.

Just another stupid comment about liberals and liberalism. You can barely
cobble together a single original sentence. You're just plain stupid,

Just plain stupid. You really are. The worse thing that ever happened to
you was getting a degree. You're now just plain egotistical, and

doomed to be stupid the rest of your life, more concerned with stroking

own ego than learning anything. You're not a conservative. You're

I'm doing you a favor by saying this.

Liberals think not their heads but with their hearts. An organ wholly
unsuited for the task.

This is another cliché right out of the right-wing manual.

It's a way of
dismissing liberals and liberalism by demeaning the processes by which
liberals reach their conclusions. I've heard it a thousand times, said
almost exactly like you said it. YOU guys are the ones not thinking. YOU
are the ones with ideas coming from the basest of emotions while

egos the size of cows. You're like sheep. Or monkeys. One of your
influential talk-show personalities says a thing, and the next thing you
know, the whole lot of you are saying the same thing, over and over and

again, until it becomes one of those proverbial notions you pass around
without even having to think about. And if you'd have been thinking when
you first heard it -- instead of grinning and chittering like a chimp at
what you emotionally registered as a smug putdown -- you would have

it for how stupid it was at the very outset. Instead, it was about

and it was besmirching and you gleefully, like a yokel, accepted it and
passed it on. The philosophies of guys like you can be summed up like

"Grass good . . . liberals ba-a-a-a-a-d."

You fucking moron.

Alric Knebel

"Robert Miller" <stargazzr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0oSdnalGDYqw1L_cRVn-vQ@hemc.net...

"Alric Knebel" <alric@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Im1Sc.5158$3a4.2047@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

"Robert Miller" <stargazzr@hotmail.com> wrote:

I haven't discussed the Republican pary in detail so you don't know

views

on them. If I call them Jacobites will you know what I'm talking

about?

I shall call a distinction between the Democrat Party and the

"Liberals"

who

seem to be in the majority in that party. The Democrat Party is a

collection of

factions. More so than the Republican Party. There are the old

fashioned

style

Democrats, and there are Liberals made up of socialist, communist,

anarchist and many

others who think that the world or at least the government owe them

something, and

put their faith in government to take care of them.

This paragraph above sums up what you know about American politics:

NOTHING.

Your view of what liberals are all about is the clue. You really

have

a clue. You need to cease listening to Limbaugh and reading Ann

Coulter.

You'll never learn anything.

And as for Republicans being better educated, adds further to the

evidence.

Most of the Republicans I know are uneducated men. Most college

graduates

I

know are liberals. Those are the facts. I know they'll make you
uncomfortable. Rush Limbaugh used to use the same silly brag about

listeners, but, I swear, not one single college graduate I know of

listens

to him. Not one.

Alric Knebel

I seldom listen to him! And generally dissagree with his point of view.

He

speaks
not just for the wealthy class but is an apoligist for the Banker class.

I

generally
believe the Banker class is as low and dishonest as the Lawyer class.

that's
another discussion for another thread.

It's very easy for a Liberal Arts major to know mostly Democrat Collage
grads.
People tend to hang out with people of similar views and tastes. If a
person hates
Blacks he wont likely know many of them, yet they are easy to spot in a
crowd.
Not so with Political affiliations. You can really know what Party one
votes for by
looking at them unless perhaps they are Black. In that case it's only

occasional
Black who strays off the plantation who votes Republican.

If you know any High School dropouts are they Republican or Democrat?

Republicans. All of them. College dropouts, too. Republicans, all.

of the college graduates I know are liberals. And maybe you should apply
your logic to yourself, about who and why you hang out with certain

The college graduates you know vote Republican, so you assume all college
graduates vote Republican. But how many high school dropouts do you hang
out with? How many college graduates do you think were at the Democratic
Convention? I bet most were college graduates.

But you're an idiot. So I'm dropping out of this conversation. You're

blind-stupid. Commitedly one-sided. You need to look at yourself.

Alric Knebel

"cep" <1cthong@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4118A400.5090503@mindspring.com...

Alric Knebel wrote:

"Robert Miller" <stargazzr@hotmail.com> wrote:

I haven't discussed the Republican pary in detail so you don't know my

views

on them. If I call them Jacobites will you know what I'm talking

I shall call a distinction between the Democrat Party and the

who

seem to be in the majority in that party. The Democrat Party is a

collection of

factions. More so than the Republican Party. There are the old

fashioned

style

Democrats, and there are Liberals made up of socialist, communist,

anarchist and many

others who think that the world or at least the government owe them

something, and

put their faith in government to take care of them.

This paragraph above sums up what you know about American politics:

NOTHING.

Your view of what liberals are all about is the clue. You really

have

a clue. You need to cease listening to Limbaugh and reading Ann

Coulter.

You'll never learn anything.

And as for Republicans being better educated, adds further to the

evidence.

Most of the Republicans I know are uneducated men. Most college

graduates I

know are liberals. Those are the facts. I know they'll make you
uncomfortable. Rush Limbaugh used to use the same silly brag about

listeners, but, I swear, not one single college graduate I know of

listens

to him. Not one.

Alric Knebel

I agree with the views of the above. It's not that I haven't read or
studied this issues, it's that the image he describes is the same view
me and all my friends have of liberals.

MAYBE IT'S YOUR PROBLEM BY EXPOSING SUCH AN IMAGE.

Most people I know that are liberal, are ashamed of admitting they are,
since it has a very bad connotation. More people admit they are
conservatives than liberal.

My biggest problem with liberals is they act to much like socialist and
want more government and look to others to solve their problems.

Just my opinion, but liberals will NEVER be in control, they can't be
trusted.

If I'm wrong, they you have a lot of work to do.

If you're the image of the "educated conservative," then let's take apart
this piece of work you supplied as evidence. First, you can't write at

Your use of English a atrocious. We're not talking typos, either. We're
talking about command of the language.

Second, you moron, you should get out more. Liberalism is the salient
ideology in most of the civilized world. Liberals here just want the same
things that other civilized countries have established by law for its
citizens, and those rights are liberal-based.

As for your comment that liberals can't be trusted, that's just a plain
stupid opinion on your part, and it's because you're a moron. You really
are. YOU can't be trusted because you make far too many sweeping
statements. You're simply poorly educated. It doesn't mean you didn't go
through the motions. You might have even gone to college. You just

bother to become truly educated.

You're like the other guy in this thread
with whom you're siding. Everything you said about liberalism came

out of the talk-radio mentality. It's the same tired clichés. Why don't
you refrain from such statements -- for example, that liberals "look to
others to solve their problems" -- and talk directly to liberals, then
listen carefully. You might learn something. Even if liberalism sides

socialism, what's wrong with socialism? That you just assume socialism is
wrong shows you're uneducated. Your reaction to it is knee-jerk. You
should learn more what it's about before you dismiss it. "Socialism" is

of those words that trigger an emotional response from you instead of a
reasonable debate.

Alric Knebel