This Republican does not want to die poor! The implication is that Democrats do? We all will die poor if we keep going the way we are now.
The problem is that the middle ground he talks of works for the left / progressives long term benefit. Reasonable people will compromise on this and that and the next thing you know the statist/big government types are spending all our money and control everything. You cannot compromise with the left.
I don’t see how spending NIS/NASA/EPA… money is any different than the “Stimulus” money? It can be argued that it not constitutional either.
What we see unfolding in Cnogress over the new plan reflects what he saw when he was there — of course it’s non-partisan, but that doesn’t mean it’s not political. Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t matter when there’s constituent largesse on the line.
Ah, but as he points out, he’s observing republicans in the wild and notes that science is good for business. For a NY liberal scientist to be aware that republicans spend more than democrats on science is quite an admission.
He’s just an honest, and from all indications completely guileless, individual. He was once on a panel of African Americans in the field of space (IIRC). Each panelist told his or her own story, and his was a very open discussion of his deepest personal experiences. I got the impression of a person who approaches the world with eagerness for new ideas and experiences, who thinks critically and accepts his conclusions with confidence based on past success. A reasonable person, in short.
That we would disagree on some things and not others is not surprising. It’s possible for reasonable people to disagree. (The fact that all the rest of you are wrong doesn’t even bother me anymore)
What distinguishes him from his questioner is that he accepts that the few issues that Bush differed with him on were a result of the views of those who elected him as a reasonable use of the political process (it would have been nice if he’d acknowledged that taxpayers have a right to not be forced to pay for things they have moral opposition to, but thats another fight for another day, such a view is consistent with a similar view among anti-war liberals that he is familliar with, who similarly feel they shouldn’t be made to pay for a war they don’t approve of that kills people), while his questioner in this video is a left version of the uncompromising extremes who assumes a political opponent is the spawn of whatever a leftist idea of satan incarnate is…
This Republican does not want to die poor! The implication is that Democrats do? We all will die poor if we keep going the way we are now.
The problem is that the middle ground he talks of works for the left / progressives long term benefit. Reasonable people will compromise on this and that and the next thing you know the statist/big government types are spending all our money and control everything. You cannot compromise with the left.
I don’t see how spending NIS/NASA/EPA… money is any different than the “Stimulus” money? It can be argued that it not constitutional either.
What we see unfolding in Cnogress over the new plan reflects what he saw when he was there — of course it’s non-partisan, but that doesn’t mean it’s not political. Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t matter when there’s constituent largesse on the line.
Ah, but as he points out, he’s observing republicans in the wild and notes that science is good for business. For a NY liberal scientist to be aware that republicans spend more than democrats on science is quite an admission.
He’s just an honest, and from all indications completely guileless, individual. He was once on a panel of African Americans in the field of space (IIRC). Each panelist told his or her own story, and his was a very open discussion of his deepest personal experiences. I got the impression of a person who approaches the world with eagerness for new ideas and experiences, who thinks critically and accepts his conclusions with confidence based on past success. A reasonable person, in short.
That we would disagree on some things and not others is not surprising. It’s possible for reasonable people to disagree. (The fact that all the rest of you are wrong doesn’t even bother me anymore)
What distinguishes him from his questioner is that he accepts that the few issues that Bush differed with him on were a result of the views of those who elected him as a reasonable use of the political process (it would have been nice if he’d acknowledged that taxpayers have a right to not be forced to pay for things they have moral opposition to, but thats another fight for another day, such a view is consistent with a similar view among anti-war liberals that he is familliar with, who similarly feel they shouldn’t be made to pay for a war they don’t approve of that kills people), while his questioner in this video is a left version of the uncompromising extremes who assumes a political opponent is the spawn of whatever a leftist idea of satan incarnate is…