The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Statistikhengst]

If a single shot was fired by anyone I might say you have a point.

Armed men standing in opposition to an out of control aggressive government agency that has no business being armed in the first place aren't "revolutionary". They're resistors. The BLM if that's what you were referring too, were the aggressors. They could have called in local law enforcement to handle anything that may have happened. Instead they sent paramilitary agents complete with M4's and body armor collect a debt.

It was an unnecessary aggressive show of force anyway the bed wetters want to cut it.

Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of making a rational evaluation of what is and isn't armed aggression.

Thank you for illustrating how fascist regimes gain power through the mindless support of sycophantic bed wetters who will tolerate every sort of tyranny imposed on people they're programmed to hate, and consider any resistance to that oppression "armed aggression".

Zieg Heil Obama!!!

and your moonbat messiah.

And that is supposed to be your argument?

And this is somehow supposed to be your adult way of adressing the content of the original posting in this thread?

This is the title of this thread:

The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton


Why not go read and see what you can come up with to say that is actually of substance.

 

[Redfish]

We can add accounting to the list of things you know zero about.

Ironic given that you don't understand that R&D is a legitimate business expense that is tax deductible.

The funny thing is the government was far more into r&d during the 40's, 50's and 60's than it is today. R&d is useful and a good thing....Today, government funds stupid shit and give aways.

Conservatives are a bunch of retard when it comes to this.

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic given that you don't understand that R&D is a legitimate business expense that is tax deductible.

The funny thing is the government was far more into r&d during the 40's, 50's and 60's than it is today. R&d is useful and a good thing....Today, government funds stupid shit and give aways.

Conservatives are a bunch of retard when it comes to this.

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

 

[Redfish]

The funny thing is the government was far more into r&d during the 40's, 50's and 60's than it is today. R&d is useful and a good thing....Today, government funds stupid shit and give aways.

Conservatives are a bunch of retard when it comes to this.

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

LOL, do you think that Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Northrup Grumman didn't make profit from the moon landing? Do you think the company that builds the telescopes doesn't make a profit on them? We have PC's in every home because Gates designed an operating system the the average person could use. and, for the record Algore did not invent the internet.

Your grasp of how the world works is tenuous at best.

 

[Redfish]

Back to topic------------no one is afraid of Hillary except Bill Clinton. She has his nuts in a vice.

 

[Derideo_Te]

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

LOL, do you think that Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Northrup Grumman didn't make profit from the moon landing? Do you think the company that builds the telescopes doesn't make a profit on them? We have PC's in every home because Gates designed an operating system the the average person could use. and, for the record Algore did not invent the internet.

Your grasp of how the world works is tenuous at best.

They made a profit off the government! But it was taxpayers who funded the R&D out of which those profits were made. Your grasp of where the funding was coming from is non existent. Furthermore there would have been no PC for that operating system if there hadn't been the government funding the effort to put a man on the moon. That is what required lightweight computers in the first place. As far as the internet goes that too was the government funding of DARPA R&D. Were you home schooled by any chance?

 

[Redfish]

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

LOL, do you think that Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Northrup Grumman didn't make profit from the moon landing? Do you think the company that builds the telescopes doesn't make a profit on them? We have PC's in every home because Gates designed an operating system the the average person could use. and, for the record Algore did not invent the internet.

Your grasp of how the world works is tenuous at best.

They made a profit off the government! But it was taxpayers who funded the R&D out of which those profits were made. Your grasp of where the funding was coming from is non existent. Furthermore there would have been no PC for that operating system if there hadn't been the government funding the effort to put a man on the moon. That is what required lightweight computers in the first place. As far as the internet goes that too was the government funding of DARPA R&D. Were you home schooled by any chance?

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.

The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

 

[Pete7469]

Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of making a rational evaluation of what is and isn't armed aggression.

Thank you for illustrating how fascist regimes gain power through the mindless support of sycophantic bed wetters who will tolerate every sort of tyranny imposed on people they're programmed to hate, and consider any resistance to that oppression "armed aggression".

Zieg Heil Obama!!!

and your moonbat messiah.

And that is supposed to be your argument?

And this is somehow supposed to be your adult way of adressing the content of the original posting in this thread?

This is the title of this thread:

The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton


Why not go read and see what you can come up with to say that is actually of substance.

On the contrary Herr Commissar...

I addressed this post with the following:

Every lucid person should be terrified of a criminally insane authoritarian socipath with ambitions for the presidency.

There were millions of people who fled the regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao before they successfully achieved power.

There is no place for us to go. The reason this country exists was because of people fleeing the shitholes mindless sheep allowed to develop everywhere else on earth.

Now you bed wetters want to destroy the last refugee of freedom, what's left of it that is.

Why can't you cocksucking moonbat parasites take your fat **** hitlary and enjoy the socialist "paradise" of North Korea? They already have everything you want there.

One of your mindless minions posted this asinine shit:

Time to elect someone that doesn't make half of our country want to have a revolution. Makes sense.

Which led to a discussion on the side where I posted:

No sane person "wants a revolution".

Maybe the %20 that exist in the hard core moonbat catagory do, but the rest of us are aware of just what a nightmare that would be. Since those of us on the right tend to be law abiding and God-fearing, I think that speaks for itself to back up my assertion. The fact that everytime the bed wetters "demonstrate", there are riots, fires, destruction of property and mass arrests might just be another indication of which side has a revolutionary agenda.

Tea Party rallies? Not so much.

One of your dumbass apparatchiks responded with:

The extreme right armed aggression against the federal government in the form of the BLA notwithstanding?

Therefore I had to set you bed wetters straight regarding who the aggressive parties are, and who is defending individual liberty.

You should have developed reading comprehension a long time ago, and I'm assuming that your lack of critical thinking skill is tied to the fact you've escaped natural selection due to the over abundance of safety standards western civilization adopted. It's own detriment obviously, because oxygen thieves like you are more devoted to trees than to the human race.

You owe nature an apology.

 

[Derideo_Te]

LOL, do you think that Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Northrup Grumman didn't make profit from the moon landing? Do you think the company that builds the telescopes doesn't make a profit on them? We have PC's in every home because Gates designed an operating system the the average person could use. and, for the record Algore did not invent the internet.

Your grasp of how the world works is tenuous at best.

They made a profit off the government! But it was taxpayers who funded the R&D out of which those profits were made. Your grasp of where the funding was coming from is non existent. Furthermore there would have been no PC for that operating system if there hadn't been the government funding the effort to put a man on the moon. That is what required lightweight computers in the first place. As far as the internet goes that too was the government funding of DARPA R&D. Were you home schooled by any chance?

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.

The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about R&D funding the moon mission. Too bad you don't understand that not every R&D investment actually works out. Venture capitalists don't do any better than the government when it comes to picking winners and losers. But when it comes to things where the risk is too great for the profit motive only the government puts up the funds.

Without the Spanish government being willing to take the risk of funding the cost of 3 entire ships (not cheap at all in those days) and letting Columbus sail off in the wrong direction with them the discovery of America and this nation would not have happened when it did. The profit motive of a short cut to India wasn't sufficient to get venture capitalists of the day to put up the funds. It was the government that made it happen.

So yes, the government took a risk that paid off. But it also takes risks that don't. To throw a hissyfit because one of them didn't pan out when you are the beneficiary of the risk the government took to put a man on the moon is hypocritical.

 

[Pete7469]

They made a profit off the government! But it was taxpayers who funded the R&D out of which those profits were made. Your grasp of where the funding was coming from is non existent. Furthermore there would have been no PC for that operating system if there hadn't been the government funding the effort to put a man on the moon. That is what required lightweight computers in the first place. As far as the internet goes that too was the government funding of DARPA R&D. Were you home schooled by any chance?

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.

The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about R&D funding the moon mission. Too bad you don't understand that not every R&D investment actually works out. Venture capitalists don't do any better than the government when it comes to picking winners and losers. But when it comes to things where the risk is too great for the profit motive only the government puts up the funds.

Without the Spanish government being willing to take the risk of funding the cost of 3 entire ships (not cheap at all in those days) and letting Columbus sail off in the wrong direction with them the discovery of America and this nation would not have happened when it did. The profit motive of a short cut to India wasn't sufficient to get venture capitalists of the day to put up the funds. It was the government that made it happen.

So yes, the government took a risk that paid off. But it also takes risks that don't. To throw a hissyfit because one of them didn't pan out when you are the beneficiary of the risk the government took to put a man on the moon is hypocritical.

Good Lord...

When I read insipid bullshit like this I'm almost astonished.

The Spanish "government" of 1492 invested an inconsequential amount of money from what it had available in it's coffers. They threw away more gold than that in an orgy with the rest of the euroweenie aristocracy.

The reason no "venture capitalist" during that time would send 3 ships out into the unknown is common sense.

Consequently, you leftist bed wetters have done little more than bemoan the entire expansion of western civilization in this hemisphere as imperialism and genocide. In spite of what has occurred since people escaped the tyranny of the despotic aristocracies that drove people to risk their lives in search of liberty, you imbeciles want a handful of leftist "academics" to dictate how human beings live their lives.

It's no better if not worse than the oligarchs and theocracies of the dark age.

As far as modern space exploration goes, you're full of shit if you're implying that government led the way. Government may have had a goal, and there was certainly no capitalist benefit from the end result since we're not exactly mining gold on the moon. The government still made certain that the lowest bidder won the contracts for the most efficient means to reach that goal.

If the government of today was as consumed with efficiency as the government of the 1960's we would be in a better circumstance.

If you've ever been inside a M1A2 Abrams Tank and inside the space museum you might understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Redfish]

They made a profit off the government! But it was taxpayers who funded the R&D out of which those profits were made. Your grasp of where the funding was coming from is non existent. Furthermore there would have been no PC for that operating system if there hadn't been the government funding the effort to put a man on the moon. That is what required lightweight computers in the first place. As far as the internet goes that too was the government funding of DARPA R&D. Were you home schooled by any chance?

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.


apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words Research and Development.
The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about R&D funding the moon mission. Too bad you don't understand that not every R&D investment actually works out. Venture capitalists don't do any better than the government when it comes to picking winners and losers. But when it comes to things where the risk is too great for the profit motive only the government puts up the funds.

Without the Spanish government being willing to take the risk of funding the cost of 3 entire ships (not cheap at all in those days) and letting Columbus sail off in the wrong direction with them the discovery of America and this nation would not have happened when it did. The profit motive of a short cut to India wasn't sufficient to get venture capitalists of the day to put up the funds. It was the government that made it happen.

So yes, the government took a risk that paid off. But it also takes risks that don't. To throw a hissyfit because one of them didn't pan out when you are the beneficiary of the risk the government took to put a man on the moon is hypocritical.

the moon missions were NOT R&D. the govt contracted with those companies for a specific product and result. If they had not delivered, and delivered on time they would not have booked a profit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.


apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words Research and Development.
The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about R&D funding the moon mission. Too bad you don't understand that not every R&D investment actually works out. Venture capitalists don't do any better than the government when it comes to picking winners and losers. But when it comes to things where the risk is too great for the profit motive only the government puts up the funds.

Without the Spanish government being willing to take the risk of funding the cost of 3 entire ships (not cheap at all in those days) and letting Columbus sail off in the wrong direction with them the discovery of America and this nation would not have happened when it did. The profit motive of a short cut to India wasn't sufficient to get venture capitalists of the day to put up the funds. It was the government that made it happen.

So yes, the government took a risk that paid off. But it also takes risks that don't. To throw a hissyfit because one of them didn't pan out when you are the beneficiary of the risk the government took to put a man on the moon is hypocritical.

the moon missions were NOT R&D. the govt contracted with those companies for a specific product and result. If they had not delivered, and delivered on time they would not have booked a profit.

Of course they were: it took a hell of a lot of R&D to get us there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

sonny, when I went to school, homeschooling did not exist. We also said the pledge of alliegance to the flag every morning and had a prayer before classes started. Our teachers taught us the actual history of the USA, not some libtardian version of it. If we acted up we got our butts paddled, we went to recess every day and chose teams, those who did not get picked first got their feelings hurt, but they got over it. only the winners got trophies and you had to complete the requirements of one grade before you were promoted to the next one.

You are correct, govt funding (taxpayer money) put men on the moon and helped with the development of smaller more powerful computers-------and the companies involved made profits on that work.


apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words Research and Development.
The difference is that the money was not just thrown at them with a vague goal to go develop something-------------they had to produce what the contracts called for or they did not get paid. Completly the opposite of the solyndra fiasco, where obozo gave them half a billion to see if they could build solar panels in the USA, they failed but they kept the money.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about R&D funding the moon mission. Too bad you don't understand that not every R&D investment actually works out. Venture capitalists don't do any better than the government when it comes to picking winners and losers. But when it comes to things where the risk is too great for the profit motive only the government puts up the funds.

Without the Spanish government being willing to take the risk of funding the cost of 3 entire ships (not cheap at all in those days) and letting Columbus sail off in the wrong direction with them the discovery of America and this nation would not have happened when it did. The profit motive of a short cut to India wasn't sufficient to get venture capitalists of the day to put up the funds. It was the government that made it happen.

So yes, the government took a risk that paid off. But it also takes risks that don't. To throw a hissyfit because one of them didn't pan out when you are the beneficiary of the risk the government took to put a man on the moon is hypocritical.

the moon missions were NOT R&D. the govt contracted with those companies for a specific product and result. If they had not delivered, and delivered on time they would not have booked a profit.

Once again your profound ignorance is on display. So according to you everything necessary to put a man on the moon was all worked out, tested and just waiting to be delivered to the government when JFK made that speech?

 

[Mertex]

The funny thing is the government was far more into r&d during the 40's, 50's and 60's than it is today. R&d is useful and a good thing....Today, government funds stupid shit and give aways.

Conservatives are a bunch of retard when it comes to this.

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

But most of the most extreme conservatives don't care about those things. They want to go back to the 1950's where movies show husband/wife sleeping in twin beds, stores closed on Sundays, discrimination is okay as anyone sees fit, having a minute of silence in school every morning, where kids are daydreaming and picking their nose and nobody is actually praying, and women are barefoot and pregnant at home where they belong.

 

[Statistikhengst]

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

But most of the most extreme conservatives don't care about those things. They want to go back to the 1950's where movies show husband/wife sleeping in twin beds, stores closed on Sundays, discrimination is okay as anyone sees fit, having a minute of silence in school every morning, where kids are daydreaming and picking their nose and nobody is actually praying, and women are barefoot and pregnant at home where they belong.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the year 1953!!!

 

[Political Junky]

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

But most of the most extreme conservatives don't care about those things. They want to go back to the 1950's where movies show husband/wife sleeping in twin beds, stores closed on Sundays, discrimination is okay as anyone sees fit, having a minute of silence in school every morning, where kids are daydreaming and picking their nose and nobody is actually praying, and women are barefoot and pregnant at home where they belong.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the year 1953!!!

Oh the '50s ... black people knew their place, homosexuals were closeted, abortion was illegal, the good ol' days.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The funny thing is the government was far more into r&d during the 40's, 50's and 60's than it is today. R&d is useful and a good thing....Today, government funds stupid shit and give aways.

Conservatives are a bunch of retard when it comes to this.

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

True.

And America would not have successfully defended itself from Fascism and imperialism during the Second World War absent a blend of public and private sectors.

Indeed, this is when America is at its best, when government and industry work together to realize a common goal, where the strengths of both entities come successfully into play.

A pragmatic approach is always best.

This also illustrates the failings of conservative dogma, hostile to all things ‘government,’ promoting the myth of ‘government incompetence,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[HenryBHough]

Conservatives are frightened by the thought of finding Hillary under their bed.

Liberals are comforted...NAY, ENRAPTURED...by the thought of finding Hillary IN their bed. Male or female liberals - totally non-discriminatory in that respect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you are the retard on this Matt. Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get govt R&D money? how about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell? Do the drug companies get R&D from the govt to develop new drugs? NO, they spend their own money hoping to find something they can sell at a profit.

The profit motive drives innovation and invention, not govt hand outs.

Govt grants are always limited, i.e. they tell you what they want you to "discover". Kind of like the govt "grant" to Solyndra.

If it was only up to "profit motive drives innovation and invention" we would never have put a man on the moon. We wouldn't have orbiting telescopes that have found planets around other stars. We wouldn't have cell phones and personal computers either. All of those things came about because of government "hand outs" for R&D initiatives.

But most of the most extreme conservatives don't care about those things. They want to go back to the 1950's where movies show husband/wife sleeping in twin beds, stores closed on Sundays, discrimination is okay as anyone sees fit, having a minute of silence in school every morning, where kids are daydreaming and picking their nose and nobody is actually praying, and women are barefoot and pregnant at home where they belong.

Many on the reactionary right want to go back to the 1850s – the real good ol’ days.

 

[Vigilante]

But most of the most extreme conservatives don't care about those things. They want to go back to the 1950's where movies show husband/wife sleeping in twin beds, stores closed on Sundays, discrimination is okay as anyone sees fit, having a minute of silence in school every morning, where kids are daydreaming and picking their nose and nobody is actually praying, and women are barefoot and pregnant at home where they belong.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the year 1953!!!

Oh the '50s ... black people knew their place, homosexuals were closeted, abortion was illegal, the good ol' days.

Ah, remember it well...After WWII ended, many Americans were eager to have children because they were confident that the future held nothing but peace and prosperity. In many ways, they were right. Between 1945 and 1960, the gross national product more than doubled, growing from $200 billion to more than $500 billion. Much of this increase came from government spending: The construction of interstate highways and schools, the distribution of veterans’ benefits and most of all the increase in military spending–on goods like airplanes and new technologies like TV and Transistors–all contributed to the decade’s economic growth. Rates of unemployment and inflation were low, and wages were high. Middle-class people had more money to spend than ever–and, because the variety and availability of consumer goods expanded along with the economy, they also had more things to buy.(Sadly lacking with the current economic plans and policies).

A growing group of Americans spoke out against inequality and injustice during the 1950s. African Americans had been fighting against racial discrimination for centuries; during the 1950s, however, the struggle against racism and segregation entered the mainstream of American life. For example, in 1954, in the landmark Brown V. The Bd. of Ed. case, the Supreme Court declared that “separate educational facilities” for black children were “inherently unequal.” This ruling was the first nail in the Southern Democrats Jim Crow’s coffin.

Many Southern Democratic whites resisted the Brown ruling. They withdrew their children from public schools and enrolled them in all-white “segregation academies,” and they used violence and intimidation to prevent blacks from asserting their rights. In 1956, more than 100 Southern congressmen even signed a “Southern Manifesto” declaring that they would do all they could to defend segregation.

Despite these efforts, a new movement was born. In December 1955, a Montgomery activist named Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give her seat on a city bus to a white person. Her arrest sparked a 13-month boycott of the city’s buses by its black citizens, which only ended when the bus companies stopped discriminating against African American passengers. Acts of “nonviolent resistance” like the boycott helped shape the civil rights movement of the next decade.

The booming prosperity of the 1950s helped to create a widespread sense of stability, contentment and consensus in the United States. An enlightenment, if you will. However, that consensus was a fragile one, and it splintered for good during the 1960s.