Bush Defeated By Conservatives In '04?
EternalMonkey
Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15245Members
Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15245Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">It could happen...</div> Lately, I have noticed a huge conservative outrage at President Bush's policies. In particular his prescription drug benefit for Medicare, the "no child left behind" program, and the astronomical defecit spending. At the same time, everyone seems to think that Bush is invincible as long as he can hang on to the moderate voters who support the war in Iraq.
Here is my thesis.
I believe that if the conservative base supports Bush, than he can't be defeated, because the Democratic candidates are very weak or in the case of Dean, too liberal. Most conservatives are very angry, even if not openly, over Bush's policies. Recently, his amnesty for illegals migh be considered "the straw that broke the camel's back". These are the people that elected Bush in 2000, (Yes, he was legally and fairly elected.) and I don't think they are going to vote for him in '04, prefering to stay warm in their homes in November. If only a quarter of Bush's conservative base fail to turn out this election, some Democrat will win. The trade off, in Bush's mind, is that he will pick up more votes from the moderates with his liberal policies that he will loose by betraying conservatives.
Now, I don't understand why so many liberals are angry with Bush. This President has accomplished more of the liberal agenda in the last 3 years than any Democrat has done in the last 25. The point is, I think it's all a load of grade A American Bull Crap and everyone in the U.S. is falling for it. Most people tend to vote for the "lesser of two evils" idea. In other words, they don't like either candidate but they vote for the guy less likely to screw up the country. The funny thing is, the Democrats know that most of what Bush does is good for their agenda, so they attack him on the war or for his spending of the "Clinton surplus", which had nothing to do with Clinton. GG America.
Here is my thesis.
I believe that if the conservative base supports Bush, than he can't be defeated, because the Democratic candidates are very weak or in the case of Dean, too liberal. Most conservatives are very angry, even if not openly, over Bush's policies. Recently, his amnesty for illegals migh be considered "the straw that broke the camel's back". These are the people that elected Bush in 2000, (Yes, he was legally and fairly elected.) and I don't think they are going to vote for him in '04, prefering to stay warm in their homes in November. If only a quarter of Bush's conservative base fail to turn out this election, some Democrat will win. The trade off, in Bush's mind, is that he will pick up more votes from the moderates with his liberal policies that he will loose by betraying conservatives.
Now, I don't understand why so many liberals are angry with Bush. This President has accomplished more of the liberal agenda in the last 3 years than any Democrat has done in the last 25. The point is, I think it's all a load of grade A American Bull Crap and everyone in the U.S. is falling for it. Most people tend to vote for the "lesser of two evils" idea. In other words, they don't like either candidate but they vote for the guy less likely to screw up the country. The funny thing is, the Democrats know that most of what Bush does is good for their agenda, so they attack him on the war or for his spending of the "Clinton surplus", which had nothing to do with Clinton. GG America.
Comments
On what your actually saying I have no idea how the 2004 election will turn out. However I do think that instead of just liberals and conservatives there will be a whole range of people who care about different things. In my opinion the line between liberals and conservatives is getting more and more blurred.
And likewise, which kind of 'liberal' are you referring to?
Honestly, speaking as the leftist libertarian (not referring to the political party) I am, I can't imagine either Republicans <i>or</i> Democrats doing something truly 'liberal' (note that the deficit spending you seem to assume to be so liberal, possibly because it reminds you of the New Deal, isn't, because it is spent in tax cuts clearly benefitting the already established portions of the population and the economically most unproductive investments imaginable, military spendings), nor 'conservative' (every American administration of the last fifty years had a strengthening of the federal power in mind, thus betraying one of the core concepts of conservatism). The same could by the way be said about the parties in Germany, Great Britain, or France.
Today, I'm at a point where I'd be cheering the election of a true conservative as much as the election of a true liberal, simply because both sentiments are at heart based on the ideal of liberty, something the established powers have long ago come to regard as an obstacle.
As for Bush, they may be outraged by his policies, but they sure as hell won't vote him out because that would be suicide. The best chance they have of winning would be to keep Bush in office.
Watch Hilary Clinton take VP job for Dean and get all the women votes. It's a likely possibility, or perhaps if she doesn't run for VP now, she will most definitely build herself up for the run in 2008.
Mark my words.
And likewise, which kind of 'liberal' are you referring to?
Honestly, speaking as the leftist libertarian (not referring to the political party) I am, I can't imagine either Republicans <i>or</i> Democrats doing something truly 'liberal' (note that the deficit spending you seem to assume to be so liberal, possibly because it reminds you of the New Deal, isn't, because it is spent in tax cuts clearly benefitting the already established portions of the population and the economically most unproductive investments imaginable, military spendings), nor 'conservative' (every American administration of the last fifty years had a strengthening of the federal power in mind, thus betraying one of the core concepts of conservatism). The same could by the way be said about the parties in Germany, Great Britain, or France.
Today, I'm at a point where I'd be cheering the election of a true conservative as much as the election of a true liberal, simply because both sentiments are at heart based on the ideal of liberty, something the established powers have long ago come to regard as an obstacle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whos to say military is unproductive?
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>Im personally rather see a Constitutionalist in power. This way things can be reset to normal value. And hopefully fix some of the problems with the supreme court and federal reserve. Republicans won't do a damn thing on some issue (they fallow in line with the democrats.)
But what concerns me the most is the fact that the Supreme Court can pass a law against popular opinion. Which is *cough* ****.
Our forefathers were very picky when it came to the supreme court and worried if it gained too much power for this reason.<span style='color:white'>[/edit]
Please refrain from multiposting.</span>
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whos to say military is unproductive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, a short lesson in economy:
Every stately investment pays off twofold: For one, in a direct payoff that comes from putting money into national industry, thus de-facto subsidizing it. If a government does for example decide to build a new highway, it pays construction companies for this, thus supporting these companies employees - and thus indirectely supporting the general economy.
Additionally to this, however, is always a secondary gain that comes from the benefits achieved by this investment - in our example of the highway, this would for example be the new route for transportation that benefits verious economic segments, from gas stations along the line of the new street to the big transportation companies that can use this street as a new shorter route of delivery, thus saving money.
This secondary gain is in most cases the economically by far more significant benefit from a stately investment.
Military spending, however, lacks a secondary gain. Yes, you pay soldiers (which can then put their earned money into US products), and you support arms factories, but you barely create anything that'll benefit other economic sectors. In fact, a significant part of your spendings are <i>supposed</i> to be literally blown up in the form of ammunition, weaponry, bombs, and so on. Military spending will thus never benefit a nations economy as much as flat out <i>any</i> other kind of spending.
It's thus, regardless of any morallic impact, economical nonsense.[/edit]
I also hear that Ralph Nader will be running for Green Party. YAY! because when he runs it pulls off the extremist vote for the democrats.
They also publically said that they were going against the democratic party this year.
The Greens are <i>not</i> appealing to extremistic views. Their program is <i>not</i> any more extremistic than the Libertarians. In case you didn't notice, 'extremist' is considered a rather negatively valued word, so refrain from using it when describing a valid political movement.
<a href='http://www.gp.org/tenkey.html' target='_blank'>10 Key Values</a>
Some policies I in fact like but somehow I have a bad feeling on how they are going to enforce their key values.
I've now taken a strong stance against my tax paying dollars being used on wars we can't win. For instance, The War on Drugs....
I've now taken a strong stance against my tax paying dollars being used on wars we can't win. For instance, The War on Drugs.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The war on drugs can be won. Just not how its running now.
*Sigh...*
It seems you don't want to understand it in any other way, so: According to forum <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>rule #2</a>, blanket judgements are not allowed. Keep them out of this forum or I'll have to keep <i>you</i> out.
I've now taken a strong stance against my tax paying dollars being used on wars we can't win. For instance, The War on Drugs.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://kucinich.us' target='_blank'>Kucinich?</a>
Pretty Libertarian on most issues except gun control. He <u>will</u> decriminalize/legalize marijuana if elected, and make huge cutbacks on the war on other drugs. Also, he'll repeal the Patriot Act, replace US troops with UN forces in Iraq, 15% cut on pentagon spending, massive increase in education spending, lots of other good stuff.
I haven't heard much bad about him. Unfortunately the media really isn't covering him much at all, almost to the point of shunning him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, I don't think it can be completely won, drug use can be made more difficult or it can decrease but to eliminate anything completely is extremely difficult.
However, to the thesis. I strongly disagree, look at the California Recall election, Scwharznegger was voted in as a moderate republican while McClintock the conversative Republican lost. That alone is testament that many republicans would rather vote in a "winning candidate" in their mind rather than take a chance with a losing candidate, it would be the same for Bush, rather than take their chances with not voting for Bush in which is essence is a vote for the winning democratic candidate.
I can't riposte to all of this thread, but when I have the time I'll come back.
<a href='http://www.kucinich.us/endorsements/endorsements/grandfather_twilight.php' target='_blank'>Grandfather Twilight</a>
I don't think Kuicinich is electable. Apparently to comply with Rule #2.
Dennis Kucinich has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Democratic presidential nomination. But don't let that small detail stop us from having fun with the little guy. Nowadays, the press doesn't even mention him when talking about the candidates, probably because the primaries are coming up and nobody cares about the second tier of loser candidates (Sharpton & Co.) If I were a Democrat, I'd be ashamed that this guy was in the same party as me, much like the GOP should be thankful Pat Buchanan no longer calls himself a Republican. Here's Dennis' rap sheet...
Heres some dirt from <a href='http://www.realchange.org' target='_blank'>Real Change</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe, whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling." -- Kucinich, in the "Journal of Concious Evolution"
"As a bachelor, I get a chance to fantasize about my first lady. And you know maybe Fox will want to sponsor it as a national contest or something. But in any event I would want definitely want someone who would not just be there by my side, but be a working partner because I think we're in a day in age when partnerships are imperative to making anything happening in the world. And I certainly want a dynamic, out-spoken woman who was fearless in her desire for peace in the world and for universal single-payer health care and a full employment economy. If you are out there call me." -- Kucinich, Nov. 5, 2003
New Age Mystic
Kucinich likes to portray himself as a progressive, but for him that takes a turn not seen in mainstream politics since Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown ran for president. While his website tries to paint him as a down to earth midwesterner with a page titled "Polka, Bowling and Kielbasa", Kucinich is certainly the only admitted Vegan in the race (that is, a vegetarian who won't consume any animal products at all, including milk and honey.) The only kielbasa he'll be eating is made of tofurkey.
The blue collar kid from Cleveland now supports creating a Department of Peace. "I have a holistic view of the world," he explains. "I see the world as interconnected and interdependent and that leaves no room for war." He is also friends with Shirley MacLaine, who is the godmother of his daughter.
Other policy positions of his get a bit "out there" as well. In 2001, he introduced a bill to ban space-based and other exotic weapons, including "radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies . . . for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such populations."
Included in the ban were "chemtrails," supposed airplane emissions that change the weather or cause rashes in schoolkids, if you listen to the Art Bell radio show anyway. Chemtrails were removed in a revised draft of the bill. "I'm not into that," Kucinich told The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Really? But Kucinich was the legislation's sole author.
As snide as I'd like to be, I can't improve on Kucinich's own mysticism, so here's some more from the article in New Connexion magazine:
"In our soul's Magnificent, we become conscious of the cosmos within us. We hear the music of peace, we hear the music of cooperation, we hear music of love. In our soul's forgetting, we become unconscious of our cosmic birthright, blighted with disharmony, disunity, torn asunder from the stars in a disaster ..."
Looking For Love
Like so many New Age devotees desperately searching for universal love, Kucinich lacks a steady love partner. The twice-divorced dad, however, not only admits it but went public with his search for a love connection during a debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, announcing his criteria for a first lady: "a dynamic, out-spoken woman who was fearless in her desire for peace in the world and for universal single-payer health care."
To help out, the PoliticsNH website has started a personals area for Kucinich women wannabees. Already there is one from Gina Marie (33) from New Jersey, who notes that "Madonna and Jennifer Lopez are probably two of the most recognizable, powerful women in our country yet they are not helping all Americans gain access to affordable healthcare." It's hard to argue with that logic.
Flip Flop
While most politicians change their positions from time to time -- in fact, all good ones do, because they are learning and open to change -- Kucinich has made a dizzying switch on abortion with no apparent principle to back it up (other than, "I want to win some Democratic primaries.")
As a Congressman, he amassed one of the most anti-abortion voting records in Congress, one especially unusual for a Democrat. Fair enough, Kucinich was raised Catholic. He voted to criminalize partial birth abortions, to deny American servicewoman the right even to pay for their own abortions overseas, to prevent Washington, D.C. from funding abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars, against research on RU-486, even against health coverage of basic contraception for federal employees. In 1996 he told Planned Parenthood that he did not support the substance of Roe v. Wade. He received a a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.
Now that he wants to run as a progressive Democrat though, he is waffling all over that stance. He told The Nation magazine that "I believe life begins at conception and that it doesn't end at birth." (Huh?) He said he was not in favor of either a Human Life Amendment that would constitutionally protect "life" from the moment of conception, nor the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and presented his votes as votes not against abortion per se but against federal funding of the procedure. That's not consistent with his votes on the servicewomen and Washington DC issues mentioned above, however. And while told The Nation he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman's life.
When pressed, Kucinich said "I haven't been a leader on this. These are issues I would not have chosen to bring up." Well, he has been at least a devoted follower of the anti-abortion position, until it became politically inconvenient. And if he's not a leader, why should anyone elect him as president?
Sources
"Ohio's comeback kid", by Sandy Nelson, Campaigns & Election,; Sep97, Vol. 18 Issue 8, p51
"Regressive Progressive?", Katha Politt, the Nation, 5/27/2002, Vol. 274 Issue 20, p10
"Spirit and Stardust", by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Connexion Magazine, September 2002
Hollow Man, BY DAVID W. MARTIN The Cleveland Scene (newspaper), March 19, 2003
"Democratic candidate draws support from peace activists, New Age gurus", by MALIA RULON, (Associated Press), San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, May 30, 2003
"The American Mayor," by Melvin Holli
"Field Notes: Dennis Kucinich", ABC-News Online, Nov. 6, 2003
"Who Wants To Be a First Lady?", PoliticsNH.Com, November 5, 2003
"Dennis Kucinich: The combative mystic". by Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 2003 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, uh. I dunno what to say. Rev. Sharpton's policies actually make more sense.
I've already posted most of this on other poltical forum.
Additionally to this, however, is always a secondary gain that comes from the benefits achieved by this investment - in our example of the highway, this would for example be the new route for transportation that benefits verious economic segments, from gas stations along the line of the new street to the big transportation companies that can use this street as a new shorter route of delivery, thus saving money.
This secondary gain is in most cases the economically by far more significant benefit from a stately investment.
Military spending, however, lacks a secondary gain. Yes, you pay soldiers (which can then put their earned money into US products), and you support arms factories, but you barely create anything that'll benefit other economic sectors. In fact, a significant part of your spendings are supposed to be literally blown up in the form of ammunition, weaponry, bombs, and so on. Military spending will thus never benefit a nations economy as much as flat out any other kind of spending.
It's thus, regardless of any morallic impact, economical nonsense.[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree with this Nem0, but for only one reason really. You're forgetting that many times military research makes its way into private industries. Alot of technology is created through military efforts then has advents in non-military production.
Just a few examples :
<b>The Global Positioning System (GPS)</b>: Years before you could use a GPS receiver to find the nearest pizza place, the U.S. military was using them to redefine modern warfare. GPS made it much easier for the U.S. military to exactly pinpoint nearly everything happening on the battlefield, giving U.S. forces a giant advantage over any opposition. "Tactical to Practical" tracks the history of the system, from its developmental stages in the 1970s, examines some creative modern applications (including the adventure sport "geo-dashing"), and takes a look at the future of the technology.
<b>The Humvee</b>: Since the 1970s, the tough and versatile Humvee has been a key military vehicle -- a powerful but agile workhorse. Then in the '90s, it broke through as the high-status SUV. "Tactical and Practical" takes the Humvee out for a hard-core test drive, and looks at one possible Humvee offshoot, the high-tech "SmarTruck" urban combat SUV.
<b>Night Vision</b>: You can get it in a $600 camcorder today, but not too long ago, night vision was one of the fanciest tricks up the U.S. military's sleeve. "Tactical to Practical" explains how the technology took its first wobbly steps in World War II, made its frontline debut in Vietnam, and played a pivotal role in both Iraqi wars. The show considers night vision's considerable contribution to law enforcement, border patrol and wildlife research.
<b>The Internet</b> : Despite what many individuals would like you to believe, Al Gore did not invent the Internet. It was DARPA in the late 1960s. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency created the Internet to connect military computers at research centers across the country. The Internet as we know it today did not appear until 1994. The first modern browser was Mosaic the product of a government-financed project. Netscape, the first commercial web browser, was based on Mosaic. If the government had not funded the research behind the internet the world would not be the same. These technologies have proven more benificial to civilians then to the military.
Back on topic though.
First, Bush hasn't really betrayed anything, over the past couple decades party loyalty has faded with more technology as people become more independent and pragmatic. People who are still loyal Democrats or Republicans are actually in the minority. Moderate voters would be more likely to vote for Bush with compromises with liberal agendas (Like it really matters anyways, no party planks are completely correct, to believe that one side is always right is stupid and partisan). So Bush's electability is quite good especially since he's an incumbent war time president that's anti-abortion, religious and still have electability in conservative republicans in addition to centrist and moderate liberals.
That's the 'barely'. You will however have to admit that the subsidizing of private research would've reached the same goals far more effectively, simply as military R&D is a procentually minor aspect of military spending.
Military overruns are still a great unexpected benefit, killing two birds with one stone still.
I'd vote for Nader, btw, and I'm am hardly an extremist. I think he's a much more adept public servant (not politician) than most of the democratic nominees. If Kucinich somehow manages to get himself nominated, he's got my vote. Other than that, I'm just gonna go with the lesser of the nominated evils, whoever that may be.
I wish we had a real voting system, so that 1 vote for Nader or other 3rd party wasn't half a vote for the frontrunner (probably Bush).
edit: Sirus, military research (like you outlined) does not require actually deploying it. Readyness is what gives civilian applications to military spending, mostly in the form of dual-purpose civilian/army research, which usually gets funding from both the military and traditional civilian grant sources.
That's the 'barely'. You will however have to admit that the subsidizing of private research would've reached the same goals far more effectively, simply as military R&D is a procentually minor aspect of military spending. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for clarification, Sirus, would you be referring to say, Lockheed-Martin, NOrthrop, McDonnel Douglas?
Oh, that's the great thing about stately fonds: Their relative stability and long-livety makes foresight very possible, also in a completely non-militaristic environment. Keep in mind that the most versatile implementation of the Internet, the World Wide Web, was created at a university in Switzerland - effectivity and foresight are not exclusives of military research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Military overruns are still a great unexpected benefit, killing two birds with one stone still.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd agree if there was any indication of a first bird that has to be killed in the first place, but that's another topic entirely.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for clarification, Sirus, would you be referring to say, Lockheed-Martin, NOrthrop, McDonnel Douglas?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe the word 'private' was a bad choice. The companies you cited are indeed private, yet, in their effective functionality, they act as extensions to the Pentagon, which isn't surprising considering that this is their main source of income by a <i>very</i> large margin.
Let me rephrase and state that the same effects of military research could be achieved by subsidized 'independent' research.[/edit]
That's the 'barely'. You will however have to admit that the subsidizing of private research would've reached the same goals far more effectively, simply as military R&D is a procentually minor aspect of military spending. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because this 'Internet' we're talking on is such a small spinoff. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Along with nuclear reactors. And satellites. And microwaves. And radar. And lasers. And map making and surveying. And much of modern medicine. And the space program.
And your statement that private subsidization would have reached the same goals is presented as fact, but it is actually just unsupported opinion. Necessity is the mother of invention, not just sitting around throwing money at university research.
That's the 'barely'. You will however have to admit that the subsidizing of private research would've reached the same goals far more effectively, simply as military R&D is a procentually minor aspect of military spending. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, straight subsidy of tech R&D would benefit the private sector more, but you still have to consider that R&D funding gets very few votes compared to spending money on more high-profile programs such as defense or social programs. I doubt anyone would take having a few more toys on the shelves to buy over knowing that the country can defend itself or that you have affordable health care. So I doubt that any democratically elected government would choose to pour lots of investment into private research when they could be grubbing for votes by proposing grand-sounding plans like "health care for every American." err. </blatant political bias>
*edit* and I have to agree with monse. Lasers and the intraweb pwn j00. *edit*
I've now taken a strong stance against my tax paying dollars being used on wars we can't win. For instance, The War on Drugs.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
War on Drugs, it's just annother hyped up issue to make yet annother president more popular. When it was started, drug use was falling rapidly, when they declared it succcessful it was rising.
Seeing the amount of money pumped into military R&D for pretty much all the time since WW1, that's not a big surprise. You can list more and more groundbreaking offspins, but all you'll prove is that, if you put 90% of your research spendings into one area, it's quite likely to have more than 50% of the scientific successes originate from that area.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And your statement that private subsidization would have reached the same goals is presented as fact, but it is actually just unsupported opinion. Necessity is the mother of invention, not just sitting around throwing money at university research.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please note that my statements were not limited to university-based research, but as you already threw the bone, I'll bite:
My statement is in so far proveable that universities were indeed the almost sole centers of research for a rather long time - most of the 19th century, to be exact - without of this time being devoid of innovation. (You will now inevitably cite the Wrights and similiar 19th century inventors with a dislike for formal education. Please consider that you will be able to list most of the successful such specimens from the top of your head, e.g.: they're not exactely representative.) You are right, necessity <i>is</i> the mother of invention, but why do you feel that the only area offering such necessities is the military?
I'd argue that Universities, with their pressure on the students and researchers to develop, research, or create new to be accepted into the academic ranks is an even better pool providing necessities as people trying to improve their positions have to <i>search</i> for them. Take for example the students and researchers at the Frauenhofer Institute that searched and found the necessity of a better compression for music...
Wheee, you make fair points, but I'd argue that there <i>is</i> precedence of sheer scentific advance inspiring a populus (take the Race into Space). Also, my initial point that led to this tangent was that military spendings were nonsensical from an economic, not from a PR point of view.