AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > August > 18 > Entry
Are democrats too focused on the negatives of the Iraq War?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Perceptions are not necessarily reality, but they are often more powerful. And the primary-election loss of Senator Joe Lieberman demonstrated how out of whack our Iraq perceptions are.
According to liberal group Americans for Democratic Action, Senator Lieberman votes liberal on key issues about 80% of the time – less than his Democratic colleagues. In other words, he works across party lines to get things done: he even had the courage to vote for the Iraq war and stay the course when public perceptions began to sour. And he was punished for it – he lost to a challenger whose only pitch was to throw out the guy who supported Bush on Iraq.
So many Democrats seem to have such a myopic dislike of Bush that anything he supports is automatically considered eeeeevil or just plain stupid. Especially anything to do with the supposed Iraq “quagmire.”
But soldiers on leave from Iraq often tell me, “Yes, it’s still dangerous, but it’s going really well! Why does everyone here think it’s going poorly?”
The reality they describe is different from what we hear, which is almost exclusively limited to violence. Not only has Iraq transitioned to self-government, but the country is making strides toward real independence, prosperity and even security. According to Major Wilholdt, a spokesman for the Iraq multi-national force, half of all the forces in the country are now fully equipped and trained Iraqis. Roughly 2,000 infrastructure projects are underway or already completed, not only to repair basic city services that languished under Sadaam, but to also give many Iraqis their first-ever experience of luxuries like drinkable water and sewage-free streets.
Yes, terrorists are still trying to kill soldiers and civilians. But that is not the whole story. The whole story is that we are no longer threatened by a despot who could have rebuilt his biological weapons program within 30 days; that we have offered freedom to a people who have seized on it; that we are helping them rebuild their country.
As Major Wilholdt put it, “There are so many positive results in Iraq, so many projects done by Iraqi contractors. Projects like water treatment plants being constructed. Its very unsexy to highlight, but very important to the country!”
Rebuttal
One of the first signs of a dysfunctional relationship is when your partner twists their faults into your own personal failure. This is something Shaunti does with the finesse of Ralph Kramden by asking questions so slanted in her favor. But I’m not really amazed at the blatant bias as I am at her ability to turn the Republican party’s fault into the fatal flaw of Connecticut democrats.
Because if we look at what the current administration has been doing for years, we’ll find that it isn’t that Democrats are a bunch of pessimists. It’s that Republicans are blithely unaware. They’ve taken every opportunity to leverage negativity from the ruins of tragedy and instill in us a fear of the unknown in their effort to fuel their “war on terror” campaign. It was the current administration that told us Iraq is a hotbed of terrorists who must be rooted out or we risk another 9/11. They told us that we had to follow through to the bloody end to smite terrorism forever.
Yet recent news affirms that terrorism is home to everywhere. It’s in England. It’s in Pakistan. It’s in our own backyard. Terrorism doesn’t exclusively vacation in Iraq no matter how many troops we send over to uncover the city’s rubble.
That’s because we’re fighting a philosophy, not an army and the only way to battle a philosophy is by casting our votes to cast aside bad ideas. That’s why Connecticut citizens ousted Leiberman from a long-lived legacy as Connecticut’s liberal poster boy. It was a bad idea to be a pro war liberal.
But it’s also a bad idea to cast a vote on little more than knee-jerk partisan politics. The short-term satisfaction of voting against someone won’t fix the Iraq problem by voting for someone less credentialed.
Anti-war sentiments may be enough to gain momentum but not enough to win the race. Anti-war candidates need a strategy to combat terrorism and a concrete plan to get out of Iraq. Otherwise, it is just lip service and we’d be better off sticking with the devil we know. Even if the devil wears Stetson.
Comments
By Gary Harrison
August 21, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
The problem with all of this is the DIVISION. A nation divided against itself cannot (and WILL NOT stand). Like it or not, President Bush is OUR president and we should support the American commitment. It seems that we conveniently forget what the Taliban and Hezbollah do EVERY day. Wake up America!! Keep being divided and America will be a Muslim nation with 5 years. Only a united effort can defeat these monsters. Who remembers OUR innocent dead at the WTC? Instead we mourn the enemy “innocents” killed in the war overseas. We villify and deny support to President Bush. We verbally attack and slander our soldiers and war effort when we should support it (like it or not). WHERE is the American spirit of patriotism? Keep this mess up and I see America as an easy victory for Jihad. I have been here before as a veteran of Viet Nam. Seems like we lost that war, too.
By Brian Curtis
August 21, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
This is a difficult issue for the Dems to address this fall.
On the one hand, Bush’s war is one of the most blatant crimes against humanity AND the Constitution this nation has ever seen. It’s been an unmitigated, and undeniable, disaster. The Democrats would be fools not to remind voeters of this embarrassing truth-—probably the Republicans’ biggest weakness, apart from the Abramoff bribes—in their efforts to overthrow the current regime and replace it with something closer to democracy.
But on the other hand, nobody likes a complainer. Too many Americans voted for Bush on the bizarre attitude that “I don’t care if he’s wrong, as long as he’s BOLD and CONFIDENT about it!” They want positive messages and easy answers. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true. And the current conventional wisdom about the Dems is “they have no answers, only criticisms.” (Excuse me? Who exactly got us INTO this mess again?)
And don’t forget that the White House propaganda organs are always cranking out cheap shots about “dissent is treason” and “if you don’t support invading Iraq, you want terrorists to conquer the country!” The “Why do you hate freedom?” argument—-if you can call it that—-is lame and obvious, but the hell of it is, it works. It fits on the bumper-sticker consciousness of a lot of American voters who can’t be bothered to think more deeply about the issues.
So the Democrats need to find some simple, easy answers that are positive in tone—-keep hammering at the neocon failures (they’re pretty obvious by this point), but also present some happy-talk slogans about making American stronger, better, and more prosperous. They don’t need to abandon their pointers on the Iraq blunder—-remember, it was the Republicans who pioneered the “always attack” strategy when it comes to campaigning—-but they need to supplement it with pat slogans and cheerful promises on other issues as well, such as “REAL security doesn’t destroy our freedoms” and “fighting terrorism takes intelligence.” (A reminder of Franklin’s quote on liberty and safety wouldn’t be out of line, either.)
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind seeing a few more reminders of this administration’s failures this fall, in addition to the catastrophe in Iraq. Perhaps some signs reading “Remember Katrina,” “Remember Jeff Gannon,” “Remember the Downing Street Memo,” and so forth. The American attention span is notoriously brief.
By TramadoL12463
August 21, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn’t bother me. Shrug. I haven’t been up to anything. I haven’t gotten much done today.
By Shannon, M.Div.
August 21, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
I haven’t read any credible source that states that Saddam could have rebuilt a WMD program in 30 days. At any rate, the argument for going into Iraq (and thereby dividing our attention from Afghanistan—remember Osama?) was that Saddam had WMDs. He didn’t. Faulty intel or lies, either way it was a false reason for war. Saddam was bad, and it’s good that he’s gone, but the War in Iraq has killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam did. Is it any wonder that the state of Iraq has degenerated into civil war? America has lost our moral high ground, gone against the prevailing views of the world community, strained our relations with our allies, cemented hatred in the hearts of our enemies, and for what? For this.
As a Christian, I have to ask about the morality of a war where we minimize our own military casualties by increasing civilian casualties. And what of the torture and cruelty, the occasional massacre of civilians? What about Abu Ghraib, which was certainly the fault of those who performed the torture—but also the fault of an administration which does not respect the Geneva Conventions? What about Haditha, where our troops killed civilians in their homes? Of course the line between civilian and combatant is blurred. Where do you draw it? If someone in Iraq doesn’t like the American forces, are they then a “combatant”? I think some might say so.
Which brings us to the anti-patriotic rhetoric perpetrated by the right-wing these days. Questioning the government is THE most American and patriotic act. You don’t have to be pro-terrorist to be anti-war (I’m not). Real answers don’t fit on bumper stickers… and those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.
Of course we can’t just waltz out of Iraq now, but we do need to change the course. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is evidence of insanity, right? It’s time to get a new captain to steer this ship—one who respects the Constitution, one who recognizes that (s)he is under the law just like any other citizen. It’s time to get someone with some humility and gravitas into the Oval Office, someone ready to rebuild America’s broken relationship with Europe, someone who does not believe that simple might makes right, someone who recognizes that fervent belief does not inherently equate to truth.
By MB
August 21, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
They should only focus on the positive things like uh, uh, uh, huh, uh………… (let me get back to you on that).
By 2D
August 21, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
I know this BLOG typically goes way off topic, but it’s my first post so I’ll try to stay on topic.
As a person who voted for President Bush, I can state that I am disappointed with many things surrounding Iraq. The war has not been prosecuted effectively. Planning was not adequate. The administration has become obstinant and unwilling to change. that, to me, has been the biggest weakness of this administration. Admit mistake are made and take a different course. We can still be committed to the war and take a different course.
That being said, Iraq has not been a total failure. A brutal dictator is gone, and I don’t think anyone believes this war has inflicted more civilian casualties than Saddam. There have been multiple elections with high turnouts despite the specter of violence. In fact, they have had better turnouts in Iraq than our own national elections. As a member of a military family, I also get reports from what those folks see on the ground and often here of the small victories that never get coverage.
So, to answer the question of the week, I would say yes… The Dems place far too much emphasis on the negative. But… should you expect anything less??? That is politics. Play the opponents weakness to regain power. Any party worth it’s salt would do the same thing.
By Mara
August 21, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
Hey all. Just a quick note before class…
I seem to remember a lot of this came up a couple weeks ago when we discussed “media bias”. Sure we’ve built water purification plants, schools, clinics and a whole lot of other things that we destroyed through our containment of Saddam and the “shock-and-awe” initiation of the Iraq war. However….this doesn’t justify Shauti’s whine about “they never report the good stuff”. Personally I find it infinitly more important that we hear about the mothers children dying for Bush’s revenge. Whether those children have American mothers or Iraqi mothers is immaterial. Their lives are much more important than finding out that East Fallujah is getting almost as much electricity as they did pre-invasion.
And regarding ol’ Joe Leiberman…his sychophantic obseqiousness to the administration had as much to do with his rejection by the voters as the Iraq War. Let’s not forget Terri Shiavo, Scalito, his support of Gonzalas dismissal of the Geneva Conventions against torture as being “quaint”, or his support of the government spying on innocent Americans like the Quakers and Grannies for Peace. Or his opinion that no matter what the unwashed masses wanted, HE, and only he, deserved to “represent” their views…even if he doesn’t. So now he’s an “independant” being supported and cheered on by Rove, Cheney, and the RNC. Does that sound like any Democrat you know? But of course Shaunti has to stick to the Republican talking-point of “anti-war librul drumming out a fine upstanding Democrat because they don’t like Bush”. After all, it’s all they got.
By JohnF
August 21, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians are still being murdered daily….it’s hard for me to believe that restoration of previous services somehow balances out those lives. Sure..Saddam was a despot and it’s good to have him gone, but will Iraq have to install a similar regime just to stop all the violence?
And it’s not just democrats that have a negative view of this “war”…most of the US thinks it’s a mess. No, we can’t cut and run but we do need to start planning on winding down our presence over there.
By Renee
August 21, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
I am really under the weather today. This is a day that I literally “dragged myself into work”. To add onto my physical ailments, it’s all rainy and gloomy here. Ok, I think I have whined enough.
2D - your comment was great, and stated quite well.
I just want to add, that there are quite a bit of negatives with this war, so it’s not like you have to dig deep to find them. I think at this stage, you have to dig a lot deeper to remind people of the positive outcomes that have come out of this that you do for the negatives.
But, war is ugly, no matter the reason. I forgot who said it but the only true enemy in war, is war itself.
By Randy
August 21, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
The democrats are going to be against whatever the Republicans are for. If the Republicans were against the war, Democrats would be for it.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
“…but to also give many Iraqis their first-ever experience of luxuries like drinkable water and sewage-free streets.” The ones lucky enough to still be alive! Talk about myopic!
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
As usual, the columns themselves don’t say much. Please forgive me, but I’d like to comment on the 8:07 post of Mr. Gary Harrison:
The problem with all of this is the DIVISION. Agreed.
Like it or not, President Bush is OUR president and we should support the American commitment. Two things: (1) Did Mr. Harrison say these SAME words eight years ago? (2) What if we feel the President himself is not supporting the American commitment? To whom, then, lies our loyalty?
Keep being divided and America will be a Muslim nation with 5 years. Um, did these numbers fall out of his dog’s a— this morning, or is there some factual indication that this is actually possible given the vast numbers of Christian churches with tax-exempt status in this country?
Who remembers OUR innocent dead at the WTC? ALL OF US DO. How DARE you suggest that we don’t? The arrogance in that assumption is astounding. By the way, WHERE IS OSAMA? He’s barely missed a meal or a dialysis treatment since attacking us.
Instead we mourn the enemy “innocents” killed in the war overseas. We should throw a party, Mr. Harrison? “Woo-HOOOO! Dead children! Praise Jesus, now they’ll never be saved and they’ll burn in heck for all eternity! Yay!” Wanna re-state that?
We villify and deny support to President Bush. Only because he’s earned it.
We verbally attack and slander our soldiers LIAR, LAIR PANTS OF FIRE! Wash your shameful mouth out with soap.
WHERE is the American spirit of patriotism? We might ask you the same thing, oh enabler of tyranny.
Keep this mess up and I see America as an easy victory for Jihad. NOW who’s being “negative?”
I have been here before as a veteran of Viet Nam. Thank you for your service. I am grateful for your sacrifices. Also, I never spit on any man, so don’t even try that tired old rant.
Seems like we lost that war, too. Nobody wins when you play football in hell, dude. Nobody.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Can anyone actually name 5 legitimate positives of this war?
By The72John
August 21, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Most of the positives in Iraq represent the US repairing what we helped to destroy. A couple of months ago, a number of Democratic AND Republican senators grilled Condi on the progress, and she admitted that fewer Iraqis had clean water and electricity now than before the invasion.
There have been some positives from this. Yes, we deposed a bad man who did bad things to those under his control. However, we’ve also removed the only unifying force in an area that was arbitrarily shoved together as a country after WWI and consists of three distinct groups of people who have been not getting along for centuries.
We will never be able to institute western-style Democracy in Iraq, because they are not ready for it. Our own generals make dire warnings about Iraq’s downward spiral into civil war. Shaunti’s claims that “yes, there are still terrorists killing people” are nothing more than typical Republican propaganda - invoke the spectre of terrorism. The people killing people are Iraqis, not terrorists. Name-changing is running rampant as people neutralize their ethnic names to avoid being murdered by members of the opposing faction.
We act like we can accomplish anything we want to through the application of force and the spending of enough money, but even we can’t change the basic nature of a culture or collection of cultures to fit OUR image of what they should be.
By Archie
August 21, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
No democrats are not too focused on the negatives. Saddam was not this powerful person that was thought of as the anti-christ. Saddam was a man with a pistol hunted down by men with bigger guns and Saddam was not the anti-christ and he did not have the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and all the evidence proves that fact. Diane is right when she says we’re fighting a philosophy but people can’t understand that when they think other people are inferior,because if you think you’re just plain superior to a group of people then you can bomb them first and justify it later. When you’re morally right you don’t have to lie or equivocate and we have seen references made to 9/11 but then told by the same people that Saddam had nothing to do with that. It is silly of Shanti to mention the soldiers she’s talked to because the readers have talked to soldiers that feel differently and it proves nothing to mention it.
By chuck
August 21, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
The mission statement of the Democratic Party: Whine, Whine, Whine. Is there even ONE original thought coming from the dems on how to address problems with the war in Iraq? NOPE, not one. The party of cut and run. While I am certainly not happy with everything the President has done in the past 5 3/4 years, I am still a supporter of OUR President. More importantly, I am a supporter of OUR military forces around the world. I don’t think that any President has had as much on his plate as this one since FDR. Has he been perfect in addressing every issue? NO. Has he been effective in keeping terrorists from attacking us since 9/11? Yes. I think that is the most important issue of the day and he has been successful.
The Dems on the other hand have NO PLAN except to name a date for withdrawal…a plan that everybody with at least half a brain is against. I call it the Viet Nam plan. It would ruin our credibility in the region, give victory to the terrorists, and make us ripe for future attacks. I would much rather see us clean up the 3 provinces (out of 15 I think) where 90% of the attacks are occurring. We can do this by sending in another 100,000 soldiers and giving them free reign to do whatever it takes to clean out the terrorists. We then have to close the borders between Iraq and Iran and Iraq and Syria to keep out new terrorists. Once we do this we can draw down troop strength and limit their duties to protecting the borders of Iraq until the Iraqis can take care of that themselves. We then can establish a military base, preferably in the Kurdish area of Iraq that could serve as a staging area if future needs arise.
WE CAN WIN THIS THING IF WE STAND TOGETHER AND SPEAK TO THE WORLD WITH ONE VOICE. TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, MAKES US LIKE FRANCE. NOBDY WANTS THAT. (EXCEPT THE SOCIALISTS AMONG US.)
By The72John
August 21, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Kimberly gets the tiara.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Brian and Shannon and Mara, all good comments. Randy again shows his ability to think deeply on any subject! Gary Harrison,I heard this same shi- during the Vietnam war. You are wrong. The idea that we have to go along with everything the guvment says is nothing but fascist bull! People in this “democratic” country have the right and the responsibility to speak out against wrong. You people who tell us to shut up and support the government no matter what, are the people who would have gone right along with Hitler and then claimed “I was only following orders”. The Vietnam mess was never a legally declared war. All the Americans who died there Gary, what did they die for? What was the friggin’ point? It was MY gov’t then and I had a right to speak out. It’s MY gov’t now (although I feel it’s been stolen from me and everyone else) and I have a right to speak out.
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Thanks, John! I’ll slip in to a low-cut gown and some heels.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
The democrats are going to be against whatever the Republicans are for. If the Republicans were against the war, Democrats would be for it.
Gee, Rancy. You’ve got it all figured out, don’t you.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing. Missed ya.
By Renee
August 21, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Randy again shows his ability to think deeply on any subject!
That’s actually what I thought when I read that lozen lol.
Kimberly, that was a great comment!!
By The72John
August 21, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Is there even ONE original thought coming from the dems on how to address problems with the war in Iraq? NOPE, not one.
Actually, there have been several, the best that I’ve heard to date being the division of Iraq into three states, one for each ethnic group, with largely autonomous governments and a single body with equal representation from each of the three regions.
This is such a typical dodge by the ultra-conservatives among us - they claim that there are NO ideas from Democrats when in fact that is utterly false. The truth is that Repulicans refuse to allow any democratic plan to make it out of committee. Then, they rely on huff-and-puffers like Chuck to make statements like these to back up the false perception.
It would ruin our credibility in the region, give victory to the terrorists, and make us ripe for future attacks.
Another favorite tactic of the Orwellian right-wingers. Create the idea that we’ll be attacked again if we withdraw. There is no substantiation for this argument, but it scares people and is thus effective.
WE CAN WIN THIS THING IF WE STAND TOGETHER AND SPEAK TO THE WORLD WITH ONE VOICE. TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, MAKES US LIKE FRANCE. NOBDY WANTS THAT. (EXCEPT THE SOCIALISTS AMONG US.)
Ah, it’s a double-helping of Neo-conservative red herring. Villify France (because they don’t bow to our attempted hegemony) and invoke socialism. Neither has anything to do whatsoever with this discussion, but it makes you sound intelligent to other neo-cons. Of course…that’s not particularly difficult.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
The citizenry in a free society are OBLIGATED to speak out and voice dissent when government gets out of control as has this one.
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
{;->
By Jack
August 21, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
“Are democrats too focused on the negatives of the Iraq War?”
No they are not. Not enough people are. We are glad Sadamn is no longer in power and the women over there can breath a little easier but as soon as we leave it will revert back the way it was, just with different players.
By chuck
August 21, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
72john you said:
the best that I’ve heard to date being the division of Iraq into three states, one for each ethnic group, with largely autonomous governments and a single body with equal representation from each of the three regions.
I had not heard this as being part of the plan from the Dems. It is actually a great idea. I suggested this on this blog not long after the initial invasion. I thought it was a good idea then and I still think it’s a good idea.
By Brian Curtis
August 21, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Gotta hand it to Chuck the Troll, he’s regurgitated all the hysterical neocon talking points in a single, incoherent post. Good boy! Now eat your biscuit and go lie down, the grownups are talking.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
72John, thanks for your thoughful and right on response to the jerk! I get so mad at this jingoistic, twisted stupidity, I can’t even respond.
By chuck
August 21, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Brian, Lozen
BITE ME!
By lozen
August 21, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Yeah Renee, Randy can sure figure it out! Kimberly, just say what you think honey ;-).
By chuck
August 21, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
As I said, 72john, I had not heard this idea coming from the democrats. This is the Democratic Plan for Iraq, Straight from their website:
Iraq To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will: Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
How are they going to do this? This is nothing more than rhetoric. It has no meaning whatsoever. Talk about jingoistic.
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
Again, HOW? Now we are going to insist that they do something they are not capable of doing yet, and that will make things all better?!?!? Typical democratic speak for we are just going to pull our troops out and whatever happens, happens.
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Then we get to the only one of these that they actually will do…BLAME BUSH.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, if there is a silver lining to this black cloud that has hung over us for the last 6 years, it is that the beginning of the end for the right wing has begun. The country seems to be waking up to the dangers of a right wing theocracy and of neoconservatism.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
How are they going to do this? This is nothing more than rhetoric. It has no meaning whatsoever. Talk about jingoistic.
Do you know what words mean?
By candide
August 21, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Who wrote this question, dick cheney? There is nothing positive about the Iraq war — except that it will finally sink the Republican party.
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Hey Chuckie! How’s life on the fundie side of the tracks? So, um, you’re a family man, right? Traditionalist? So um, isn’t it ultimately the “Daddy” or head of household that’s supposed to be responsible and accountable for the actions, debts, expenses, feuds, etc. of a household? I mean, if your kids are vandalizing the town, your wife is spending you into bankruptcy, and you got drunk and beat up the wrong neighbor after a block party gone horribly awry…. Um, aren’t YOU the one, so to speak, with whom the “buck stops?”
So yes, Chuck, as an old-fashioned girl, I think I WILL blame Bush! (Unless you really think I should blame the Scottish Terrier. Hahaha!)
By Brian Curtis
August 21, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Amelia: We can only hope. I know a lot of genuine conservatives who are itching to take back their party, and I for one would welcome some intelligent debate about real issues again. The hysterical screeching of the far right has gotten old.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
As I said, 72john, I had not heard this idea coming from the democrats. This is the Democratic Plan for Iraq, Straight from their website:
Who said that an proposal put forth by one person is necessarily going to be on the party website? You said “ideas” from “democrats”, not “the main party line”.
How are they going to do this? This is nothing more than rhetoric. It has no meaning whatsoever. Talk about jingoistic.
Do you even know what jingoistic means? Because this certainly doesn’t fit the description. However, it DOES represent a concrete goal, whether or not the tactics used to accomplish it are outlined. It’s a mission statement, after all…
Then we get to the only one of these that they actually will do…BLAME BUSH.
Well, we were tired of the Republican’s blaming Clinton all the time, so we figured we’d even things up. Seriously, though…so holding our President accountable for his administration’s actions is a bad thing? Gosh, I thought it was just American.
The simple fact is that Iraq represents a potentially never-ending drain on American resources and lives. Iraq is not going to suddenly fall in line with our wishes and become a western democracy, and if continue to insist that we can’t leave until it does then we will never leave.
We have overthrown Hussein. We have helped establish a Constitutional government. We have created the conditions whereby the country will either succeed or fail by its own actions. It’s time to start planning for our withdrawal.
It is a false dilemma to suggest that the only option is remaining in Iraq indeffinitely, and is indicative of our failure to understand that differences, sometimes diametrically opposite and totally incompatible differences exist between societies.
We are not “chickening out” by leaving Iraq, as the right-wingers who try to whip up high-schoolish fears of claims of cowardice try to claim we are.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Been a while since I’ve needed the fan. :)
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Once again BC, fortunately nobody listens to them anymore. Thye just got too way out of line way too fast.
By candide
August 21, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Bush says we will stay in iraq as long as he is presdebt, I say, let’s make him an ex-president.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
If I may throw this out. Could it be that the neocons never intended/intend to leave Iraq?
By Jack
August 21, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
The hysterical screeching of the far right has gotten old.
The hysterical screeching of the left also.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Could it be that the neocons never intended/intend to leave Iraq?
Yes, it could be. I mean, Iraq’s location is great for staging military operations in defense of Israel during the tribulations that will follow the Rapture.
By chuck
August 21, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Jingoistic: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy.
Would you not say that us WILLING the Iraqis to take responsibility for their government “
By chuck
August 21, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Jingoistic: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy.
Would you not say that us WILLING the Iraqis to take responsibility for their government “
By TramadoL49852
August 21, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Would you not say that us WILLING the Iraqis to take responsibility for their government “
Huh?
Jingoistic: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy.
Yes…and turning over sovereignty of a particular nation back to the citizens of that nation is jingoistic…how?
By chuck
August 21, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Jingoistic: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy.
Would you not say that willing the Iraqis to take control of their own country when they are unable to do it, “BECAUSE WE SAY SO,” is jingoistic? Certainly, the idea that it couldn’t be jingoistic because it came from the democrats would not have crossed your mind, but it does seem to fit here to me. Yep, we’ll tell ‘em to get their act together and because we are America, they have to do it. No, that’s not arrogant nationalism.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Well Jack, you are about to hear a gigantic roar from the middle. The wingnuts can kiss their bu#@ goodbye.
By chuck
August 21, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Billy…just so you know, The Great Tribulation Period and Armageddon that follows, occurs AFTER the Rapture. We won’t really have to worry about it.
Don’t know what happened with those posts before. I guess I hit the tab button or something while I was typing. Strange.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
We need more middle. Extreme either way is not productive. Nice to hear from Chuck. School is back in session. JonBenet, JonBenet, JonBenet. Why is she so special? Aren’t other children molested and killed every year? I have my doubts as to the perp’s guilt. I think he just wanted to get out of Asia ASAP and saw a quick way to do it.
By Amelia
August 21, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
By Billy
August 21, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Could it be that the neocons never intended/intend to leave Iraq?
Yes, it could be. I mean, Iraq’s location is great for staging military operations in defense of Israel during the tribulations that will follow the Rapture.
Oh I get it now. We’re on a mission from God! God told W to do it. Puhleeeeeze! We moderates know that Dick Cheney is not God!
By The72John
August 21, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Certainly, the idea that it couldn’t be jingoistic because it came from the democrats would not have crossed your mind, but it does seem to fit here to me. Yep, we’ll tell ‘em to get their act together and because we are America, they have to do it. No, that’s not arrogant nationalism.
You’re correct, it isn’t arrogant nationalism. It wouldn’t cross my mind because it isn’t accurate.
Billy…just so you know, The Great Tribulation Period and Armageddon that follows, occurs AFTER the Rapture. We won’t really have to worry about it.
Yep, much like won’t have to worry about orcs and trolls taking over, either.
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
John, that must be why the fundies are so bent on destroying the environment and consuming all the natural resources before they go. If they can’t take it with them, they’ll destroy it to deepen the suffering of those left behind. Very “Christlike,” huh?
By candide
August 21, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
The last Islamo-Fascist will be strangled in the entrails of the last Christo-Fascist — and all will be well.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Oh I get it now. We’re on a mission from God! God told W to do it. Puhleeeeeze! We moderates know that Dick Cheney is not God!
However, this is part of the neo-con philosophy as it stands currently You’ve got a strange mix of bedfellows - Jewish political theorists concerned with the secular, real-world preservation of Israel as a nation have joined forces with eschatologically-obsessed Fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel represents some crucial turning point in their mythological Ragnorak.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Billy…just so you know, The Great Tribulation Period and Armageddon that follows, occurs AFTER the Rapture.
Gee, Chuck, Ya think?
“Yes, it could be. I mean, Iraq’s location is great for staging military operations in defense of Israel during the tribulations that will follow the Rapture.”
By Billy
August 21, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Sleep — that’s where I’m a Viking!
By The72John
August 21, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Sleep — that’s where I’m a Viking!
Thanks, Ralph.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
If I were king, we would have a four day work week.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
and 2 hours for lunch and a seista!
By Morgan
August 21, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
I see it; the Republicans would like to pretend that the $200 million a day expense doesn’t exist, they ignore soldiers are dying in this QUAGMIRE. They have had no idea (beyond flawed intellegence) from the initial preemptive invasion what they are doing or how they will accomplish it.
Somehow the Democrats are taken to task in forums like this?
Go figure … .
By Jack
August 21, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Say something or I’ll sing. (you don’t want that)
By The72John
August 21, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
You know, the question really brings us back to the discussion a few weeks about about objectivity and truth. Shaunti asks “Do the Democrats focus to much on the negatives of the Iraq War”, but this question is basically flawed.
It assumes not only that there are positives to the war that are being ignored by the democrats (and the liberal media, no doubt) but suggests that the positives are of equal weight with the negatives. After all, if more negative coverage than positive coverage represents a slant, then one must assume that the side being ignored is at least as true, if not moreso, than the side being focused on.
So…we’re left with basically a false question, or certainly a question that is heavily slanted to one position. After all, if there are 10 negatives to every positive, then Democrats (or anyone else, including the ever-more-numerous Republican voices joining the opposition) can hardly be blamed for calling more attention to them that to the other.
Hooray - a school has been built that will one day educate children. Oh no - another group of Sunnis has massacred 30 Shia pilgrims. Oh no - a gang of Shia extremists slaughtered 25 Sunnis on a street corner. Hooray - we saved the life of one small girl thanks to US medicine.
Which would YOU dwell on?
By Billy
August 21, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
I see it; the Republicans would like to pretend that the $200 million a day expense doesn’t exist, they ignore soldiers are dying in this QUAGMIRE. They have had no idea (beyond flawed intellegence) from the initial preemptive invasion what they are doing or how they will accomplish it.
Somehow the Democrats are taken to task in forums like this?
Go figure….
Yeah. It’s like you’re playing team trivia at a bar. A question comes up: if f(x)= 6x^4 - 3x^3 + 7x^2 - 2x + 8, what is f^1(x)? Your teammate rushes to answer: Orange! You try to explain that, while the correct answer may not be immediately evident to you, you know for a fact that orange is incorrect. Your teammate berates you. Had you not said orange was incorrect, it would have not have been so. Plus, you can’t offer the right answer anyway, so we might as well stick with orange and hope the question changes until it’s the right answer.
By Archie
August 21, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
We need more middle. Extreme either way is not productive. Nice to hear from Chuck. School is back in session. JonBenet, JonBenet, JonBenet. Why is she so special?
My goodness Jack, do I agree with your attitude on that subject. It infuriates me to one child get so much attention when so many children suffer daily.
By GOB
August 21, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Gotta hand it to Chuck the Troll, he’s regurgitated all the hysterical neocon talking points in a single, incoherent post. Good boy! Now eat your biscuit and go lie down, the grownups are talking.
No kidding. That post sounds like a rant from Colbert, only he isnt actually serious….Moving on America…
By chuck
August 21, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
UH, BILLY, if Christians are removed DURING the Rapture, why would they be preparing a staging ground for a war that they will not be participating in or even here for? Flawed logic my friend. If you would read the Bible, you
Kimmie, the only problem with your post is that the Bible teaches that we as Humans cannot know the time at which the Rapture will occur. It may still be thousands of years away. That’s why we work so hard to make the world a BETTER PLACE to live. I don’t know of any Christians who are in favor of messing up the world. I am in favor of common sense environmental legislation. The greenpeace/sierra club folks just take it too far.
BTW, 72john, I saw the website you found the democratic “plan” on concerning Iraq. It was actually proposed by Biden on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. I’m betting that you had NEVER heard it before today when you googled it after my post. That certainly is not the plan put forth by the leftwing of the party…which is almost all of you. Nobody has proposed any legislation to do this and it would also involve writing a NEW Iraqi Constitution. It would have been much easier to do from the beginning than it would be to do it now, but I think it is still worth a try.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Thanks Guys. My singing voice isn’t ready today.
By Jack
August 21, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Could have been peach or light yellow.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
I’m betting that you had NEVER heard it before today when you googled it after my post. That certainly is not the plan put forth by the leftwing of the party…which is almost all of you
Then you would lose your money, Chuck. I heard the report on it the day it was propsed in Congress on NPR, not Hardball.
I realize that you rely on googling for all you information, but do not assume that others are as limited as you.
By Lyrazel
August 21, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, I too cant find good news coming out of Iraq… The servicemen you speak to who tell about happy times in Iraq are now on their third tour of duty. Gosh golly gee whiz it must be fun in Iraq. Small wonder so many are offering their service to patrol the borders with Mexico or Canada. OUR NATION is no safer, OUR NATION has a crumbling infrastructure, blah blah blah but wave your flag and tie your ribbons…never question our president. Now is not the time we CAN leave Iraq. Sadly we are in a quagmire and the consequences of our departure would be worse than staying on. We are obliged to stay because of the turbulence now unfolding with Israel and Lebanon, Syria and Iran. We committed ourselves with a coke-head’s zeal on a patriotic binge and woke up with a killer hangover in a holding cell… BTW Saddam is not gone. He is STILL on trial until someone blows him up, slips him a mickey or decapitates him accidentally in the mens room shower. The cost of this trial is still being tabulated because we did not allow him to be shot when we found him—He has received full meals and medical care plus guards. Think of the cost of a bullet and the cost of keeping alive judges, Saddam and then tell me we did not mess up somewhere.
Just remember all of the people who stood up and cheered for us to get into Iraq…and vote them all out…Its time to vote out all Republicans and all Democrats and fill the places with lobbyists who actually now form our laws, define our entitlement services and put the puppets in power. Why bother with the middle managers?
By The72John
August 21, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
The proper conclusion to this truncated sentence:
If you would read the Bible, you
is “would be as credulous and ignorant as I”.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Chuck — What about the nonbelievers who are left behind? When they come to believe, will part of their duty not be to defend Israel?
And I’ve read way too much of the Bible as it is. I spent my entire childhood in church. Sunday School, church service, youth group on Sunday nights, Wednesday night suppers…I know more about the Bible than quite a good bit of believers. Enough to know that it is, by and large, a load of crap. And the fact that so many in our government seem committed to setting policy based on scripture scares the hell out of me.
By TramadoL38238
August 21, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Enough to know that it is, by and large, a load of crap. And the fact that so many in our government seem committed to setting policy based on scripture scares the hell out of me.
Watched V for Vendetta over the weekend, and boy - was that a little scary. So many paralells to current thought here in the US. Nothing as extreme as portrayed there, but things could sure go that way if the crazies like Chuck get their way.
By NetBanker
August 21, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Why shouldn’t we, as a nation, focus on the negatives of war so that we know good and well the consequences of starting one? Are the Republicans really going to do that? Who else is going to continue to remind us (as we sit comfortably in our living rooms watching fake ‘reality’ TV and complaining about fuel prices [which our damn war caused to skyrocket in the first place]) that wars are terrible events with HUGE consequences, especially for the people living in the war zone? We SHOULD be ensuring awareness of the horrors of war is in everyone’s face so that we NEVER enter one lightly!! The citizens of this country have not really experienced what it’s like to be living in a war zone since the Civil War. Sure, we rationed and raised taxes and tightened our belts during the previous world wars to support our nation’s efforts, but we didn’t have to live through bombings, foreigners parading through our streets, loss of services, lack of food and medical supplies, picking your way through rubble to get any where, the constant threat of death raining down from the sky every night, the lack of security which makes it unsafe to go search for food or let your children go out to play. We treat this war like just another TV show that we’d prefer not to watch and certainly don’t want to hear about.
6,000 PEOPLE died last month in Iraq. That is just about twice the number who died 9/11 and it is happening month after month after month. Stop and think about that for a minute and let it sink in. 6,000 people is a small town disappearing every month!! Think about Stockbridge being gone this month. Sandy Springs in 2 months. Decatur reduced to rubble and everyone dead in 2-3 months. Roswell obliterated in 5 months. Douglasville non-existent in how many? This is the reality that Shaunti and the Republicans don’t want to us face and tell us that we’re focusing too much on the negatives. This is the group that is ever so concerned about what children watch on TV and protecting AMERICAN fetuses, but to focus on the kids in Iraq who can’t get to that shiny new school because militias and death squads roam the streets is negative, negative, negative.
Iraqis are paying the real price of OUR war and the currency for repayment is lives. How dare anyone who even remotely claims the Christian faith as their own discount that price!! How dare anyone suggest that we treat the lives of others (who didn’t ask to be thrown into this sh it hole war in the first place) so cavalierly with a better over there than here attitude! And that is EXACTLY the attitude displayed through the words and actions of our administration and many of its supporters. I don’t know the answer, but I’d be interested in knowing the ratio of insurgents/terrorists killed to civilians and especially children.
It would be shameful for us to just pull out of Iraq now, but are all you gung ho war supporters really able to look me in the eye and tell me honestly that we should ‘Stay the course?” That would be the course that deployed too few troops to secure the country (despite numerous objections by military leaders who had actual combat experience as opposed to Rummy and Cheney), that had no real post-war plan, that didn’t secure Iraq’s borders to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters, that has so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban has effectively taken over many areas of the country-side once again, that keeps extending the tours of National Guard troops leaving them unavailable to guard our own nation, that has attempted to reduce veterans benefits even as they accuse the other side of undermining troop morale, and keeps insisting that it is possible to fight a philosophy with bombs alone. You really think that course has been effective and doesn’t need some adjustments? The administration is like doctors treating symptoms of a disease while ignoring the cause of it. If you do not use more than a single approach (i.e. WAR in this case) then you will not win. If we do not address the reasons or conditions that fuel recruitment of new terrorists while fighting existing terrorists then we’ll never win!! I’m willing to support our President, but he needs bring something more to the table than ‘stay the course.’
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Reading this “discussion” today confirms several observations regarding liberals I have made over the past 26 years: (1)Liberals like to snipe from the sidelines, but truly have no credible ideas for a better future. (2) Liberals claim to champion human dignity, but ultimately are some of the most vitriolic, name-calling people on a personal level. Their rationalization for this rude behavior is that any opponent to their ideas must be evil and therefore does not deserve common courtesy. (3) Liberals claim to be the party of “diversity”, yet maliciously stereotype all conservatives, and show open contempt for black and gay Republicans. (4) Liberals like to fantasize that they are not only the moral superiors of conservatives, but that they are definitely the intellectual superiors to conservatives. Here, for example, Mara and definitely The72John apparently confuse using big words with true intelligence in light of their constant self-congratulations. True intelligence means not only the ability to gather facts, but also the ability to sort them out in order of importance. True intelligence means accepting the reality of human nature, and not living in some dream world in which we don’t have permanent opponents. True intelligence is realizing that no one has all the answers, so that it is worth hearing the other side out. (5) Liberals always think their motivations are strictly altruistic during their political rants, and will never believe they have selfish motivations. Finally, (6) There must be a lot of unemployed liberals based on the amount of time some of them spend making comments here instead of getting a job.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
That’s great, Bruno. Glad that you’ve confirmed that whenever presented with a topic that requires actual discussions, the average conservative invariably resorts to Strawman and Ad Hominum attacks on liberals, rather than discussing the actual issues.
Of course, maybe it’s just my lack of true intelligence and obsession with big words speaking.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Oh, Bruno - perhaps you could cite some examples of all the things you claim you’ve had confirmed for you? I’d love to see them.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Netbanker for President! ROTM Net!
By The72John
August 21, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Liberals claim to be the party of “diversity”, yet maliciously stereotype all conservatives, and show open contempt for black and gay Republicans
Geeze, I just can’t help myself…Renee, where are you…you’re Gay, Black, and IIRC at least occasionally Republican. I want to show some open contempt for you!
By The72John
August 21, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I just can’t lay off this guy’s post…
(2) Liberals claim to champion human dignity, but ultimately are some of the most vitriolic, name-calling people on a personal level. Their rationalization for this rude behavior is that any opponent to their ideas must be evil and therefore does not deserve common courtesy.
Hmm..talk radio, much? Or any of the other politically charged blogs here where the vitriol pours forth on a regular basis from conservatives?
Actually, generally the people I attack on a personal level are busy telling me that I not only don’t have a right to live in this country, I don’t have a right to exist as a human being. So, as far as I’m concerned, that don’t deserve common courtesy.
True intelligence means not only the ability to gather facts, but also the ability to sort them out in order of importance. True intelligence means accepting the reality of human nature, and not living in some dream world in which we don’t have permanent opponents. True intelligence is realizing that no one has all the answers, so that it is worth hearing the other side out.
True intelligence is the ability to synthesize complex and abstract ideas into something useful, but that’s neither here nor there. The part of this statement that I want to address is the “no one has all the answers” part, and the “worth hearing the other side out” part. I wonder, Bruno, how it is that you are unaware that the far right is the group that has devoted itself to drowning out the opinions of the left, and villifying them, much like you have in this post? Pot…I’d like to introduce you to the big fat kettle over here in the corner.
Liberals always think their motivations are strictly altruistic during their political rants, and will never believe they have selfish motivations
What are the selfish motivations? I could buy “enlightened self-interest” in some situations, but I’m deeply curious to know what possible selfish motivation might be hidden in your average war protester?
Liberals like to snipe from the sidelines, but truly have no credible ideas for a better future.
Hmm…seems like we offer up ideas all the time, but anything that doesn’t mesh with your limited and Limbaugh-determined simplistic ideology is dismissed as “no ideas”.
And yes, I do think that I am morally and intellectually superior to the average conservative in this country. Glad you caught that. I think that the average conservative in this country is a selfish, self-righteous bigot. Probably because they do things on a regular basis that is both self-righteous and bigoted…funny how that works.
However, since the average conservative is ALSO convinced that he or she is equally superior to me, I don’t really feel badly about it.
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
John, I would love to help you see all the examples of the unnecessary, hateful comments contained in this “discussion”, but I also learned years ago that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. So, I’m going to make it your homework assignment to review all of the ad hominem attacks contained in the comments made by you and your liberal friends today. I’m sure your intellectual honesty will motivate you to do that. I WILL give you credit for attempting to support your arguments with evidence MUCH more than anyone else here, including any of the conservative commentators. However, I believe a seasoned debater would dwarf you easily. You consistently demonstrate “errors of proportion”, by which you sidestep the true core issues, like Israel’s right to exist, and substitute instead large volumes of non-pertinent “facts”.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
You consistently demonstrate “errors of proportion”, by which you sidestep the true core issues, like Israel’s right to exist, and substitute instead large volumes of non-pertinent “facts”
Hmm. I will freely admit that I’ve never heard this term before, and there seems to be a reason for that. It doesn’t exist. I’ve looked at falacy resources, done a general web search, examined critical thinking resources…and nothing.
And…I’ve never suggested that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist…what are you talking about?
John, I would love to help you see all the examples of the unnecessary, hateful comments contained in this “discussion”, but I also learned years ago that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see
The irony here is overwhelming. It’s interesting to note that the typical conservative post on this topic has involved various snide references to liberals, socialists, comments about France, etc. and the average liberal/moderate post has simply been about the issue, yet you still honestly seem to believe that the liberals are doing the name-calling and the poor innocent conservatives are just misunderstood.
Perhaps you would seem more credible had you taken the gentleman who made the first post of the day to task for his various rants.
Now, you may be confusing various comments made to Chuck, for instance, with general discussion. You should understand that our relationship has long been one of mutual loathing and outright hatred. Sometimes on a blog personal dislike comes out.
I challenge you to read the Wooten blog and tell me that there aren’t as many Conservatives spewing forth bile and hatred as you claim are here before you generalize about “all liberals” again. Surely…YOUR intellectual honesty will compel you to do that, at least.
So, I’m going to make it your homework assignment to review all of the ad hominem attacks contained in the comments made by you and your liberal friends today. I’m sure your intellectual honesty will motivate you to do that
My, how pompous and pretentious we are…giving me homework, are we?
By Laf
August 21, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Setting government policy on scripture really shows how backward the people are who are running our government. We are just shooting ouselves in the foot by supporting Israel.We sit around wondering why everybody in the world hates us. Why are they flying planes into our buildings? If we would use a little common sense and leave religion out of the equation we would be much better off. The whole world would be much better off if the whole world left religion out of the equation. Look at world history. One long religious war. Religion is an individual choice. Don’t try to force it on an entire country.
By Chilao
August 21, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
and true intelligience obviouslty means sorting out the facts and only coming to the conclusion of a conservative since no other conclusion is the RightOne.
SNORT
okay, since I am weiging in, I was unaware that Democrats were only able to discuss the failures in Iraq. But I guess I get my information from too wide a range of sources to be able to come to that conclusion of “are Democrats too focused on the negatives of the Iraq (soon to be) bloody civil war”.
By Chilao
August 21, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
weighing?
By RIK
August 21, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
I believe that if a person makes an assertion, then the burden of proof falls to that person.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
John, I would love to help you see all the examples of the unnecessary, hateful comments contained in this “discussion”, but I also learned years ago that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Oh, meant to add this…
Translation - I can’t back up my argument so I’m going to make more vague references and hope people believe me.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
There is no way to reason with people who learned not to reason in the Sunday School room every Sunday.
By lozen
August 21, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
I don’t have to back up my argument. I have FAITH!
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
John, The reason I could easily defeat you in a debate, sporting event, poker, or any other competitive adventure (even life itself) is that I already know your weaknesses, and can easily push your hot buttons without even really trying. Look at your own responses for confirmation of that charge. Your biggest weaknesses is that you believe that you are WAY smarter than you really are. You don’t appear to even understand the true nature of opinions and debates. The conclusions we draw are a direct result of our assumptions, and nothing else. So, it is generally ineffective to argue about conclusions, but much more intelligent to examine the underlying assumptions. By thinking this way, I completely understand the fact that you have reached different conclusions about life from me and can accept that.
By kimberly
August 21, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Haha! You can go here to “vote” on whether women should be allowed to teach Sunday school.. Hahaha!
By NetBanker
August 21, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Thanks Lozen, but I’m not built for politics. I tire too easily of BS, I’ve inhaled and snorted, and I LIKE sex. I’m an actual human being with far too many foibles and character flaws to pass any type of squeeky clean political image that people seem to want today even though its only an illusion. And the BS that people focus on generally have nada to do with one’s ability to make decisions. For me the funny thing is that people seem to want policiticans who would resemble the Founding Fathers (they’re invoked enough), but don’t stop to think that most of them owned slaves, had mistresses, and were Deists rather than Christians. I’d better if they were running today under a different name they wouldn’t be considered electable.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Your biggest weaknesses is that you believe that you are WAY smarter than you really are
All objective measures suggest that I am as smart as I think I am, but hey - since YOU say it (you who to my knowledge has never weighed in on one argument ever, and whose credentials to cast judgement on the abilities of others have yet to be established) it must be true.
No, actually, my biggest weakness is that I am quick-tempered and easily offended. My reason is then clouded by my anger which makes it difficult to argue. As it happens, I find you more amusing than irritating, so I’ve not fallen prey to that flaw yet.
You don’t appear to even understand the true nature of opinions and debates. The conclusions we draw are a direct result of our assumptions, and nothing else.
No…you don’t appear to understand the context of a blog argument. We aren’t writing scholarly papers or having a structured debate.
As for our conclusions and assumptions, you are incorrect. Opinions should be more informed by our knowledge and by facts. Contrary to the the tenents of post-modernism, there are objective facts and not everything is up for interpretation.
So, it is generally ineffective to argue about conclusions, but much more intelligent to examine the underlying assumptions. By thinking this way, I completely understand the fact that you have reached different conclusions about life from me and can accept that.
I’m so glad that you’ve let us know how we should be arguing. We’ll be certain to change our ways because of your wisdom.
Let me guess - Graduate student? Convinced that you are now the font of all wisdom? Do, pray tell, let us know what qualifies you to judge others?
By The72John
August 21, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
fount of all wisdom, even. I have no idea what the font of all wisdom would be…Helvetica, maybe?
By Kevin
August 21, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
I will be the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers to solving the Iraq “conflict” or “quagmire” (depending on what side of the political spectrum you belong to). However, I do know that our current leaders (both liberals and conservatives) have the intellect necessary to come up with a reasonable plan to allow eventual troop withdrawal without weakening our fight against terrorism.
Unfortunately, BOTH sides are refusing to sit down, debate the issues at hand, and map out a strategy. Why not? I thought that was their job. Our elected officials need to leave the rhetoric to the bloggers like us, and get to work.
In 1787 a group of firebrands with greatly differing political agendas sat down to try and hammer out a new Constitution. A few hated one another so much that they later fought in duels (Hamilton-Burr). However, their political ideology and personal dislikes did not stop them from making the necessary compromises to birth this great nation of ours.
Our country will never have peace unless we listen to and implement SOME of the ideas of left-wing doves. Our country will never be safe from terrorism unless we listen to and implement SOME of the ideas of right-wing hawks. If our leaders are unwilling to work together, then WE THE PEOPLE need to elect new leadership on both sides of the aisle.
By Billy
August 21, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Bruno — You have brought nothing to the table today. You spout off about the “true nature of debates”, but this isn’t one. This is a political blog. Yes, we have debates on things, but we also personally attack each other when idiots like Chuck are involved.
You say in the same breath that (a) John supports his arguments more than anyone here and (b) any seasoned debater would have a field day with him. I can only interpret that to mean that no one here could hold his own in a debate. If you feel this way, then goodbye.
By The72John
August 21, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately, BOTH sides are refusing to sit down, debate the issues at hand, and map out a strategy. Why not? I thought that was their job. Our elected officials need to leave the rhetoric to the bloggers like us, and get to work.
Kevin, well said all the way around. My response to “why” (and it may be a perceptual thing) is that one side is intractable when it comes to compromise because of a basic ideology. The right is currently controlled by the neo-cons, who appear to be immovable on matters of national security. Any attempts by the other side of the aisle to negotiate, or compromise is dismissed by the far right, or out-right attacked as unpatriotic.
It is very difficult to compromise with those who have no desire to compromise, but instead seek absolute power.
By Kevin
August 21, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the response 72John. While I am a staunch conservative, I can certainly understand your perceptions of the current administration.
BTW, I meant to tell you last week that I am the product of two teachers as well. My mother is a retired English teacher, my father is a retired basketball coach, and my wife IS the chorus teacher in the student’s schedule (and yes, she did smack me when I let her read my post)!
By Bruno
August 21, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
John, Your guess about me being a grad student is as wrong as apparently the rest of your assumptions about life. FYI, I am a retired doctor who has seen a good bit. Although I have accumulated hundreds of extra college credits over the years, I personally don’t think degrees mean that much, especially in today’s world. Give me a man who can think on his feet and figure out what “errors of proportion” means without googling, and I’ll show you someone with some brains (Hint: think triage, John). If you want my true guess as to who is the smartest guy here, I would pick Kevin for his opinion posted at 4:37. His honesty about his true personal influence on the international scene is refreshing and “in proportion” to the reality of us sitting here typing on our computers. His stated desire for better leadership all around makes more sense than 10,000 of you Bush-bashers rolled into one.
By TramadoL90707
August 21, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.
By TramadoL33344
August 22, 2006 12:42 AM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL10795
August 22, 2006 02:51 AM | Link to this
I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.
By Mara
August 22, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this
“…Mara and definitely The72John apparently confuse using big words with true intelligence in light of their constant self-congratulations.”
HUH!? What’d I do? First post in a week and a half and POW!!, attacked by an unknown transient for, probably, either the Lucko blog or RedState.
Remember folks…big word usin’ probly means yer stoopid!
(i think it was the use of sychophantic and ubsequious in the same sentance that enraged him…finding that dictionary had to be a chore ;^P)
By chuck
August 22, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this
Since we talked yesterday about the democrats plan for Iraq (also known as BLAME BUSH) I thought it would be good to talk about their plan for the war on terror. I was amazed at the depth of this far reaching plan to thwart terrorists world wide. Read it for your self:
War on Terror To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:
Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
I sure am glad to know that with the democrats in charge we will all of a sudden be able to find Bin Laden. If they know where he is why don’t they send one of Clinton’s assasins in to kill him. I’m sure Hilary knows somebody in Arkansas who could take him out.
Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure. Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international eff orts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.
Hey, that’s great. Welfare for terrorists. What a great plan.
Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”
Where is all of this “loose” nuclear material. If it’s loose, I’m sure Bill will know where to find it.
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
What a deal. With Democrats we get double the effort with half the results. Doesn’t this in-depth REALISTIC plan inspire AWE for the future?
By Mara
August 22, 2006 08:01 AM | Link to this
And what’s with the conservatives penchant for vilifying literacy and intellect? What’s so bad about being smart, knowing you are smart, and not being ashamed of it? Why should I feel defensive about blogging the way I talk? Which is worse, using large words when that’s the way you usually talk, or assuming that you have to “dumb it down” for those who aren’t as “smart” as you?
Anyway, off to class for the day. Tootles all.
By Renee
August 22, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
I see I missed a lot yesterday.
On another note, did anyone besides me watch the Spike Lee documentary??
By Amelia
August 22, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
By Mara
August 22, 2006 08:01 AM And what’s with the conservatives penchant for vilifying literacy and intellect?
That’s an easy one Mara. The republican base has become the Budweiser drinkin, Skoal dippin, dirty T-shirt wearin, rasslin watchin, rebel flag wavin, kill em all let God sort em out crowd. You know Mara. That right wing bunch.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Hey, that’s great. Welfare for terrorists. What a great plan.
The minds of conservatives never cease to amaze me. What is so hard to understand about eliminating the cause of a problem rather than treating the symptom? When you are ill, your doctor doesn’t just medicate your symptoms, he goes for the root cause of the issue.
The bully-boys of the far right can’t comprehend the idea that our current strategy is not only aimed at the symptoms alone, but aggravates the cause. That’s why global terrorism is on the rise and not the decline. That’s why the numbers of new recruits by organizations such as Al-qaeda continue to increase. Because we aren’t dealing with the issue, we’re just trying to cauterize whatever wound we happen to find, we are failing utterly to combat the actual problem.
Unfortunately, there will always be limited people unable to comprehend anything but bombs exploding and casualty numbers.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Mara - Heh, can you dumb that down a little more, I kinda got lost.
By Amelia
August 22, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
What a sea change when a group that used to be called “southern democrats” are now the the right wing republican base.
By chuck
August 22, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
72john, If it is POVERTY that is fueling the rise in terrorism, tell me pray tell why most of the terrorists come from oil rich Saudi Arabia? Why should I work my butt off every day to support people in another country? If the Saudi’s…devout Muslims that they are…were really concerned about other Muslims, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to send aid to those countries rather than investing those dollars in paying families of suicide bombers and buying that 5th Rolls Royce?
By 2D
August 22, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Mara… There isn’t anything wrong with being smart or knowing you’re smart. There also isn’t anything wrong with using big words when you BLOG. However…
After working in the consulting world for ten years I learned the phrase ‘Perception is nine-tenths of reality.’
Many people may perceive that using your extensive vocabulary to portray thought, when more simpler language would suffice, is simply a way to portray yourself as superior. I ran into the same situation dealing with my parents.
As the only individual who has gone to college in my immediate family, I think/speak/act different than the rest of my family. For a very long time, and I think to certain extent even today, they perceive that I am merely trying to show my superiority. I know it isn’t the case, but that is their perception.
John… I very much like your terrorist analagy of treating not just the symptom, but also the illness or problem. However, I wonder if you could tell us the problem that needs to be fixed???
Extensive use of force does not win us any points, but how would you deal with those individuals that simply cannot be negotiated with? Or do you believe that everyone can be negotiated with? Personally, I do not, and therein lies the rub. How can we eliminate or isolate those folks without infuriating the masses of others?
By lozen
August 22, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Well, saying they’re going to eliminate Bin Laden is better than ignoring him and cutting back groups working on finding him IMO! I don’t think the Bush bunch want to find him - probably made some deal with his family over the oil that has been the connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family for years.
By chuck
August 22, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
2D, good question. The fact is that Al Qaeda has declared a Fatwah or “holy war” and as its center is the death of ALL non-Muslims. 72john, I think you should volunteer to go over to Indonesia and render aid to those Muslims. Make sure that you tell them that you are an American and that you are there to help. Also make sure you tell them that you are a homo sapien. I am sure that they will be convinced at that point to lay down their arms and embrace their American helper.
Bruno was exactly right. Liberals live in a fantasy world where we just make everybody feel good about themselves and they will then do the right thing. Let’s all take a self-affirming deep breath and then pat each other on the back and tell each other how good we are. Then let’s bust out into a chorus of “We Are The World”. I want the Springsteen solo.
Here is the bottom line. If the underlying reason for terrorism was poverty, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to overthrow their despotic governments that are hogging all of the resources for themselves? How in the world can they LOGICALLY blame THEIR poverty on AMERICA?
By lozen
August 22, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
*”Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international eff orts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.”
(Chuck says) Hey, that’s great. Welfare for terrorists. What a great plan.* Like everybody over there is driving a Rolls and not just the wealthy! Yeah, right and everybody here drives a Rolls too! I will never understand the mind of the conservative either 72John.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
There will be peace in the Middle East when the Holy Land and the surrounding areas are vaporized. Be patient, the bad guys are working on it. The folks in urban areas should prepare for the worse.
By lozen
August 22, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Conservatives live in a fantasy world where we just blow everybody up and that will lead to peace on earth and the right thing! Let’s all take a self-affirming deep breath and then pat each other on the back and tell each other how many bombs we have and how we can whoop a* better than they can.
If anybody on here can understand religious zealotry and how the minds of religious totalitarianism works, it would be Chuck.
By Billy
August 22, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Where is all of this “loose” nuclear material. If it’s loose, I’m sure Bill will know where to find it.
Left-wing versions of this statement:
Bush can find it, too. We just have to convince all who have the nukes to dump a barrel of crude on each one. Then Bush’s raging hard-on for oil will act like a divining rod and point us straight to the loose nukes.
Dress all the nukes up like quail. Then whatever Cheney doesn’t hit is a nuke.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
72john, If it is POVERTY that is fueling the rise in terrorism, tell me pray tell why most of the terrorists come from oil rich Saudi Arabia? Why should I work my butt off every day to support people in another country? If the Saudi’s…devout Muslims that they are…were really concerned about other Muslims, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to send aid to those countries rather than investing those dollars in paying families of suicide bombers and buying that 5th Rolls Royce?
Where is your evidence that most of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia? Because most of the 9/11 terrorists were from that nation does not mean that most terrorists in general are. On top of that, just because someone comes from a wealthy nation does not make one wealthy. The US has enormous wealth, but there are certainly poor people living here.
Why is it that conservatives react so strongly to spending money to help people but seem to have no problem incinerating people for even greater costs? And why do they automatically assume that working to aleviate poverty and increase stability involves welfare? What about creating trade agreements, or providing loans to developing nations? Why is it that, for them, change is only achieved at gunpoint?
Extensive use of force does not win us any points, but how would you deal with those individuals that simply cannot be negotiated with? Or do you believe that everyone can be negotiated with? Personally, I do not, and therein lies the rub. How can we eliminate or isolate those folks without infuriating the masses of others?
Of course not everyone can be negotiated with. But if we deal with the causes of terrorism and the things that contribute to the overall rise in extremism, we make it easier to deal with the truly intractable. We decrease the ability of the organizations to recruit by changing the conditions that are instrumental in swaying many (notice I don’t say all) young people to their cause.
Meanwhile, we build up military and intelligence forces meant to deal specifically with terrorists, rather than relying on old-school ground offensive tactics. Terrorists don’t mass in large groups - why do we need conventional units when smaller, more agile groups would be far more effective?
By Billy
August 22, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
How can we eliminate or isolate those folks without infuriating the masses of others?
Eliminate those folks. But just those folks.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
Bruno was exactly right. Liberals live in a fantasy world where we just make everybody feel good about themselves and they will then do the right thing. Let’s all take a self-affirming deep breath and then pat each other on the back and tell each other how good we are. Then let’s bust out into a chorus of “We Are The World”. I want the Springsteen solo.
Do you ever do anything BUT use the Strawman tactic, Chuck?
Here is the bottom line. If the underlying reason for terrorism was poverty, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to overthrow their despotic governments that are hogging all of the resources for themselves? How in the world can they LOGICALLY blame THEIR poverty on AMERICA?
Possibly for the same reason that you LOGICALLY believe that the Bible is literal truth and that there were dinosaurs on the ark. Religious fanaticism.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
“wouldn’t it make more sense for them to overthrow their despotic governments that are hogging all of the resources for themselves? “
The Mexican people should do this as well as the Cubans but unfortunately, he who controls the military controls the people.
By lozen
August 22, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Billy, that 9:42 was FUNNY!
By Billy
August 22, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
I do what I can, Lozen.
By Shakyamuni
August 22, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
The fool who knows he is a fool is for that very reason wise. The fool who thinks himself wise is the greatest fool of all. -Shakyamuni
By Jack
August 22, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
How can we eliminate or isolate those folks without infuriating the masses of others?
Yeah. We can hold a big dinner and only invite terrorists. We can poison their desert. Problem solved.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
I want to respond to this a second time, because I neglected to address it properly the first.
Again, this is a (most likely deliberate) misconstruing of the idea. It’s not that anyone blames their poverty on the United States, it’s that poverty and its accompanying lack of opportunity makes people far more susceptible to the easy answers and seductive rhetoric of religious fanatics.
It’s really not a hard concept.
By chuck
August 22, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
72john, you said:
Meanwhile, we build up military and intelligence forces meant to deal specifically with terrorists, rather than relying on old-school ground offensive tactics. Terrorists don’t mass in large groups - why do we need conventional units when smaller, more agile groups would be far more effective?
We don’t need democrats to do that. That was a major objective of the Bush Administration from the day he came into office. The link below will take you to a speech by Rumsfeld in January 2002 that describes the process for doing just that. What else you got?
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020131-secdef.html
So if you are admitting that they don’t think logically…tell me how we can negotiate with them or render any aid that would change their “religious fanaticism”.
As for Saudi Arabia and Terrorism this is an excerpt of an article that cites an Egyptian News Magazine:
Yet over time it became clearer how Saudi Arabia could have provided the ideological backdrop that spawned al-Qaeda’s attack on the United States. In a series of articles appearing in the Egyptian weekly, Ruz al-Yousef (the Newsweek of Egypt), this past May, Wael al-Abrashi, the magazine’s deputy editor, attempted to grapple with this issue. He drew a direct link between the rise of much of contemporary terrorism and Saudi Arabia’s main Islamic creed, Wahhabism, and the financial involvement of Saudi Arabia’s large charitable organizations:
Wahhabism leads, as we have seen, to the birth of extremist, closed, and fanatical streams, that accuse others of heresy, abolish them, and destroy them. The extremist religious groups have moved from the stage of Takfir [condemning other Muslims as unbelievers] to the stage of “annihilation and destruction,” in accordance with the strategy of Al-Qa’ida - which Saudi authorities must admit is a local Saudi organization that drew other organizations into it, and not the other way around. All the organizations emerged from under the robe of Wahhabism.
I can state with certainly that after a very careful reading of all the documents and texts of the official investigations linked to all acts of terror that have taken place in Egypt, from the assassination of the late president Anwar Sadat in October 1981, up to the Luxor massacre in 1997, Saudi Arabia was the main station through which most of the Egyptian extremists passed, and emerged bearing with them terrorist thought regarding Takfir - thought that they drew from the sheikhs of Wahhabism. They also bore with them funds they received from the Saudi charities.2
Thus, while some Western commentators have sought to explain the roots of al-Qaeda’s fury at the U.S. by focusing on the history of American policy in the Middle East or other external factors, a growing number of Middle Eastern analysts have concentrated instead on internal Saudi factors, including recent militant trends among Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi clerics and the role of large Saudi global charities in terrorist financing. This requires a careful look at how Saudi Arabia contributed to the ideological roots of some of the new wave of international terrorism as well as how the kingdom emerged as a critical factor in providing the resources needed by many terrorist groups.
You can find the entire article here:
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm
Understand that this is not a completely objective source, but I think the information is solid.
By Billy
August 22, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
This is great. A conservative calling out Saudi Arabia as a terrorist breeder when they all turned deaf ears to that exact claim in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
By 2D
August 22, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Billy… How do you eliminate only the “bad” guys when they purposely blend with the innocent bystander or even sacrifice the innocent bytander for their own advantage???
John… I think the question about poverty and blame is more focused on the idea of why should the United States pull these people out of poverty when the unelected rulers of their own countries have tremendous funds and could do so without the aid of the United States???
BTW, you mentioned that if “we deal with the causes of terrorism and the things that contribute to the overall rise in extremism, we make it easier to deal with the truly intractable.” OK master of the obvious, now do some real thinking.
What are the causes of terrorism??? and how do we deal with them??? Without answers to those questions, your theory is nothing more than theoretical platitudes. Those are the topics we should be discussing, not the progress of what is going on now, b/c we know current policy isn’t working.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
We don’t need democrats to do that. That was a major objective of the Bush Administration from the day he came into office. The link below will take you to a speech by Rumsfeld in January 2002 that describes the process for doing just that. What else you got?
Umm…this is exactly what you earlier today made fun of the Democrats for suggesting.
So if you are admitting that they don’t think logically…tell me how we can negotiate with them or render any aid that would change their “religious fanaticism”.
Gosh, maybe if fewer and fewer people suffer from the conditions that make it easier to become influenced by religious fanatics, they would have fewer and fewer new recruits, huh? Gee, that seems to make sense to me.
I suppose it’s not rigid enough for you, though. Too much thought and planning required.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
“Billy… How do you eliminate only the “bad” guys when they purposely blend with the innocent bystander or even sacrifice the innocent bytander for their own advantage???”
Only invite the terrorists to our special dinner.
By candide
August 22, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
We obviously have a lunatic in the White House. He needs a psych ward in an undisclosed location.
By Brian Curtis
August 22, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
The questions of whether the Democrats are harping too much on the bad aspects of the Iraq mess is an odd one.
It’s sort of like suggesting, “You’re only seeing the BAD side of Hurricane Katrina. After all, it DID get a lot of people out of the house and exercising….”
Folks, it’s a catastrophe that has only made terrorism worse and decreased our own national security. There IS no “good side” report, unless your only concern is Halliburton stock prices.
As to whether the Democrats should discuss issues OTHER than the Iraq disaster… yes, of course they should. We need positive messages and plans on other issues in addition to pointing out the obvious, and humiliating, failure that Iraq has become for the neocons. But that doesn’t mean we should let the Republican leadership off the hook for their crimes in the process.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
They hate us because they envy us.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
They hate us because they envy us.
Sorry Jack - no go. This is the easy, pat answer that W and his cowboy cronies would like everyone to believe. But it just doesn’t fly. Neither does “They hate us because they hate our freedoms”.
I don’t begin to understand all the causes of fanaticism and the use of terrorism as a tactic by some groups. I DO know that it is far more complex than the pat answers that the Bush administration hands out to a credulous and frightened population.
I also know that for every US bomb that kills a middle eastern civilian, a new terrorist, or ten new terrorists, or a hundred new terrorists, is born. I do know that the Scorched Earth mentality that infects so many people in this country has been and will be not effective in combating this threat, and has been and will be conducive to the creation of MORE terrorists.
We will have to help create a sea change in the region in order to undercut whatever message the extremists are putting out, and the best way to do so is to INVEST in those nations. Not handouts. Not welfare. Investment.
Money almost always trumps…everything.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
They hate us because they envy us.
LOL - Isn’t that a quote from our fearless leader?
Actually I think they hate us because we refuse to convert to their OnlyWeAre_Right religion(gee, more of them). Been reading the Jill Carroll story at CSM?
By chuck
August 22, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Here is one of the most thoughtful pieces that I have read on why there is terrorism. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING except the fact that we are NOT MUSLIMS.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29966
Submitted by Joseph P “Dutch” Bialke, BSCJS, MA, JD, LLM, Dec 14, 2005 at 16:19
As I wrote in the fall 2004:
Al-Qaeda does not fight for a state or for any acceptable pursuit of self-determination, but rather for an ideology contrary to the principled and humanistic theology, tenets, and traditions of Islam. Al-Qaeda’s dogma and raison d’etre, its “reason for existence,” as a self-anointed “Army of Allah against all Jews and Crusaders” edify al-Qaeda operatives to murder non-Muslims to further al-Qaeda’s militant global objectives and apparently, albeit secondarily, as a means to enter heaven. For instance, Usama Muhammad bin Awad Laden, al-Qaeda’s titular Emir (prince or first-in-command), ordered a fatwa (an Islamic religious dictate) that it is the holy duty of all Muslims to kill all Americans and all their allies, military and civilian, wherever they can be found, especially Zionist Jews.
“Al-Qaeda” literally translates to “The Base.” Essentially, al-Qaeda is the inspiration and rallying point for most forms of militant Islamist terrorism. Al-Qaeda is an amorphous organization of global reach, composed of members from numerous nationalities, engaging in the intentional murders of protected noncombatants to achieve al-Qaeda’s long-term hegemonic Islamist theocratic-political objectives. As far as can be determined, al-Qaeda demands that the state of Israel must be eliminated and replaced in its entirety by Palestine, that all “non-Muslim” countries must cease to exist, and all of their infidel, nonbeliever citizens be converted to Islam, that geographical borders separating Muslim countries be erased, and that all democratic governments in Muslim countries be replaced by a unified Islamist government similar to a Talibanesque theocracy.
Put another way, al-Qaeda and similar stateless aligned Islamist groups seek apparently to recreate the world and transform it into a borderless unified Islamic totalitarian nation, an ummah, under the law of the shari’ah (the canonical laws of Islam). Al-Qaeda views any government that does not fully implement shari’ah Islamic law as jahiliyya, paganism in the form of people governing and controlling people (rather than the people being governed by Islamist clerics who professedly follow the dictates of Allah). Al-Qaeda has shown that it is ready and willing to use all means necessary through jihad, an Islamic holy war, to achieve its stated theocratic-political Islamist vision. In addition, al-Qaeda views its ongoing jihad waged against all they view as infidels as an unwavering spiritual duty. Al-Qaeda followers view individual death in their self-declared jihad as shahada, glorious martyrdom. Al-Qaeda Islamists supposedly claim that such martyrdom in this jihad gains the deceased “martyred” al-Qaeda member, the shahid, immediate entry into heaven, with added status and avails. In reality, however, al-Qaeda’s war is an unholy hirabah, an illegal furtive war of indiscriminate terrorism.
Al-Qaeda misrepresents the Muslim faith to justify its acts of terrorism, to incite its cohorts, and to further its intolerant expansionist Islamist theocratic-political goals. That al-Qaeda militants choose unilaterally to do so does not make this an armed conflict directed against Islam or its adherents. To the contrary, the majority of Muslim countries throughout the world have allied themselves with the U.S. in this ongoing conflict. It must be said however, because acts of terrorism are always antithetical to the tenets of any legitimate theology, Islam is unfortunately slandered because al-Qaeda exploits it as an impetus for al-Qaeda acts of terrorism. Moreover, when the leaders and believers of Islam do not strongly and universally condemn such exploitation by al-Qaeda, such lack of condemnation has the operative relative effects of the further tainting of Islam as well as the maligning of Islam followers.
For these reasons, all links between this armed conflict and Islam, and any related disparagement of Islam, result solely from the actions and statements of al-Qaeda, as well as from the overt and tacit supporters of al-Qaeda. The U.S. and its allies do not illegitimately make such links, nor do the U.S. and its allies disparage Islam. Simply put, the U.S. and its allies do not engage in armed conflict against religions or followers of religions. Despite al-Qaeda’s calculated stratagem to professedly commit its acts of terrorism in the name, defense, and furtherance of the Islamic faith, the global armed conflict of the U.S. and the civilized world against al-Qaeda is not, and has never been, a conflict against Muslims or Islam. It is an armed conflict in collective self-defense directed against al-Qaeda hostes humani generis and any rogue state supporters of al-Qaeda as perpetrators of global terrorism. International terrorists are the military targets, not Muslims or Islam.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Anyone else surprised that Chuck would accept this rather simplistic explanation for a complex problem? After all, as a hate-filled, theocracy-desiring religious fanatic himself, it’s easy for him to relate to these people.
What’s sad, other than Chuck in general, is that he yet again fails to understand that we all realize that terrorist organizations like Al-qaeda use religious fanaticism as the driving force for their soldiers and to convince them to committ the acts of terror.
The issue isn’t why do the people who are terrorists do the things they do, it’s why do they become terrorists in the first place, and what can be done to make this ideology less appealing? I think few people disagree that once someone has given himself entirely to this philosophy, it’s very difficult to change them. So, what can be done to STOP NEW TERRORISTS from being created?
By candide
August 22, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Why do they hate us? Our freedoms? Nonsense. Envy, no. The Muslim fanatics hate us for the same reason Christians and Jews used to hate one another and hate Muslims: biblical-style fanaticism. Thinking one is the tool of God for the suppression of error, a believer is bound to kill non-believers.
The solution is to ban all these religions.
Let’s start by strangling all Baptists in entrails of all Mluslims in this country. It’s a start.
Europe should never have allowed Muslims into their countries. Nor should we.
We will pay the price.
By Lane Randall
August 22, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Ms. Feldhahn lauds Sen. Lieberman for voting with the Republicans so often because he “…works across party lines to get things done”.
Well, how many Republican senators have voted with the Democrats as often and, of the very few who occasionally have voted with them once or twice, how often has she lauded THEM for “working across party lines to get things done”?
As for the war, I don’t know what returning soldiers she has spoken to, but my boy—who is being forced to serve his second tour in Mr. Bush’s Disaster—tells me a very different story! According to him and his buddies, the place is a relentless hellhole, and whatever chance we might have once had to bring something positive out of this mess has long since been squandered and has entirely vanished!
He and his fellows are just walking targets in someone else’s civil war now. Putting them in Iraq is the equivalent of placing a small child between two fighting bull mastiffs and telling him to make them stop it!
As another returning soldier put it, “Why can’t the president just admit for once that he made a mistake?”
And how many MORE must die or have their lives ruined because he can’t, or won’t?
Perhaps if more than one or two of our “leaders” in Washington had their own loved ones in this insanity, or if all Americans—including Iraq War/Bush “supporters”—were subject to a draft, we as a people might think twice about sending our troops into stupid missions like Iraq (or about relying on the administration or it’s media outlets like the official Bush Spokeschannel, FOX “News”, for our information!)
By Lane
August 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Ms. Feldhahn lauds Sen. Lieberman for voting with the Republicans so often because he “…works across party lines to get things done”.
Well, how many Republican senators have voted with the Democrats as often and, of the very few who occasionally have voted with them once or twice, how often has she lauded THEM for “working across party lines to get things done”?
As for the war, I don’t know what returning soldiers she has spoken to, but my boy—who is being forced to serve his second tour in Mr. Bush’s Disaster—tells me a very different story! According to him and his buddies, the place is a relentless hellhole, and whatever chance we might have once had to bring something positive out of this mess has long since been squandered and has entirely vanished!
He and his fellows are just walking targets in someone else’s civil war now. Putting them in Iraq is the equivalent of placing a small child between two fighting bull mastiffs and telling him to make them stop it!
As another returning soldier put it, “Why can’t the president just admit for once that he made a mistake?”
And how many MORE must die or have their lives ruined because he can’t, or won’t?
Perhaps if more than one or two of our “leaders” in Washington had their own loved ones in this insanity, or if all Americans—including Iraq War/Bush “supporters”—were subject to a draft, we as a people might think twice about sending our troops into stupid missions like Iraq (or about relying on the administration or it’s media outlets like the official Bush Spokeschannel, FOX “News”, for our information!)
By chuck
August 22, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
72john, do you deny the veracity of the following statement from the article above?
Put another way, al-Qaeda and similar stateless aligned Islamist groups seek apparently to recreate the world and transform it into a borderless unified Islamic totalitarian nation, an ummah, under the law of the shari’ah (the canonical laws of Islam). Al-Qaeda views any government that does not fully implement shari’ah Islamic law as jahiliyya, paganism in the form of people governing and controlling people (rather than the people being governed by Islamist clerics who professedly follow the dictates of Allah). Al-Qaeda has shown that it is ready and willing to use all means necessary through jihad, an Islamic holy war, to achieve its stated theocratic-political Islamist vision. In addition, al-Qaeda views its ongoing jihad waged against all they view as infidels as an unwavering spiritual duty.
By chuck
August 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Assuming the statement from the article is true, the only condition that can be changed to prevent terrorism is to convert them to Christianity OR wipe them out. They aren’t going to stop on their own. Sending care packages won’t do it. Pulling out of Iraq won’t do it. Dropping our alliance with Israel won’t do it.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
As another returning soldier put it, “Why can’t the president just admit for once that he made a mistake?”
Our president does not make mistakes, he has made that very clear from day one, he does not make mistakes.
everyone ELSE is human and makes mistakes and MOST can admit that they made a mistake. but: Our president does not make mistakes, he has made that very clear from day one, he does not make mistakes.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Yes John. A zealot is a zealot and they come in a variety of flavors. We have our fundies who like to murder abortion doctors in the name of God. Over there you have those who want everyone who doesn’t believe as they to be killed. They are envious of our freedoms. They cannot let their people be as free as us because a free people would be hesitant to blow themselves up in the name of God. You know the grass is always greener.
By Billy
August 22, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Chuck, that’s nothing different than what the Catholic Curch did for centuries, except that the church had state support pretty much everywhere it was involved. Should we have eradicated the Catholic Church?
By Billy
August 22, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Had we the power to do so, I mean?
By Amelia
August 22, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
How can W be wrong! God tells him what to do.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Ofcourse our president doesn’t make mistakes. The people who advise him make the mistakes. Poop runs downhill. if you happen to be on top, no poop on you. (poop Nazi)
By Billy
August 22, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Assuming the statement from the article is true, the only condition that can be changed to prevent terrorism is to convert them to Christianity OR wipe them out.
What about Bhuddism? Hinduism? Rastafarianism? Wicca? You do realize what you just said basically boils down to “We have to kill them if they won’t convert to my religion and live my lifestyle,” which is exactly the way they think. According to your own source, might I add.
By kimberly
August 22, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Some thoughtful perspective from a man named Perkel:
Even though cultures and religions have been at war for thousands of years the problem of war can be solved. In order to have a war there has to be an agreement to go to war. This agreement comes from a Vocabulary of War.
In the Middle East Muslims and Jews kill each other, but in San Francisco Muslims and Jews march together to protest for peace. The reason San Francisco is different than the Middle East is that San Francisco uses the Vocabulary of Peace and the Middle East uses the Vocabulary of War.
We respect each other here. In San Francisco “we” are all “us”, fellow members of the human community. Over there “they” are “terrorists” or “Infidels” and “they” deserve to die.
The Vocabulary of Peace humanizes people. The Vocabulary of War dehumanizes them. The difference is in the vocabulary and I think that if we change the vocabulary we can change the world. It’s harder to kill people when you see them as individuals. And they have a harder time hating you when you are being respectful and considerate.
Marc Perkel San Francisco, CA.
By jpetz
August 22, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
GOP In Power Long Enough
Its time for a change in Congress. Any party in power too long gets too comfortable and starts committing ethical violations or worse, breaking the law. The GOP has created the appearance of a “culture of corruption” by getting too comfortable with the likes of Jack Abramhoff.
The Democrats will take over the House this fall and will try and hold Bush in check for the first time in his administration. Of course, he’ll continue to ignore Congress, no matter who is in charge. I do not want the Democratic party to waste one iota of tim looking at impeachment proceedings. What I want them to do is spend every ounce of energy figuring how to resolve the mess in Iraq. Its quite likely Iraq will remain a mess until Bush leaves office, at which time the next president will try and listen to others advice on how to get out of there with our heads held high. This will never happen while BUsh is in office - the man is too simple-mindedly stubborn to change for the better. As far as I’m concerned, hhis legacy is a disaster anyway but he doesn’t seem to care so let the historians have a field day with him.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Assuming the statement from the article is true, the only condition that can be changed to prevent terrorism is to convert them to Christianity OR wipe them out.
I’m sure to a zealot such as yourself, that would be the answer. You are, after all, the US answer to Al-qaeda…the Christian fanatic bent on converting the world to YOUR brand of extremism.
However, I believe you will note if you re-read what I previously posted that the focus should be trying to prevent more foot soldiers from joining the fray. That way we start fighting a war of attrition, rather than the current method which serves only to drive more and more people to extremism.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
You do realize what you just said basically boils down to “We have to kill them if they won’t convert to my religion and live my lifestyle,” which is exactly the way they think. According to your own source, might I add
Of course he doesn’t realize it. He would have to admit that he is as bad as they are if he did.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck was being 1/2 facetious with his “convert to Christianity” comment, thinking like a jihadist.
now the other 1/2……LOL
By The72John
August 22, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Chuck was being 1/2 facetious with his “convert to Christianity” comment, thinking like a jihadist
Somehow, I doubt it.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Nice post Sweet. All should listen and heed his words. The world would be a better place.
By Randy
August 22, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
On the subject of who will stand up to the Muslims when they come to attack us. Well us Christians have a liability, that being all the liberal media and self-centered people who aren’t realistic(Hollywood) and think that we don’t need to fight terrorism(get out of Iraq)and the Muslims will just go away. The problem is men in particular need a purpose to feel important(little boys will form clubs and men do the same thing)on a larger scale. Most muslims would be peaceful people however, their leaders want to increase their influence and therefore need a common enemy. Just like Hitler did, we Christians would try to stand up for freedom, but we must battle people here first(people who want to play God instead of following God’s commandments), then we might get to stand up for freedom. The Muslims don’t have that problem, there you are a Muslim or you die, I don’t agree with that, but that makes them more unified. I think what we need to do here in the great USA is say these people(Muslims)don’t have much to loose(look at how they live)and we need to support our President and say that even if we left Iraq the problem with terrorism is not going away. We don’t always agree on everything but freedom of choice(which is what God wants)is something we all will stand up for and fight.
By kimberly
August 22, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jack. In an ideal world…
The impediment seems to be that those who advocate respecting ALL humans, regardless of our differences, and working for peace, are portrayed as “godless liberal heathen scum” by the loudest, most vocal among us, and politicians with the money to buy the most misleading TV advertisements. Somehow saying “listen and try to understand each other” translates to some ears as an attempt to shove someone’s godless, heathen ways down another’s throat. Not true, but try ‘splaining that to the Chuckie brigade. They’re not listening. Never will.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
We’re so sorry…Uncle Albert. But we haven’t done a bloody thing all day.
By Randy
August 22, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Talking about converting to Christianity. I know how other Christians feel, basicially, we have had this great conversion and we, out of love, just want everybody else to have this great sense of peace and knowledge of where they will spend eternity. However, this cannot be forced on others, it must be accepted by them of their own free will. This is what Jesus wants. It’s like, there is this beautiful girl that you love and think the world of and you want to marry her, you have the power to make her marry you, however, you don’t really want her unless she loves you. Same thing, that’s the way God set up in this life, he loves each and every one of us, but he doesn’t want us, unless we want him.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Randy’s drinking again…
By 2D
August 22, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Candide… Fabulous solution to our problem!!! You would end up with a country where only 99% is eliminated and the remaining 1% wouldn’t be able to survive since you’ve killed off all of the people who do the real work in this country.
By Mara
August 22, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Just like Hitler did, we Christians would try to stand up for freedom, but we must battle people here first(people who want to play God instead of following God’s commandments), then we might get to stand up for freedom.
Christians are like Hitler?! At last, acknowlegement…LOL!
I note that Randys idea of “freedom” includes requiring people to follow his God and his gods rules. That’s freedom? I think not.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Candide… Fabulous solution to our problem!!! You would end up with a country where only 99% is eliminated and the remaining 1% wouldn’t be able to survive since you’ve killed off all of the people who do the real work in this country.
Um…you aren’t suggesting that one’s religious affiliation has any correlation whatsoever to how hard they work or what they contribute to society, are you?
Because that’s just…stupid.
By TramadoL98149
August 22, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
By 2D
August 22, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Randy’s an idiot…
By Hey Jack
August 22, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack,
What Wings album is that? I’ve been trying to find that song on Limewire and I can’t remember the name of the album it was on..or the actual song name for that matter…
(Sorry to interrupt everyone…)
By 2D
August 22, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
I think what Randy fails to comprehend is that God gave us free will to make our own decisions, even bad ones.
That is real freedom, having the ability to make decisions for ourselves.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
so Hitler was standing up for freedom?
Gives new meaning to the term revisionist history, that’s for sure…LOL
By lozen
August 22, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
We don’t always agree on everything but freedom of choice(which is what God wants)is something we all will stand up for and fight. Randy, pobrecita, you really don’t even know that Muslims worship the same god of Abraham that you worship do you? They believe in Jesus, they believe in God. There’s good and bad in all religions. If what Yahweh wants is freedom of choice, why is he going to throw anyone who doesn’t believe in him into eternal fire? Geez… Why do I waste my breath?
By chuck
August 22, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
UHHHH, Billy, again, you fail to make the connection (along with 72john). When someone has declared war on you and on ALL non-Muslims and they have declared that they WILL KILL YOU IF THEY CAN or die trying, you have 2 options. Change their minds/hearts or kill them first. I would love to see them converted to Christianity, but I don’t think that’s going to happen any more than I would ever convert to Islam. If they all of a sudden come to their senses and decide we aren’t such bad folks after all that’s great. Until then we should track them down wherever they are and take them out. So then the question arises, “What about all of the “innocent” people who get in the way?”
I don’t have a perfect answer for that, but I think in part, they have themselves to blame. If right thinking Muslims would take care of this problem themselves, we wouldn’t have to do it. The analogy (though again not perfect) is, if I have a known murderer living in my neighborhood who is wanted by the police, I shouldn’t be surprised if the police come looking for him and a gunfight ensues. If I know he is there, I have an obligation to turn him in to authorities and get my family and others out of harm’s way. You can’t tell me for instance that the Lebanese apartment dwellers didn’t notice the missile launchers in the parking garage.
The other point Billy is that Bhuddists and Rastafarians, and most Muslims for that matter,are not trying to kill me and my family and my fellow Americans. If they choose to live a life that denies Christ, it’ll make me sad of course, but I have no intention of trying to force them to live by my Faith. That is a personal decision between man and God and God is the only arbiter. On the other hand Al Qaeda IS trying to kill us. We should make sure that they can’t.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
RAM, PaulMcCartney’s first solo.
I look high, I look low, I look everywhere I go, looking for a home in the heart of the country now.
By lozen
August 22, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
If we all chip in a little cash maybe we could get Randy to go “back to college ;-)” and take an Intro to Logic and an Intro to World Religions. How ‘bout it? We might make the world a better place!
By Lane
August 22, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
HEY JACK!
McCartney’s second album (before he formed “Wings”, I think), entitled “Ram” (1971).
And the songtitle is “Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey”
By Jack
August 22, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
That would be. Uncle Albert-Admiral Halsey on “Too Many People” 1971
By chuck
August 22, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I usually just ignore you because you rarely add anything to the discussion, but just so you know, Muslims do NOT worship the same God as Christians. They CALL Jesus a “prophet” but consider Him to be a lesser prophet to Mohammed. They deny the deity of Christ. Their religion is a perversion of the truth NOT the truth. It is sort of like the Bizarro world in the Superman comics.
By Mamoru
August 22, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
*The solution is to ban all these religions.
Let’s start by strangling all Baptists in entrails of all Mluslims in this country. It’s a start.
Europe should never have allowed Muslims into their countries. Nor should we.
We will pay the price*
I’m sorry, but this is way over the top.
Who’s next on your little exclusion, extermination list?
A left-wing, liberal Baptist (A contradiction in terms, I know)
By Jack
August 22, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Take me down to Junior’s farm. Everybody tag along.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
UHHHH, Billy, again, you fail to make the connection (along with 72john). When someone has declared war on you and on ALL non-Muslims and they have declared that they WILL KILL YOU IF THEY CAN or die trying, you have 2 options
UHHHH, we didn’t fail to make the connection. If you had meant “Hearts and minds” you would have said “hearts and minds”. Instead, the nasty little fundie lurking in your cesspit of a soul said what you really meant “Convert them to my religion or kill them”.
No matter how you try to spin it, you’re still the other side of the extremist coin.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
okay the first solo that mattered. LOL(another I have it)
Too Many People is the first track of RAM.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
They CALL Jesus a “prophet” but consider Him to be a lesser prophet to Mohammed. They deny the deity of Christ
Hmm…I think maybe the word you’re looking for here is “divinity”, not “deity”.
Their religion is a perversion of the truth NOT the truth. It is sort of like the Bizarro world in the Superman comics.
I mean, is he really so blind to his own fanaticism that he doesn’t realize that this is exactly the same thing that extremist Muslims would say about him?
Lozen, I usually just ignore you because you rarely add anything to the discussion
Talk about BIZARRO world…
By Jack
August 22, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
I know I was wrong…just take me down to Junior’s farm.
Watch out! John is getting agitated! Breath, breath in the air. Don’t be afraid you can.
By GOB
August 22, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Just like Hitler did, we Christians would try to stand up for freedom, but we must battle people here first(people who want to play God instead of following God’s commandments), then we might get to stand up for freedom.
Christians are like Hitler?! At last, acknowlegement…LOL!
so Hitler was standing up for freedom?
I knew someone would beat me to this one now that I am not at a computer all day…All I can say about that statement is…wow.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Another good one; “I’d Love to Change the World” on A Space in Time…Ten Years After. Alvin Lee can pick!
By Toad
August 22, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Muslims worship the same god of Abraham that you worship Chuck, This doesn’t mention Jesus, it refers to the god of Abraham. Muslims, Christians and Jews are all members of Abrahamic faith.
By NetBanker
August 22, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
CHUCK???!!! What’s going on with you today? You’re being surprisingly obtuse about the statement of “combating the economic, social, and political conditions.” You appear to immediately assume that economic = POVERTY, is the sole cause of terrorism, and then go on a rant about working your butt off to support people in another country. Who said economic conditions mean poverty? And it appears from an admittedly quick skim of your posts that your entire position is predicated on the assumption that poverty is the cause of terrorism. That must be false otherwise terrorism would have arisen in Tibet and many other countries long before it did in the Middle East.
One of the economic conditions in Saudi Arabia is that there is not enough job opportunity for the large numbers of citizens so basically it seems as though boredom is bigger influence than poverty and has made young people susceptible to the messages of religious extremists. The majority of workers in Saudi Arabia are non-citizens. The political environment is also a major factor. Restricted access to the press and information is a political decision which means that the population hears only what their government thinks that they should. This makes it significantly easier to control the population or to create conditions of the government’s choosing. Social conditions are another factor that we seem to discount. The Saudi Government has created the conditions for an extreme version of Islam to flourish in their society.
Where is all of this “loose” nuclear material There’s a fair amount of unsecured material still floating around the former Soviet Union.
IMO, Islamic terrorism will not slow down or stop until the Muslim community and Muslim moderates take back their religion. It’s the same message heard on here about uber-conservative Christian groups giving the rest of Christians a bad name and the reason behind warnings of a coming American Christian Taliban. Unless the majority of society relegates these types of groups to the fringes then they are as legitmate as a mainstream party.
On the topic of ‘Why do they hate us?’ Two quick thoughts. In enough cases its due to our history of meddling in the political affairs of other countries (think support for the Shah and actually helping Saddam get into power). The other thought is that we are used by repressive regimes as the scape goat (as is Israel) for their problems. If you consider the societies where most of these regimes exist they tend to be ones that are primarily closed (i.e. government controls media and access to the outside world) and have large numbers of un-educated or under-educated citizens.
By chuck
August 22, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
You stupid, silly, man-like creature. If you had read the post and the one that followed, you would CLEARLY SEE that I was referring ONLY to those who are in Jihad, hence the QUALIFIER at the beginning of the sentence:
When someone has declared war on you and on ALL non-Muslims and they have declared that they WILL KILL YOU IF THEY CAN or die trying…
For someone who claims superiority of intellect you are somewhat devoid when it comes to the ability to read and understand. It is understandable since your chosen “lifestyle” has put a permanent chip on your shoulder.
I Corinthians 1
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c] 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]
By The72John
August 22, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Watch out! John is getting agitated! Breath, breath in the air. Don’t be afraid you can.
I’m not agitated - just repelled.
By GOB
August 22, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Chuck - When do you actually teach your students??
By Jack
August 22, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Mrs. Bla must be getting close.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
You stupid, silly, man-like creature. If you had read the post and the one that followed, you would CLEARLY SEE that I was referring ONLY to those who are in Jihad, hence the QUALIFIER at the beginning of the sentence:
Well, I’ve been called a few choice things in the past, but I have to admit that “stupid, silly man-like creature” certainly takes the cake when it comes to childish insults.
Perhaps your writing isn’t as clear as you like to imagine, Chuckie. Or maybe we just realize that you regurgitate the same nonsense over and over and over, so we stop reading!
For someone who claims superiority of intellect you are somewhat devoid when it comes to the ability to read and understand. It is understandable since your chosen “lifestyle” has put a permanent chip on your shoulder.
Hmm, yet again, your word choice fails you. The appropriate usage of devoid includes the word “of”. X is devoid of Y. A more appropriate construction here would have been “devoid of the ability to read and understand”, or possibly “lacking when it comes to the ability”. Either would have been better than this poorly worded excuse for an insult.
Oh look - Chukie has finally sucumbed to the blog-o-sphere equivalent of frothing at the mouth…random Bible verses!
Daddy, teacher says every time a fundy quotes a bible verse, an angel dies!
By The72John
August 22, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Chuck - When do you actually teach your students??
I believe the words you are looking for are “brainwash” and “indoctrinate”.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck is too smart to try and pass his religious beliefs on to his students. I’m sure he teaches good morales to his students but not beliefs.
By Billy
August 22, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
You stupid, silly, man-like creature. If you had read the post and the one that followed, you would CLEARLY SEE that I was referring ONLY to those who are in Jihad, hence the QUALIFIER at the beginning of the sentence:
When someone has declared war on you and on ALL non-Muslims and they have declared that they WILL KILL YOU IF THEY CAN or die trying…
Listen, moron — John was responding to your incomprehensible assertion that he and I missed the point when you said, “…the only condition that can be changed to prevent terrorism is to convert them to Christianity OR wipe them out.” He wasn’t addressing the above (bold) statement, but your original, idiotic zealotry. What he and I were taking exception to was not the idea that, when someone wants to kill you, you either kill them or change their minds. (Though I would add capture alive and imprison to that list…) We were taking exception to your assertion that conversion to Christianity is the only way to change their minds. As if Christians never harmed anyone. As if Christianity is the only religion that preaches peace. As if agnostics or atheists cannot see the immorality of murder. That was what he and I were contesting.
Now, is it possible that you meant that in jest. What is scary, though, is that it is completely believable when you say that sort of thing.
By Mara
August 22, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
just a by the bye for chuck…Jews don’t acknowlege the “divinity” of Jesus either. Evidently Jewish folks don’t worship chucks god either. Except the Jews-for-Jesus folks, of course.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Chuck is too smart to try and pass his religious beliefs on to his students. I’m sure he teaches good morales to his students but not beliefs.
Hmm, yes. I’m sure he teaches his children to be good little Nazis and bigots.
By NetBanker
August 22, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Muslims do NOT worship the same God as Christians Yes, they do. They even call Christians ‘people of the book.’ Islam is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism.
Chuck…you are really being myopic today and it’s disappointing because I know you can be smarter than that!! John and Billy and most of the ‘damn libruls’ are advocating a multi-approach tactic to fighting terrorism that includes killing the existing ones. All I hear out of you and conservatives is a single approach that boils down to ‘bomb the mother fu ckers into oblivion’ without recognizing that every bomb that kills the innocents with whom the terrorists mixed results in more people seeking out revenge by becoming…..terrorists. That approach creates a never-ending cycle.
Let’s try a simple ilustrative approach to what we’re talking about. Think of terrorists as fleas. If your house is infested with flease and you use a treatment that only kills the adults and has no residual effect such as a flea bomb, then the flea eggs will hatch and the cycle will continue. If you use a flea bomb to kill the adults AND a product that kills the flea eggs OR maybe a pesticide that causes the adults to become sterile then eventually the entire flea population in your home will become extinct because no new fleas will be born.
Then again…maybe the never-ending cycle is what the Administration really wants given their ties to the military industrial complex. So long as that keeps chugging along their theme song can be “We’re in the money!”
By Lane
August 22, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
CHILAO
“Our president does not make mistakes, “
Well, thank goodness for THAT! We can’t very well get on with our nation’s very first Emperor NOT being infallible (not to mention omniscient and omnipotent), now can we?
If His Oiliness, George II, tells us that the economy is doing just dandy, then how dare most Americans whine that their real income is falling, or that all of the good jobs are being shipped overseas while cheap labor is being imported to bring down wages?
If He assumes the power to override the law and the Constitution at will, what possible business is it of the Courts to intervene, or of “airy-fairy” pro-civil liberties types to complain?
And if we are “winning” the war in Iraq, as He so often informs us, then how can any American stoop to believing the word of those who say otherwise, just because they have been there and have seen for themselves? I mean, what do THEY know?
Perhaps dividing our allies and uniting our opponents is simply part of a Greater Plan that we mere mortals simply cannot understand or be privy to (due to reasons of “national security”), and turning Iraq (and now former-friend Lebanon) into Iranian client-states is simply part of a Much-Greater Wisdom!
There Are Some Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know, after all. (Things like, if this war is so noble and absolutely necessary to our national defense, why have those who claim to “support” the war or Emperor George—or THEIR kids—not exactly beaten down the doors at the recruiting offices? Or at LEAST called for a national draft? And why haven’t Bush’s OWN military-age kids not joined up to fight in their father’s Holy Cause, as so many children of previous “war-presidents” have done, instead of making silly in perfect safety and comfort at home?)
But, of course, to ask such questions is not only TREASON in the our new American Empire, but BLASPHEMY to boot!
I, for one, am going to start a campaign to demand that the portraits of all those silly, undeserving Founding Fathers and competent presidents be stricken from all of our coinage and currency, to be forever replaced with the likeness of our Dear Leader, His Incompetence, George the W! And with our new national motto written beneath it:
“WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!”
By Jack
August 22, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Ppppsssffffftttt!
By Toad
August 22, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
maybe the never-ending cycle is what the Administration really wants given their ties to the military industrial complex. So long as that keeps chugging along their theme song can be “We’re in the money!”
And keep the populace rolling over in fear of the turban-ed boogie man so they can continue to use the constitution as toilet paper.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
And why haven’t Bush’s OWN military-age kids not joined up to fight in their father’s Holy Cause, as so many children of previous “war-presidents” have done, instead of making silly in perfect safety and comfort at home?)
Oh geeze, think what you’re saying…do you REALLY want the BUSH TWINS in charge of things that explode?
By NetBanker
August 22, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
What does one’s “lifestyle” have to do with this discussion unless it’s the terrorist lifestyle? And quoting The Bible adds to a logic discussion or one about Islamic extremists, how exactly?
By Jack
August 22, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Bush’s OWN military-age kids not joined up to fight in their father’s Holy Cause.
Yeah, he’s going to send his daughters. Doh!
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
do you REALLY want the BUSH TWINS in charge of things that explode
well, one thing I can think of that explodes…oh, never mind. LOL
Lane - hope you perceived my dripping sarcasm with the ‘no mistakes’ comments.
Jack - please stop, I will be hardpressed to fit both RAM and SSSSH in tonight.
By lozen
August 22, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
“For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;….or the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” Bull. Bull. That’s one of the problems with your religion and your bible. It glorifies ingnorance. It teaches ignorance. It teaches obedience over everything else. It teaches not to ask questions. It teaches supernaturalism over science. Since man creates god in his image, the above passage makes absolutely no sense but that’s just your cup of tea isn’t it Chuck?
By The72John
August 22, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
That’s one of the problems with your religion and your bible. It glorifies ingnorance. It teaches ignorance. It teaches obedience over everything else. It teaches not to ask questions
Why do you think people like Chuck flock to it so readily? They absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actions. All is determined by God. Take his sad little crack at me earlier:
It is understandable since your chosen “lifestyle” has put a permanent chip on your shoulder.
This is the same logic that abusers use when they say “Why do you make me hit you”. Rather than accepting that it is HIS negative behavior and the negative behaviors of others that has created my supposed perma-chip, he lays that on me. It’s my fault that HE is a bigot.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Grasshopper, it is written: No matter where you go, there you are.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Beat me Captain, beat me!
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
A quote from a friend’s email signature, I just had to share: LOL
when the going gets rough the average turn conservative Henry Rollins
By Randy
August 22, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
The line on Hitler was meant for the statement before it, not the statement behind.
By Billy
August 22, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
The line on Hitler was meant for the statement before it, not the statement behind.
You’d think that anyone who had millions in net worth and was close to having a master’s degree would be able to use punctuation appropriately…
By The72John
August 22, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
The line on Hitler was meant for the statement before it, not the statement behind.
Punctuation is your friend. However, irony is not.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Randy - oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the properly placed PERIOD or COMMA can make ALL the difference in sentence structure and meaning.
By lozen
August 22, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
If some other country was here bombing my people, killing my parents, grandparents, friends, destroying my home, my school and my hospital, what would I be thinking? What would I be planning for my future - if I were lucky enough to have one? Seems damn obvious to me even if they’d gotten rid of Bush to start with!
By lozen
August 22, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Randy can you say, “Freudian slip”?
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Beat me Captain, beat me!
Tennille?
sorry, got none of them on CD. LOL
By 2D
August 22, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
John… Why do you think that anyone who finds peace in their religious faith must be ignorant??? Because they are different from you??? That is the same attitude that you refer to as bigotry.
You should also qualify the use of the term bigotry. Just b/c someone does not agree with or condone a lifestyle or other life choices you or anyone else makes does not qualify them as a bigot. It simply means they disagree with your choices.
By Helga
August 22, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Hello, nice site look this: http://topcarvalue.info/dollar-rent-a-car [url=http://topcarvalue.info/dollar-rent-a-car][/url] http://topcarvalue.info/car-loan [url=http://topcarvalue.info/car-loan][/url] http://topcarvalue.info/auto-salvage [url=http://topcarvalue.info/auto-salvage][/url]
End ^) See you
By The72John
August 22, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
John… Why do you think that anyone who finds peace in their religious faith must be ignorant??? Because they are different from you??? That is the same attitude that you refer to as bigotry.
I don’t. However, anyone who allows religious faith to triumph over reason is ignorant. If you say “The world is 6000 years old, and any scientist who says otherwise is wrong”, you are ignorant, plain and simple.
You should also qualify the use of the term bigotry. Just b/c someone does not agree with or condone a lifestyle or other life choices you or anyone else makes does not qualify them as a bigot. It simply means they disagree with your choices.
Obviously you haven’t been around long enough to see Chuck’s various attacks on gays and lesbians. Where he supports the criminalization of homosexuality. Or believes that gays should be legally discriminated against. Or where he says things like “I would never hire a gay person” or “I don’t choose to be around gay people”.
Obviously, you aren’t familiar with his ouvre of work or you wouldn’t say something as assinine as what you said about bigotry and my use of the word.
By NetBanker
August 22, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
the properly placed PERIOD or COMMA can make ALL the difference in sentence structure and meaning. And it can make a MASSIVE difference when it comes to dollar figures.
2D…you’re missing faaarrrr to much history here to read such broad assumptions into John’s statements to/about Chuck.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
John… Why do you think that anyone who finds peace in their religious faith must be ignorant??? Because they are different from you??? That is the same attitude that you refer to as bigotry.
One more clarification for you, two-dimensional, truly religious people don’t use their religion as a bludgeon to attack others at every turn. You will find that Chuck and Randy are both of the bludgeoning variety. I am happy to meet truly religious and truly spiritual people, but Chuck is a vile creature who delights in judgement and condemnation.
By Jack
August 22, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Chilao. John Beluchi SNL, pirate skit.
By Toad
August 22, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Maybe Randy misplaced the comma when he bragged about the value of his foreclosed homes. $40,000 instead of $4,000,000.
By 2D
August 22, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
John… Outside of your assertions he wants to “criminalize” anything, you should get over it.
Why would you want to be live/be around someone like that???
Why would you want to work for someone like that???
The answer to both is you wouldn’t. So just leave him be and more than likely, he will do the same to you. He and his kind will NEVER be able to criminalize homosexuality or anything of the like. There are too many people who do not agree it is the government’s business to meddle in that issue, even when they don’t agree or approve of the choice.
BTW… from what I have read over the last few weeks, your attacks on various individuals (conservatives, religious, etc.) are far more devastating than anything Chuck has put forth.
By Chilao
August 22, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Chilao. John Beluchi SNL, pirate skit.
oh, that’s right, forgive the wandering mind LMAO
Saw that recent NotoriousBettiePage movie, and she thought nothing of all the scenes she did, they were just ‘props’. but some guy walks up to her at a party and asks(heavy breath) “so do you think people who enjoy your pictures are ‘naughty’?”
1/2 the cinema erupted in laughter.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
*John… Outside of your assertions he wants to “criminalize” anything, you should get over it. *
Uh…you asked about the use of the word “bigot”, and the things I described are clearly evidence of bigotry. Perhaps you should scroll up…
BTW… from what I have read over the last few weeks, your attacks on various individuals (conservatives, religious, etc.) are far more devastating than anything Chuck has put forth.
O RLY? I don’t recall ever suggesting that religious people lack the fundamental right to exist in this country. But hey, maybe you’re just a little biased, hmm?
By Bruno
August 22, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Liberals, I see some progress in your thinking today by considering just HOW does a person become a terrorist? The answer, of course, is both as simple and as complex as understanding human nature in its rawest form. The truth is we all have the ability to commit evil, although Chuck’s Bible would suggest that it’s easier to see a toothpick in our neighbor’s eye than to notice the telephone pole in our own. Quick suggestion to Chuck while you spout off about the Bible: Don’t forget what Paul said, brother: We look through the glass, darkly.
By The72John
August 22, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Liberals, I see some progress in your thinking today by considering just HOW does a person become a terrorist? The answer, of course, is both as simple and as complex as understanding human nature in its rawest form. The truth is we all have the ability to commit evil, although Chuck’s Bible would suggest that it’s easier to see a toothpick in our neighbor’s eye than to notice the telephone pole in our own. Quick suggestion to Chuck while you spout off about the Bible: Don’t forget what Paul said, brother: We look through the glass, darkly.
Sorry, we’re full up on pretentious p****** - perhaps the wooten blog has room for you.
By NetBanker
August 22, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this
Maybe Randy misplaced the comma when he bragged about the value of his foreclosed homes. hehehehe…good one Toad!
By TramadoL47308
August 23, 2006 01:45 AM | Link to this
My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.
By TramadoL63092
August 23, 2006 06:19 AM | Link to this
Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.
By TramadoL41393
August 23, 2006 07:24 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
By TramadoL44157
August 23, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this
I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.
By chuck
August 23, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
NetB, You also missed the point. I DON’T THINK THAT TERRORISM IS CAUSED BY POVERTY. APPARENTLY JOHN, BILLY, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DO.
I THINK TERRORISM IS CAUSED BY LUNATICS LIKE BIN LADEN AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF SAUDI ROYALTY WHO USE MILLIONS OF THEIR DOLLARS TO SPONSOR SCHOOLS THAT TAKE THESE CHILDREN AT AN EARLY AGE AND INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO THINKING THAT ALL NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE KILLED AND ALL NON-MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DETHRONED.
Okay, I’m through yelling now.
Here is the conclusion from an study I read yesterday on this very topic. If you want to read the entire study you can find it here:
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf
The evidence we have presented, tentative though it is, suggests little direct connection between poverty or education and participation in terrorism. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that, compared with the relevant population, members of Hezbollah’s militant wing or Palestinian suicide bombers are at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as to come from the ranks of the economically disadvantaged and uneducated. Similarly, members of the Israeli Jewish Underground who terrorized Palestinian civilians in the late 1970s and early 1980s were overwhelmingly welleducated and in highly regarded occupations. Qualitative studies of participants in terrorism in several different settings have reached conclusions similar to ours. For example, Russell and Miller (1983) assembled demographic information on more than 350 individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Latin America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East from 1966 to 1976, based on newspaper reports. Their sample consisted of individuals from 18 revolutionary groups known to engage in urban terrorism, including the Red Army in Japan, Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, Red Brigades in Italy and People’s Liberation Army in Turkey. Russell and Miller found: “[T]he vast majority of those individuals involved in terrorist activities as cadres or leaders is quite well educated. In fact, approximately two-thirds of those identified terrorists are persons with some university training, university graduates or postgraduate students.” They also report that more than two-thirds of arrested terrorists “came from the middle or upper classes in their respective nations or areas.” Taylor (1988) likewise concludes from his survey of the literature: “Neither social background, educational opportunity or attainment seem to be particularly associated with terrorism.” Poverty at the national level may indirectly affect terrorism through the apparent connection between economic conditions and the proclivity for countries to undergo civil wars. Fearon and Laitin (2001) find that GDP per capita is inversely related to the onset of civil war, and Collier and Hoeffler (2000) find that the growth rate of GDP per capita and male secondary school enrollment rate are inversely related to the incidence of civil war. Miguel (2003) also presents evidence that shocks to economic growth caused by exogenous variation in rainfall are negatively related to the incidence of civil wars in sub-Saharan African countries. Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Sudan are high-profile examples of countries where civil war provided a hospitable environment for international terrorists. However, terrorism has arisen in many countries that were not undergoing a civil war, and Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Malecˇkova´ 141 countries undergoing a civil war have not always provided a breeding ground for international terrorism, so the connection from civil war to terrorism is unclear. The cross-country evidence that we have assembled suggests that, once civil liberties are taken into account, a country’s income level is unrelated to the number of terrorists who originate from that country, although we consider the connection between poverty at the national level and terrorism a fertile area for future research. Enough evidence has accumulated that it is fruitful to conjecture why participation in terrorism and political violence is apparently unrelated, or even positively related, to individuals’ income and education. In terms of the supply of terrorists, we hypothesize that terrorism resembles a violent form of political engagement. More educated people from privileged backgrounds are more likely to participate in politics, probably in part because political involvement requires some minimum level of interest, expertise, commitment to issues and effort, all of which are more likely if people have enough education and income to concern themselves with more than minimum economic subsistence. Our finding that terrorists are more likely to spring from countries that lack civil rights, if it holds up, is further support for the view that terrorism is a political, not economic, phenomenon. On the demand side, terrorist organizations may prefer educated, committed individuals. In addition, well-educated, middle- or upper-class individuals are better suited to carry out acts of international terrorism than are impoverished illiterates because the terrorists must fit into a foreign environment to be successful. On the whole, there is little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or increase in educational attainment will lead to a meaningful reduction in the amount of international terrorism, without other changes. Stern (2000) observes that many madrasahs, or religious schools, in Pakistan are funded by wealthy industrialists, and that many of these schools deliberately educate students to become foot soldiers and elite operatives in extremist movements around the world. She further reports: “Most madrasahs offer only religious instruction, ignoring math, science, and other secular subjects important for functioning in modern society.” These observations suggest that if the international community attempts to use education as part of a strategy to reduce terrorism, it should not limit itself to increasing years of schooling, but must also consider the content of education.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
I THINK TERRORISM IS CAUSED BY LUNATICS LIKE BIN LADEN AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF SAUDI ROYALTY WHO USE MILLIONS OF THEIR DOLLARS TO SPONSOR SCHOOLS THAT TAKE THESE CHILDREN AT AN EARLY AGE AND INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO THINKING THAT ALL NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE KILLED AND ALL NON-MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DETHRONED.
Yes, Chuck, we understand that you are a simpleton who needs to reduce everything down to a single root cause. The idea of complexity is beyond anyone who’s world is defined by a book written by barely literate primitives.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
John… No biases here. In fact, when I read stuff from Chuck/Randy, it disgusts me more than you. They are giving folks like me, many of my friends and my family a bad name.
If you responded more like NetB, basically with a little more tact and grace, folks probably wouldn’t revile you as much as they do Chuck/Randy.
One other thing… It may be a bit presumptuous for you to make statements about how “truly” religious people act. If you are not religious, which based on your posts I do not think you are, you would not have any frame of reference.
By Joe
August 23, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Democrats b*** and whine about everything from the war against terrorists to high gas prices. It’s their job. Since they are not in power they must make everything look doom and gloom. If they didn’t people would never see them as an alternative to Republicains. I just hope voters realize that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the looney left and that their vision for our country would not be in line with main stream Americans. How does House majority leader Nancy Pelosi sound? Frightning!!!!
By Renee
August 23, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
ummm…lozen…your 3:37 yesterday was GREAT!
Please see Kimberly for the tiara!!
By The72John
August 23, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
If you responded more like NetB, basically with a little more tact and grace, folks probably wouldn’t revile you as much as they do Chuck/Randy.
The folks who matter don’t. Those who do, aren’t worth dealing with, at least in my not-so-humble opinion. And I feel no need to respond with tact and grace to people who do not extend it in the first place.
Conservatives in this country have made vilifying liberal thought for no other reason than it being liberal for over a decade now. Anyone who dares express a non-conservative ideas is immediately attacked and called names, their patriotism called into question, their very right to live in this nation challenged. How DARE you sit at your keyboard and sanctimoniously take ME to task when you and your kind are capable of NOTHING but attacking.
It’s time you people had a taste of your own medicine.
One other thing… It may be a bit presumptuous for you to make statements about how “truly” religious people act. If you are not religious, which based on your posts I do not think you are, you would not have any frame of reference.
Don’t be stupid. I grew up on a Baptist college campus, surrounded by devoutly religious people. I certainly have a frame of reference to distinguish a truly spiritual and religious person from a narrow-minded, dogmatic, unthinking zealot.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Democrats b* and whine about everything from the war against terrorists to high gas prices. It’s their job. Since they are not in power they must make everything look doom and gloom. If they didn’t people would never see them as an alternative to Republicains. I just hope voters realize that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the looney left and that their vision for our country would not be in line with main stream Americans. How does House majority leader Nancy Pelosi sound? Frightning!!!!
Do you need more examples, two-dimensional? Where’s your scorn for this moron who can do nothing but spit back the talking points from last night’s Hannity broadcast?
By Renee
August 23, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Joe - so are you saying that Republican’s don’t b!itch and whine??? Doesn’t each political party play the blame game and complain about the others. There is no perfect political party, and I for one, find the continual arrogance of the Republicans, as well as their “air of superiority” to be sickening. And I’m not even a Democrat!
By Billy
August 23, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Joe, there is no such thing as “mainstream america”.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
John… You know nothing about ME or MY KIND because you don’t know enough about me to make that type of determination. If you think you do, then perhaps you are just as narrow minded as Randy or Chuck.
Shucks, you just attributed a long post to me that I didn’t write. In fact Joe wrote it and I loathe it as much as you do. That type of regurgitation is the problem with this country. Anytime a word like “Hanitized” ever works its way into the language, I heard someone at the office use it, we have real problems.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
John… I apologize. I did not read your post closely enough and responded a bit quickly. Hopefully you’ll not do the same and see my response to Joe’s posting.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
John… You know nothing about ME or MY KIND because you don’t know enough about me to make that type of determination. If you think you do, then perhaps you are just as narrow minded as Randy or Chuck.
What I know about you, I gather from what you have posted. It’s no more than you know about me, yet you seem to think you’ve got me all figured out. You certainly seem to think you have enough of me figured out to start reprimanding me from the moment you started posting.
Shucks, you just attributed a long post to me that I didn’t write. In fact Joe wrote it and I loathe it as much as you do
No…I didn’t attibute it to you. I used it as a device to point out your own bias…the one you claim doesn’t exist. Posts like this appear constantly. People like “Bruno” pop on and make derisive comments and broad generalizations without ever contributing to the debate, and yet…who do you choose to jump on? The non-conservative.
So, when you make these oh-so-superior statements of yours, you would have a whole lot more credibility if you dispensed them equally.
By TramadoL32235
August 23, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
I feel like a complete blank, but I don’t care. Pfft. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
that 72JohnFellow - but you know it is only dem der libruls who know nothing of the world, are uneducated(in life), and are unable to come up with the RightDittoHead conclusion.
dat’s why they so stewpid to be libruls. see, if they had any intelligience, they could only end up conservative. LOL
watched a great thing on PBS last night, the mixing of Islamic culture, in Turkey, especially in business, specifically two different clothing line stores, with the state-mandated secularism there.
WideAngle’s TurkeyTigers(the tigers being two different CEOs of the clothing companies) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/
By 2D
August 23, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
John… I do not claim to have you figured out. I don’t think I could figure anyone out, even my own spouse. We are too complex a creature to be completely figured out by anyone.
BTW… I have NEVER made any generalizations about you, your family or anything of the like. I have only questioned and delved into your posts. Your perceptions that I have only made comments toward you or non-conservatives is totally not the case.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
John and Mara—One last piece of pretentious, unsolicited advice for you, then I will post a blog of substance for you to assail… If you’re going to continue in your misguided practice of substituting big words in place of actual communication, you might impress your victims more if you were able to spell them correctly. John, the next time you accuse someone of using “Ad Hominum” (sic) arguments, try “ad hominem” with no capitalization and no u. Mara, I believe that you need a dictionary much more than I do in viewing your mangled attempts to write “sycophantic obsequiousness”. You wrote “sychophantic obseqiousness” (sic), then “sychophantic” (sic) and “ubsequious” (sic). Are you sure that you two are as smart as you think you are?
By lozen
August 23, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Not one of the regulars on this blog dislikes 72John. I admire his “here, in your face” actually. He’s intelligent and educated and he thinks about things. But he will not take the verbal abuse without reaction and why should he? He’s right: this whole spirit of meanness, name calling, and put downs started years ago when the democrats were on top with people like Rush Lumskull, that local talk radio guy, and others of that ilk - all self appointed conservatives who hate everything they consider to be liberal. Then the great divider prez comes along and now we are deeply divided into two opposing camps in this country in a way I have never seen before. Liberals in general are intelligent, thinking people who try to see all sides of an issue and take all sides into consideration. Most liberals do not think they are “RIGHT” because most of us are educated people who know better than to think we have all the truth. Liberal is not a dirty word no matter how many times some talk radio simpleton may say it is. And be careful popping off at John w/o reading what he says ;-)
By lozen
August 23, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I watched part of that show. It was late, I was tired, and I missed the first part. I felt like I had missed some important essential points from the beginning. So I went to bed.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
2D - Let’s start over. I apologize for making possibly unfounded assumptions about you and for any offense I may have given.
I AM a short-tempered, easily-offended, often-sarcastic guy, but I also, believe it or not, prefer to have a nice, civil debate. I am also, however, sick to death of being treated like a child or a criminal because my political opinions happen not to align with the right-wing party line.
I am tired of pompous prats whose only contribution to any discussion is to make condescending comments about “those liberals” and who think that their conservatism confers upon them some automatic moral superiority and that my liberalism means that I am a spineless coward.
So, as long as someone remains civil and polite, I am happy to do the same. I’ll certainly do my best to return in kind whatever courtesy you choose to show me.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
By Renee August 23, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this ummm…lozen…your 3:37 yesterday was GREAT!
Bowing! Thank you Renee. Throwing kisses your way.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
okay, boys and girls, no more of dem der big words, unless you spell dem right. oh wait, weze on da intanet.
listen up, now, y’hear. (think Cool Hand Luke or for the younger crowd, the intro to GnR’s CivilWar)
By The72John
August 23, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
John, the next time you accuse someone of using “Ad Hominum” (sic) arguments, try “ad hominem” with no capitalization and no u
Oh my gosh, I made a spelling error. On a blog that I typed out in a few seconds…you caught me! One little spelling error means that I am a complete and utter numbskull!
O, woe is me! I’ve been discovered…all of my education, reading, experiences…all of it a FRAUD because I hurriedly typed out ONE PHRASE incorrectly!
How shall I ever survive…I guess the first thing to do is mail back all my diplomas. Obviously, I don’t deserve any of them. Next, I’ll revoke my membership in the Democratic party and join the Republicans because…well…I don’t need to spell that out, do I? Then, I suppose I should subscribe to some magazines more on my reading level…maybe People or Tiger Beat.
Thank you, Bruno, THANK YOU for pointing out the GROSS error that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am retarded beyond any hope of intellectual redemption.
By Renee
August 23, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Tiger Beat LOL too funny!! (actually the entire post is hilarious, but I’m sure with your lack of intellect, John, you have no idea why) LOL!!
BTW - good job on your 10:25!!
By The72John
August 23, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
If you’re going to continue in your misguided practice of substituting big words in place of actual communication, you might impress your victims more if you were able to spell them correctly
You know, what’s REALLY entertaining about this twit is that his every post has been nothing but an overly-verbose, self-aggrandizing, pretentious and utterly lacking-in-substance attack on others. Not once has he commented on the topic at hand, or even on one of the ancillary topics under discussion.
Instead, he has made rude, dismissive and patronizing comments about “those liberals”, and committed all of the offenses that he accuses others of. Yet, he continues to feel that his contribution is somehow meaningful, or serves a purpose other than generating scorn.
2D – pay close attention to this boor, full of o’erweening pride, an empty ship with sails full of bluster and foul wind, signifiying…well…Macbeth tells us what men like him signify.
By Mara
August 23, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Bruno is the spelling police now?! And he’s got the ‘nads to accuse John and me of being arrogant and pretentious.
John @10:32 - you and me both, bud.
Chilao - if you make me blow coffee out of my nose one more time…(LOL!!)
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
I agree with you, lozen, that John IS very intelligent and appears to be extremely likeable. And perhaps, my criticisms of his political opinions and debating style ARE nothing more than verbal abuse. My feeling, though, is that John could take his thinking to an even higher level if he would consider human nature a little more, including his own. I will attempt to expand this point more in my next post.
My own sense of urgency in blogging here and writing letters to the editor is that I believe we are in the early stages of a nasty world-wide conflict. Islam was virtually dead at the end of WWI as a political force. This began changing in the late 1950s, as Islam began a big revival throughout the Middle East and other places. Jimmy Carter fell asleep at the wheel in the late 1970s when both Khomeini and Saddam Hussein seized power. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but now we’re dealing with a foe who will be difficult to defeat.
If any of you on this board don’t believe that Muslims are a threat to democratic societies world-wide, take a look around the globe at “Islam’s bloody borders”. John, you in particularly need to think about what life for a gay man would be like under Shariah. You think you’ve got it tough now??? Of course, all the Neville Chamberlains on this board are going to say these concerns are “just the fantastic ramblings of another right-wing whacko”. Study history, guys—Life during the Crusades was arguably far more tolerable under Saladin than the Christians, but things have changed a good bit since then.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
I THINK TERRORISM IS CAUSED BY LUNATICS LIKE BIN LADEN AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF SAUDI ROYALTY WHO USE MILLIONS OF THEIR DOLLARS TO SPONSOR SCHOOLS THAT TAKE THESE CHILDREN AT AN EARLY AGE AND INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO THINKING THAT ALL NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE KILLED AND ALL NON-MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DETHRONED.
Now…if religious extremism is the only factor that drives otherwise normal human beings to commit acts of horrific violence against their fellow man, then…why don’t we have a problem with it here?
We are certainly not free of schools that indoctrinate children to believe that Christianity should dominate over the world, and that those who fail to accept that “truth” do not deserve to live as equals. So…why are there not more Eric Rudolphs blowing up abortion clinics and gay bars?
Could it be that…there are OTHER factors that cause people to cross the line from simple religious fanatacism to extreme violence?
By 2D
August 23, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
John… Thank you. I would have responded sooner, but just got out of a meeting.
Lozen… You are correct, the name calling started back when I was still a political neophyte, but that doesn’t mean intelligent people should stoop to that level. While completely understandable, I expect intelligent, articulate individuals to be above that. In your face does not need to be hurtful and derrogatory. I expect the Randy’s and Chuck’s of the world to be in the gutter.
BTW… What is your definition of “liberal”??? You talk about what it is not, so tell me what it is.
Personally, I am nothing, and like it that way. I agree with y’all’s camp sometimes, with dubbya’s camp sometimes and with neither of camp most times.
By Renee
August 23, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
*If any of you on this board don’t believe that Muslims are a threat to democratic societies world-wide, take a look around the globe at “Islam’s bloody borders”. *
No, Muslims are not a threat, it’s only the extremists and fanatics. A Christian fanatic is just as much threat IMO as any Muslim fanatic (extremist).
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Saddam Hussein seized power in Iraq LONG before Jimmy Carter. geeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
he was ruler in Iraq when I was in the Middle East when Carter had not even THOUGHT about running for President.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
talk about revisionist history, Carter gets blamed for Hussein in Iraq? And here I thought it was Reagan and Bush who provided lots of support to him.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Bush SR.
By Forgotten Truths
August 23, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Anfal survivor describes gas attack ‘May God blind them all,’ she says of defendants
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — A Kurdish woman described huddling with her children in a cave as warplanes bombarded her village with chemical weapons in testimony Wednesday at the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein.
For a second day, survivors took the stand in the trial, in which Hussein and six co-defendants are charged for their roles in the 1987-88 Anfal campaign, a military sweep against the Kurds of northern Iraq in which tens of thousands of people were killed.
Adeba Owla Bayez described the August 16, 1987, bombardment of her village of Balisand, saying warplanes dropped bombs that spread a smoke smelling “like rotten apples.”
“Then my daughter Narjis came to me, complaining about pain in her eyes, chest and stomach. When I got close to see what’s wrong with her, she threw up all over me,” said Bayez, a mother of five. “When I took her in to wash her face … all my other children were throwing up.”
“Then my condition got bad, too. And that’s when we realized that the weapon was poisonous and chemical,” she said.
Bayez said the villagers fled to nearby caves on mules, “but the helicopters came and bombed the mountains to prevent the villagers from taking refuge anywhere.” Like many villagers, she was blinded by the gas, she said. In the caves, people were vomiting blood, many had burns. “All I knew was that I was holding tight my five children,” she said. “I couldn’t see, I couldn’t do anything, the only thing I did was scream, ‘Don’t take my kids away from me.”’
The villagers were taken by the military to a prison camp, and Bayez said four people kept in the same room with her died. On the fifth day in jail, she pried open her swollen eyes with her fingers and saw her children’s “eyes swollen, their skin blackened,” she said.
Bayez’s account resembled those of two other survivors of the attack on Balisand and the neighboring village of Sheik Wasan who testified Tuesday in the trial. The survivors are testifying as plaintiffs in the case. Asked by the judges whom she wished to file her complaint against, Bayez exclaimed, “I complain against Saddam Hussein, Ali Hassan al-Majeed and everyone in the (defendants’) box. May God blind them all.”
By The72John
August 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Well, thank you for posting something that we could discuss, rather than insulting our intellect, punctuation, parentage and any future children we might have.
If any of you on this board don’t believe that Muslims are a threat to democratic societies world-wide, take a look around the globe at “Islam’s bloody borders
Why do you think we don’t believe this? If anything, I’ve expressed concern for ALL theocracy - Muslim, Jewish, Christian…all of them are dangerous.
Of course, all the Neville Chamberlains on this board are going to say these concerns are “just the fantastic ramblings of another right-wing whacko”.
Now, this is what I was talking about earlier. Liberal must equal weak and clueless, hmm? Neither I nor any liberal I know is the least bit interested in the appeasment of Islamic terrorists or fundamenatlists governments. Why do you think we were furious when we abandoned our prosecution of the war against the Taliban and Bin-Laden to invade Iraq?
Jimmy Carter fell asleep at the wheel in the late 1970s when both Khomeini and Saddam Hussein seized power. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but now we’re dealing with a foe who will be difficult to defeat.
You think that Carter could have stopped the overthrow of the Shah? And not only was Hussein a ba’athist and therefore a secularist, but his rise to power was supported by Western anti-communist Cold War politics, as was Bin-Laden in his fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Study history, guys
Believe me, I have. Apparently, that study has led me to far different conclusions than you.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Bruno is correct in that Hussein finalized power in 1978. but if you were traveling in the Middle East, in 1974-75, and were discussing going to Syria or Iraq with fellow travelers, coming from Syria or Iraq, Hussein’s name certainly came up, as he was the one in charge there.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Since Carter is such a bozo, can we also blame him for the Cambodian killing fields? weren’t they around then? musta been Carter’s fault, just trying to follow the ‘logic’ here.
Actually my Dad was providing medical support to a group of Khmer(an ethnic group, not the KhmerRouge) rebels in Cambodia in 1980-1982, he had seen dead Vietnamese and dead East Germans(working with the Vietnamese) that the rebels killed.
I wish he had known it was all Carter’s fault.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Sorry, I neglected to specify that the support of Hussein was designed to counter Iraq, and that the cold-war motive drove support of Bin-Laden.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Ok, John, Chuck, et.al., here is my pompous blog to summarize my experiences concerning human nature, its relationship to political opinions, why liberals deserve scorn right now, why religious whackos like Chuck or Randy are even less intelligent than the dumbest liberal, and why we all should put our differences aside right now to focus on our bigger enemy, political Islam. There are several theorems of Mathematics and Physics which provide the “logical proof” behind my ideas, but I will keep it simple for those unfamiliar with Special Relativity, Godels Incompleteness Theorem, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. If anyone is familiar, I will gladly make the connections here for you. Is that intelligent/arrogant enough for you, John?
To truly dissect the question posed by Shaunti, or any other political concern, we have to consider the source of the question: a human being. My experiences in life suggest to me that our human nature is somewhat dualistic—while our intellect and ability to use technology are far superior to any animal, we remain “animalistic” in our emotions. Of course, “emotion” and “motivation” are both from the same root word, and, in fact, John, it is our emotions which ultimately motivate our political opinions, not our intellect. This is no post-modernistic sell-out to moral relativism, as you tried to suggest earlier, but just an observation of how we operate as humans. As you will see below, I certainly don’t believe that all political positions are morally equivalent.
To be continued
By 2D
August 23, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
The “Neville Chamberlain” attacks, in this broad sense, are simply a regurgitation of Hannity and other Fox News anchors.
I do believe that there are folks on the left who would go down the path of appeasement, sticking their heads in the samd, the same that I believe there are folks on the right who simply want to bomb everyone to the stone age.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric around this got pretty hot a couple of weeks back with the defeat of Lieberman in the primary. Lieberman’s unique position as a strong liberal in every sense, except for his support of the war in Iraq, paints his defeat as an appeasement mentality by the Democratic Party. It also paints a picture that unless a candidate toes the party line or is named Clinton, they are toast. IMO, neither is a good picture for the democratic party. It makes me far less likely to vote for a Democrat in the next election. But since I liv ein district 4, I either vote Democrat or don’t vote. :)
The above may or may not be the case, but if it isn’t, the Dems are doing a horrible job of getting their message out. Like I put in a previous post, perception is nine-tenths of reality.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Has Taboga come back from the dead oh, wait, what was it? Traveling at 90mph in his Lincoln Navigator to have some fine babe rub oil on his back, at the lakeside beach, while he drank a Bud? did I get that right? LOL
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Mara - Chilao - if you make me blow coffee out of my nose one more time…(LOL!!)
was that for just for the rest of today or forever?
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
In examining human emotions, it is very easy to see patterns of human behavior which mimics that of pack animals, like wild dogs. Of course, we tend see this quality in our opponents much more than ourselves as an explanation of human behavior. Two characteristics of “pack mentality” are implicit to almost every human interaction—that of being “in” the group vs. “out” of the group, and dominance within the group.
By Joe
August 23, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
I seemed to have found a liberal cool aid drinker. And his pantys are really in a wad. My post was to ruffle those chicken hawk feathers of people like you. People who don’t believe national security is a strong Republican issue. The only plan I have actually heard from Dems is to cut and run. Thats it. They are not even talking about how they will raise taxes and try to push through a ridiculous impeachment that the people don’t want. I guess you are not from the great state of Georgia which by the way is a solid red state and will continue to be from now on.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I seemed to have found a liberal cool aid drinker. And his pantys are really in a wad. My post was to ruffle those chicken hawk feathers of people like you. People who don’t believe national security is a strong Republican issue. The only plan I have actually heard from Dems is to cut and run. Thats it. They are not even talking about how they will raise taxes and try to push through a ridiculous impeachment that the people don’t want. I guess you are not from the great state of Georgia which by the way is a solid red state and will continue to be from now on.
Do you even know what half those words mean, or did you just cut-and-paste straight from the Hannity site, pumpkin?
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
If you think about it, these same mental functions are mirrored in “mathematical” thinking, described in Set Theory. In treating collections of objects as unified groups, we focus only on the similarites which allow us to treat the group as a “unit”, and ignore any differences. Conversely, to consider an object to be NOT part of a collection, we have to find at least one difference. Like it or not, John, as a human, you think in this very same way.
Anyone with a math background can follow this thread all the way to Godels Incompleteness Theorem, which ultimately proves that (1) The process of logic itself is flawed, and limited, to the point that for any statement you can make, the converse will automatically be true at the same time, as well. Anyone familiar with Zen Buddhism understands this in a non-mathematical way. As such, the discriminations we use to form human groups are ultimately arbritrary, in a strictly logical analysis. (2) There can never be enough assumptions and resulting theorems to completely describe any system. This is the “logical” error made by Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Christians,and almost all Muslims. Christ expressed this in non-mathematical terms in his criticism of the Sadduces and Pharisees.
By Joe
August 23, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Do you even know what plan the dems have?? Of course not. They don’t have one Skippy…..
By Billy
August 23, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Lieberman’s unique position as a strong liberal in every sense, except for his support of the war in Iraq…
If we reassess Lieberman’s record, I wouldn’t say that he’s a “strong liberal” in every since of late. If anything, he’s become far more conservative. Probably as appeasement to the right for any future presidential aspirations.
My post was to ruffle those chicken hawk feathers of people like you.
Do you even know what half those words mean…?
I’m guessing not, since “chicken hawk” is typically used to describe politicians who are quick to send people to war but slow to join themselves. For example: pretty much every republican leader you can find right now.
By Renee
August 23, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Chilao - you are on a roll today!!
By Billy
August 23, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Heisenberg? Are you trying to argue that the closer we get to knowing what truth is, the further we get from knowing what truth will be?
You sir, are a troll. Good day.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
The process by which we decide who’s in the group or out is known as “discrimination”. Of course, to anyone “out” of the group, discrimination is a bad word. It is actually a neutral word, however, because it has just as many good applications as bad. When you choose your friends, you discriminate. When you pick a barber, you discriminate.
The mathematical process of discriminating is strictly a logical function, and therefore “value-free”. In human interactions, however, the same is not true. What groups we decide to join is all-important. My experience with fundamentalists is that they understand this concept well, but carry it to an unproductive and dangerous extreme by requiring forced membership. Liberals, on the other hand, wrongly minimize the importance of loyalty, which leads to “multi-culturalism” and anarchy.
By Joe
August 23, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Has John changerd his name to Billy Bob?? I wasn’t even talking to you but since you want to butt in fine… Yet another little lib Air America fan….
By Brian Curtis
August 23, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Liberals minimize the importance of loyalty? Oh, do go on, this is funny….
By The72John
August 23, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
*Has John changerd his name to Billy Bob?? I wasn’t even talking to you but since you want to butt in fine… Yet another little lib Air America fan”
What’s up with the trolls all of a sudden?
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Oh, do go on, this is funny…
INDEED, (sounding like Teal’c on Stargate SG-1)
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
What’s up with the trolls all of a sudden?
one of dem der libruls wooses deserted his watch, and went to the restroom, getting off the man-hole cover he was standing on to keep all them trolls in CHUDs-ville.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
So, wrapping things up a little…Liberals deserve great scorn in my book for their behavior ever since Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. I don’t think we have to look much beyond Gore and Kerry, along with the next losing Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, for the source of the divisiveness that’s sweeping the country. The wild charges made about Bush these past few years have little or no factual basis, and are driven, like always, by emotion.
If we weren’t at war with political Islam right now, I wouldn’t care so much about all the baseless whining. As such, the questions “Are Democrats focusing too much on the negatives in Iraq ?” and “Is the press actually biased ?” are actually frightening to me. The factual answers are so obvious, that treating these as serious questions troubles me.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
was I the only one who flashed on Adolf with that multi-culturalism/anarchy comment?
By Billy
August 23, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
INDEED, (sounding like Teal’c on Stargate SG-1)
Chilao, have you seen this?
By Jack
August 23, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
“I AM a short-tempered, easily-offended, often-sarcastic guy, but I also, believe it or not, prefer to have a nice, civil debate.”
And we love you. The Hell with what others think.
By Mara
August 23, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Chilao - just for today, darlin’. Today’s my last day of class so if you tickle me tomorrow I won’t have to worry about ruining someone elses keyboard. ;^)
speaking of “Lieberman’s unique position as a strong liberal in every sense, except for his support of the war in Iraq…” er, he does support Bush’s spying on innocent Americans, empowering the government to impose their opinions on end of life issues, and fully supports the right-wing push to force their “morals” on everyone else. Now he’s opposing the democratically chosen Democrat in the election, IMO he shouldn’t be able to say he is a Democrat, he should be stripped of his party affiliation. While one is not required to support all facets of the Democrats platform to be a Democrat, one should be required to support the candidate that Democratic voters have chosen as their representative.
Joe - just one of the ideas the Dems have proposed is to make a timeline based on “roadmarkers”, like percentages of Iraqi army regiments ready to mobilize, numbers of trained police, etc to give us an idea of when we can start looking at troop reduction (as opposed to complete withdrawl) as well as reassuring the Iraqis that we don’t want to occupy their country any longer than we have to. Now that, IMO, isn’t “pull-‘em-out-now-cut ‘n runnin’” It’s called a “plan”. There’re other ideas, but I only have a few minutes left on lunch and don’t have time to list them all.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
As for Randy and Chuck, whole they bring up some good conservative talking points, I think that they are ultimately intellectual lightweights and dangerous people due to their extremist religious views. The fact is, that the Bible contradicts itself so much on such basic facts as to which night the Crucifixion occurred, that anyone who holds it up as the literal word of God isn’t digging hard enough. In fact, 95% of all Christians incorporate decidedly non-Biblical practices and beliefs such as Sunday worship, celebrating Easter and Christmas, and claiming that Adam is the first human on Earth. The Bible itself disproves all these false teachings.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Chilao, have you seen this?
TV Guide reports today that while the series may be cancelled, they plan on continuing with made-for-tv movies on Sci-Fi as well as possible big-screen translation. Also, several cast members will be jumping to Atlantis.
I just hope Ben Browder is one of them.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Einstein’s Special Relativity is based on the premise that Physics is the same everywhere, even though it APPEARS to be different to observers watching another object in motion relative to the observer’s point of reference. In other words, microwave ovens work the same whether you are “motionless” in your house, or on a “moving” train. The theory is also predicated on the assumption that no one point of reference is more “objective” than any other.
In applying this to humans, the first premise holds well, but the second one doesn’t. I.e. other peoples’s opinions and morality may APPEAR to be different from ours, but seem normal to them, and are actually just variations of our own morality with a different selfish perspective. To believe that all points of view are of equal merit is NOT true, of course, something the ethical moralits try to deny.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Are democrats focusing too much on the negatives of the Iraq war? What negatives? Everyone knows war is glorious. Especially when it’s not against the people who actually hurt us. Esp. when as Republican soldier and president Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” And: *”This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” *
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
No did not know about cancellation plans. that is a drag. I am not hooked on Atlantis like I am SG-1 although Atlantis has suddenly become more available, on FOX, where I see SG-1. But the recent SG-1 had them back in ancient Eqypt, a la the original movie.
Playboy recently had an article on the frightening consolidation of Presidential Powers and the complete rubber-stamping of “Yessa, Massa” of the Congress.
By Kevin
August 23, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Two things I never thought I would see on this blog.
My math training stopped at differential calculus with an additional quarter of Laplace transformations. In my calculus based physics class we scratched the surface of relativity, but that was far too many moons ago.
Bruno and 72John - keep up the great work. I have really enjoyed reading your well thought out, concise debates.
Bruno - I understand the non-Biblical practices comment (Easter, Sunday School, and Christmas). However, please point out where the Bible proves Adam is not the first man on earth? Thanks!
By Billy
August 23, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
John — I agree about Browder. Though, possibly, for different reasons… ;-) I’ve really been enjoying the “new blood” infused into the show with Browder and Claudia Black. It’s been nice having new characters to develop and new dynamics as far as the team’s interaction is concerned.
I’m hoping that they won’t try to rush the Ori storyline to a conclusion in the few episodes this season that aren’t already set in stone. Save it for the movies/miniserie. Don’t cheapen it by rushing it.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Kevin — do you really think Bruno’s posts have been well thought out? Or are they just a bunch of big words apllied to a subject to which they are impossible to truly apply?
By 2D
August 23, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Mara… I did a little bit of research and the Princeton website has Lieberman ranked as the 26th most liberal Senator. His ratings just a few points behind Joe Biden and Harry Reid.
That indicates to me his votes go with the party line and he deviates on very few occasions; primarily Iraq and other peripherally associated issues. Of course I do not check every vote he makes, he’s not my Senator. I care more about Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Isakson.
However, I believe it is safe to say that while he may have gotten “more conservative”, that hardly qualifies as being dubbya’s best buddy. One other item… Do you really believe that he lost that primary on his “end of life” views??? You are much smarter than that.
Now I do agree that he should no longer be affiliated with the Democratic party. I felt the same about Jim Jeffords, and quite frankly feel what he did was worse. He switched almost directly after winning his election. Lieberman is at least making the switch during the election process.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
John — I agree about Browder. Though, possibly, for different reasons… ;-) I’ve really been enjoying the “new blood” infused into the show with Browder and Claudia Black. It’s been nice having new characters to develop and new dynamics as far as the team’s interaction is concerned.
Hey, that was my reason as well! Well, mostly…
The 200th episode was quite clever…I enjoyed the Farscape references and thought that Teal’c’s line “I do not understand why everything in this script invariably must explode” was just priceless.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
2D, Lieberman isn’t switching during the elections process because he no longer feels the party represents him, but because he lost and isn’t willing to give up his seat.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
The only credit I give religious extremists is for their acknowledgement of the obvious fact that life can’t “evolve” from non-life, a concept pushed by ego-maniacal “scientists” for the past 100 years. This acknowledgement does not necessarily lead to obvious horrors of institutionalized religion, but does provide an ethical basis by which a reasonable perosn can make moral decisions regarding issues such as abortion and fetal stem cell research.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
as opposed to Shelby of Alabama who was elected Senator in 1994, as a Democrat, and immediately switched to being a Republican?
By 2D
August 23, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Billy… What is the point??? Is it a shot at Joe Lieberman or a defense of Jim Jeffords???
By The72John
August 23, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
The self-indulgent pseudo-science is getting thick in here…
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
did we all hear the SNL headline news item, back when Lieberman was running for President?
Joe Lieberman announced today he is running for President. He made the announcement from where he spent most of high school: locked inside his locker
By candide
August 23, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Bruno: the bible is full of nonsense as any reading of it can show. It isn’t the word of God, it is the word of a lot of sick ancient Jews and some pagans. Anyone basing his life on the bible is a fool; he should be told so. The time for being mice to religious believers is over. Give them the business!
People who cling to the bible are pathetic; they have no thoughts of their own, cannot reason, cannot live without authority figures, cannot think. They, in a better society, would be locked up in mental wards.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
2D — The point was that Lieberman’s switch is in no way better than that by Jeffords. I’m not defending Jeffords with that statement. Nor do I consider it a “shot” at Lieberman. But now that you mention it…
Jeffords ran as a republican because he was a republican. Then, after the election, he realized that all the freshmen congressmen that came in weren’t his breed of republican but a new one: the neocon. Appalled at the ideological turn taken by his party, he gave up his membership in that party, knowing full well than it would cost the republicans the majority in the Senate, which would therefore draw the ire of the president, among others. He made the decision to do what he believed was right even though he knew it would make his life problematic. For when he switched, he did not become a democrat. He just said he was no longer in the republican party.
Lieberman, on the other hand, wanted that party affiliation. The party basically said, through Lamont and the election results, that it had someone it liked more. Only then did Lieberman decide to become an independent. As a last ditch effort to maintain his position and power. And you know what? Had the republican party for some reason not already had a nominee for his seat, I have no doubt in my mind that, after losing the primary, he would gladly become a republican for the general election.
By Zack
August 23, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
I’m not in favor of how this war is being managed. I’m not against war, by definition, though, as there are such things as “just wars.” There are not such things as “just abortions”, “just euthanasias”, etc., and the left is fine with promoting the latter. Yes, they are definitely hypocritical with their criticism(s) of the war.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Kevin, the “Adam question” is so simple that it’s a no-brainer. In my NIV translation,Genesis 1:27 states that “So God (Elohim) created man in his own image, …., male and female he created them.” Genesis 2 then gives a very different account of creation involving breathing the breath of life into the “first” man (literally Adam in Hebrew)who was formed from the ground. Later,in Genesis 4, he and Eve have two sons, for a total of 4 humans on Earth. After Cain kills Abel and is banished, leaving 3 people, he states to God ” My punishment is more than i can bear….I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and WHOEVER FINDS ME WILL KILL ME.” At that point, no other siblings of Cain and Abel had been mentioned, so…
There is no reasonable way to reconcile these two different accounts, so a person must fall back on an allegorical explanation or simply abandon any demand for logical consistency and say “I Believe!”
By Zack
August 23, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Candide, I mean Norman,
Your bigotry against Christianity is evident once again. You need to seek the truth, as do we all. The Bible IS the Word of God, contrary to what you might have been told by whomever might have influenced you.
I’m not asking anyone to take MY word for it. Please get a King James Version (by far the best version around) and study God’s Word for yourself. Eternity is serious, so please assume the responsibility of seeking the truth for yourself. Don’t assume your way through life.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Billy… I could agree with your assessment, if say this were 150 years ago. The folks on this BLOG have general understandings of many current Senators and of their election opponents, if they are running for reelection. The available information is nearly limitless.
To think that Jim Jeffords knew nothing of the incoming Republican Senators until after the election is ridiculous. He at least had a general understanding of the freshman Senators prior to the election. If he didn’t he wasn’t reading the news or keeping up to date with basic politics and obviously shouldn’t be a Senator to start with.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Chilao… Not familiar with that situation. I didn’t really follow politics at that time. If that was the case, then shame on Senator Shelby.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Too bad this discussion isn’t about the Bible, because contrary to candide’s opinion, it does provide a lot of needed wisdom for us. Of course, to find that wisdom, you have to read the document in a “literary” fashion, not a “literal” fashion. I won’t waste time here disarming the literalists—that’s too simple, and they don’t make their decisions based on facts, anyway.
One greatly overlooked fact of the Bible (i.e. the English translation for the Greek “Biblios”) is that there are many different names for God used in the orignal Hebrew which are all translated simply as God in the Old Testament. Examples of this are El, Elohim, Eloah, Yehovah, Elyon, Adon, and Jah. Elohim, amazingly enough, is a PLURAL word, and is used in a plural sense in the original Hebrew. There is a reason for this, a reason idiots like Randy and Chuck will never discover.
P.S. John, I’m waiting for your rebuttal of my FACTS. The fact is, you’re NO WHERE CLOSE to being half as smart as you think you are, I don’t care how many useless degrees you have. At least Chilao was man enough to correct himself after challenging my date on when Hussein assumed total power of Iraq.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
2D — I’m not talking senators. I’m talking all the incoming congerssmen. The freshman republican representatives that came in that year were a new breed. And while Jeffords may have sensed that some were coming in, he probably didn’t realize the push towards theocracy was happening that quickly until after the election.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Hey Zack, I’ll match my Bible knowledge against your childish views any day. I’m calling you down right here, because I don’t think you know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to the Bible. I gotta run for now and get my 15 year old Toyota fixed. That’s the kind of car that arrogant, pompous people like me drive, for your knowledge, John. I’ll come back later to whip up on the liberals and religious whackos in a little while.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
2D - what about all the GA state democrats who flipped Republican weeks after being elected a couple of years ago?
By Mara
August 23, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
2D - I don’t put much faith in those scores since they’re based on number of votes. If you have 20 votes come up, you miss or don’t vote on 18 of them but vote liberal on the 2 you do cast ballot on…you would be considered a very good liberal because every vote you cast was in support of the liberal side. Factcheck.com can give you a much better breakdown than I.
While I don’t think that Connecticut voters ousted Joe only for his end of life stand, I do think that it was one of a myriad of views that have put him at odds with those whom he is supposed to be representing. Despite the Republican meme that it’s only anti-war Bush haters that don’t like Joe, the primary results indicate that his out-of-touchness (that’n was for the grammer police…c’mon, bust me Bruno…) with the average Connecticut liberal had a lot to do with it.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
…of the Bible (i.e. the English translation for the Greek “Biblios”)…
Bruno, the above bit says all that needs to be said about your posts. Really? “Bible” from the Greek “Biblios? At what point in your extensive schooling was that tidbit revealed? Or did you have to Google it? Did you use Wikipedia? Or any dictionary on the face of the planet???
No, you just used that factoid (and that’s all it is — a useless piece of trivia) to make yourself appead knowledgeable, much like your inexplicable reference to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Much like Heisenberg’s principle has nothing to do with terrorism, the origin of the word “Bible” has nothing to do with the veracity of the information contained therein. Unless “Biblios” meant “delusional rambling of a man who got lost in the desert and began to believe he was a sea cucumber.”
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
People who cling to the bible are pathetic; they have no thoughts of their own, cannot reason, cannot live without authority figures, cannot think. Actually they live like children for their entire lives looking for daddy to tell them what they should and should not do! It’s the 21st century Zack; time to grow up and take responsibility for your own as-s.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Yeah, “appead” was supposed to be “appear”. It’s called a typo. Sue me.
By Brian Curtis
August 23, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Bruno, am I reading this right? In the same breath you denounce religious nuts, and then buy into the “Vast Conspiracy of Egotistical Scientists” garbage that the anti-evolutionists like to spout?
And all so you can make what you call “sensible” decisions about stem-cell research. Hmm, how convenient.
By Brian Curtis
August 23, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Oh, and Bruno, Master of Spelling? It’s the Uncertainty Principle, not “principal.”
By The72John
August 23, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
At least Chilao was man enough to correct himself after challenging my date on when Hussein assumed total power of Iraq.
Much like you were man enough to admit how incorrect you were in A) suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with the religious Islamic movement and B) that Carter was responsible for his rise to power?
P.S. John, I’m waiting for your rebuttal of my FACTS. The fact is, you’re NO WHERE CLOSE to being half as smart as you think you are, I don’t care how many useless degrees you have.
Obviously, I lack the wit to rebut your masterpiece. What I AM going to do, however, is piece this brilliant bit of multi-disciplinary analysis together into a single document and pass it on to my father.
He, in turn, will pass it on to his many colleagues, including former Fulbright Scholars and Rhodes Scholars, nationally recognized experts in various fields, Ivy League PhDs and published authors who will subject it to the peer review that it so richly deserves. I realize that he will have to exhaust his full catalog of contacts in order to reach experts in the many, many fields that you have addressed.
Soon after, I am sure that we will see being bounced around the internet from one end of the globe to another, the following treatise: Bruno’s Grand Unified Theory of Being a Horse’s A$$
I can’t wait.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
I thought Biblios meant BOOKS?
In Spanish(or is it French? or both?) biblio(whateva) means library or something like that.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
When does an egg become a person? 1/ Day one when fertilized? 2/ Aristotle said when it acquires a soul (40-90 days) although how he knew that? 3/ Its brain starts to function - 8 to 10 weeks? 4/ It can feel pain (week 14)? 5/ It is able to live outside the womb (week 24)? or 6/ It is born? How does one tell the difference between just a war and a just war?
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I cannot laugh anymore today, thank you 72John and BrianCurtis. LOL
aaaawwwww. whew.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
And for Bruno, in 1965 a new logic was introduced to deal with partial truths as opposed to the binary system of classical logic, which expressed things in the “black and white” terms of 1’s and 0’s. Instead, this new logic presents truths in shades of gray. While classic logic may say someone is rich or poor, or that something is cold or hot, or that something is or is not a person, the new logic may hold that something is 0.6 hot, or 0.2 cold, or 0.8 a person. And so it goes.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Or in the famous words of C.S. Pierce, “It is … easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague.”
By Jack
August 23, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Chilao. Don’t catch SG-1 to much but I do like the “sprayed on” uniforms some of the females wear.
By Laf
August 23, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
A necessary war as long as one of those bombs doesn't land on my house or results in the death of my child. The more control we have on the rest of the world the cheaper my gasoline bill will be everymonth. My preacher will get to go over there and spread the word. Mayby the Democrats looks at this war from a different angle. Success in Iraq will mean success in Iran and North Korea. Success mmmmmmmmmmmm. Whose daydreaming? Mayby we need to stay at home and let the UN handle the problems of the world. Somebody better start looking at the negatives!By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Sorry, I just could not resist….; -)
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Chilao and other SciFi fans, have you watched Firefly? Whatdaya think?
By 2D
August 23, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Mara… I guess we’ll see who the people of Connecticut think best represent them.
John… I know my congresspersons (Mr. Lewis; Ms. McKinney) have never switched. Although we will now at least have a rational human being representing us in district 4.
Billy… Sorry, but I still think switching parties like that is bush league. I can’t imagine an individual would be that clueless about the diretion of his own party. I suspect he was on the fence, didn’t get a chairmanship or some other post he wanted and flopped over so he could. Nothing to base that on, just a suspician.
Lozen… Are you serious??? I might be able to go along with saying the term “rich” is relative, but 0.6 hot???
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Chilao. Don’t catch SG-1 to much but I do like the “sprayed on” uniforms some of the females wear
Yeah, I have wanted to date an alien ever since, but on second thought, I probably have anyway(too many times). LMAO
Lozen - unfamiliar with Firefly, don’t have ‘cable’.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
People, I’m going to need everyone to be very careful…Schroedinger’s Cat seems to have escaped and is loose on the blog. It is unknown whether or not Schroedinger’s Cat is armed or unarmed, but he is wanted Dead or Alive.
Please be very careful, as this quantum uncertainty is extremely dangerous.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
2D: hot, hotter, hottest? No?
By The72John
August 23, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
I know my congresspersons (Mr. Lewis; Ms. McKinney) have never switched
Sorry, 2D, but you are WRONG. Ms. McKinney, at least has switched…
off
:-)
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Chilao I’ve fantasized about dating an alien too ;-).
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen - researched FIREFLY, seems it started on FOX, and vaguely remember it, but never watched it, really.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
on’t catch SG-1 to much but I do like the “sprayed on” uniforms some of the females wear.
Umm…wrong show.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
on’t catch SG-1 to much but I do like the “sprayed on” uniforms some of the females wear. Umm…wrong show.
I drew a blank there too, all I could think of was some aliens, but even most of them are excessively dressed. (long covering apparel)
I like the head honcho commander on Atlantis though, hot babe. LOL
By The72John
August 23, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
Lozen - researched FIREFLY, seems it started on FOX, and vaguely remember it, but never watched it, really.
Joss Whedon - Buffy/Angel creator’s attempt at a Sci-Fi Western/Frontiersman kind of show. I never got into it, even though I was a huge Buffy/Angel fan. Only ran a few episodes, but was popular enough on the cult side to spawn a feature film, Serenity.
On a trivial note, after cancellation most of the leads appeared in roles on either Buffy or Angel. Guess Joss really liked ‘em.
Umm…wrong show.
Yeah, sorry Jack…unless you consider standard issue fatigues painted-on…
By Brian Curtis
August 23, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
*Don’t catch SG-1 to much but I do like the “sprayed on” uniforms some of the females wear.
Umm…wrong show.*
And a darn shame too. Sounds like a great program, whatever it is.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Yes, 72John! Yes! What is the most fundamental scientific theory known to humanity, underpinning modern science and technology, and even providing us with a blueprint for reality itself?!!!! Yet, if you think you understand it, you quite clearly don’t. But is it really so unknowable? Is reality really so strange? And just how can cats be half alive and half dead at the same time? (You can just blame Bruno for this!)
By The72John
August 23, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I like the head honcho commander on Atlantis though, hot babe. LOL
I just like looking at Ben Browder and Michael Shanks each Friday night. Well, Saturday afternoon. That’s what TiVO is for - recording hot guys in good shows while you’re at the bar.
By Scalia
August 23, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Iozen, Firefly rocks. I love Joss Whedon. He is the man. He did an excellent job on Buffy. I went to see Serenity, and started watching the show after seeing the movie.
By Billy
August 23, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
2D — Busch League? Maybe. But I’d much rather Jeffords realize late in the game that he’s on the wrong side and then leave that side at a time when he can help, for a year or two at least, forestall the impending s** of destruction that side is going to impose on the populace.
Besides, as I’ve said, Jeffords didn’t switch to the democrats. He just said he’s no longer a republican. Plenty of politicians have made the move from democrat to republican without ever even pretending to be an independent. Ben “Nighthorse” Campbell from Colorado comes to mind. And my Rep. Nathal Deal.
By lozen
August 23, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Chilao, I’ll tell you about my fantasy alien if you’ll tell me about yours.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Lozen… Sorry, I guess you got me. Hot is a relative term as is cold.
Still, the “new” logic you speak of is flawed because the numeric value of 0.8 hot is relative some standard otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to measure it as 0.8 hot versus 0.3 hot.
By Chilao
August 23, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
wow I just learned Dr. Daniel Jackson’s actor name. LOL
By Billy
August 23, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
I just like looking at Ben Browder and Michael Shanks each Friday night. Well, Saturday afternoon. That’s what TiVO is for - recording hot guys in good shows while you’re at the bar.
See? TiVo recordings son’t count in the ratings, so those shows end up getting cancelled. :|
By The72John
August 23, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
See? TiVo recordings son’t count in the ratings, so those shows end up getting cancelled. :|
I’m not a Neilsen household - my viewing is irrelevant.
By chuck
August 23, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Bruno, you are one intelligent idiot.
You said: In examining human emotions, it is very easy to see patterns of human behavior which mimics that of pack animals, like wild dogs. Of course, we tend see this quality in our opponents much more than ourselves as an explanation of human behavior. Two characteristics of “pack mentality” are implicit to almost every human interaction—that of being “in” the group vs. “out” of the group, and dominance within the group.
It is obvious that you have never had an original thought. Your ability to regurgitate all of the things you learned in college is remarkable, though. Maybe if you want other people to think you are REALLY smart maybe you should follow your own advice:
Here, for example, Mara and definitely The72John apparently confuse using big words with true intelligence in light of their constant self-congratulations. True intelligence means not only the ability to gather facts, but also the ability to sort them out in order of importance.
As for Heisenberg, I found this neat little ditty:
No scientific idea from the last century is more fetishized, abused, and misunderstood—by the vulgar and the learned alike—than Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The principle doesn’t say anything about how precisely any particular thing can be known. It does say that some pairs of properties are linked in such a way that they cannot both be measured precisely at the same time.
This would lead me to believe that your use of Heisenberg I assume to say that there are no absolutes and that the closer we get to a problem the less we understand it (to overly simplify what I think you are getting at) would fall into this category as well. I have seen philosophy professors make the same mistake, so I’m not surprised.
As for your appraisal of my intellectual ability, I think I’ll defer to a good friend of mine who ran a battery of IQ tests and concluded that my IQ is 149. Not as high as yours of course, but certainly enough to hang with anybody on this board.
There are people on this board who have to make posts in very short windows of time…you see we actually work for a living…so if we don’t rise to your heightened expectations of us, we beg your forgiveness.
As for 72john, while I don’t think Muslim Extremism is the ONLY cause of terrorism, I do think it is recognized as the LEADING cause. I also think that you will find that as a consensus among the EXPERTS. Unlike you I read BEYOND the Moveon.org website. Tomorrow I’ll link a number of studies for you that will show this to be the case…especially the fallacy of “poverty” being the main cause. Almost everybody that has been captured or discovered as being connected with Al Qaeda operations are upper middle class college educated terrorists. Got to go.
By 2D
August 23, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Chuck… IQ means nothing if it isn’t applied to anything other than hate and exclusion.
By The72John
August 23, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
As for 72john, while I don’t think Muslim Extremism is the ONLY cause of terrorism, I do think it is recognized as the LEADING cause. I also think that you will find that as a consensus among the EXPERTS.
Hmm, because as we all know, only Muslims are terrorists, right?
Actually, Chuck, I think that you’ll find that the leading cause of the tactic of terrorism is an asymetry of power between warring groups.
Unlike you I read BEYOND the Moveon.org website
Yes, we are familiar with www.Answersingenesis.com and your obsession with it.
Actually, I don’t use Moveon.org for info, or any other politically charged resource. But I understand that as a person who ONLY uses politically-charged or biased resources, you probably won’t believe that.
By Bruno
August 23, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
Quick blog before closing time—I see a few of my critics here have resorted to rebutting things I never said—recheck my mention of Heisenberg, I made no application, only mentioned his name. And, if I’m so unoriginal, how can I blast the Bible literalists, rebut “evolution”, and oppose FETAL stem cell research all in the same breath. One other critic changed my opposition to FETAL stem cell research into opposition to all stem cell research. Big difference.
By TramadoL6922
August 23, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this
Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.
By Bush
August 23, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this
Hello, nice site look this: http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/rodan-and-fields-proactiv.html [url=http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/rodan-and-fields-proactiv.html][/url] http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/proactiv-renewing-cleanser.html [url=http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/proactiv-renewing-cleanser.html][/url] http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/proactiv-solution-free-shipping.html [url=http://home.aol.com/proactivbuy/proactiv-solution-free-shipping.html][/url]
End ^) See you
By TramadoL85348
August 23, 2006 11:11 PM | Link to this
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
By TramadoL52703
August 23, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
By TramadoL74518
August 24, 2006 12:58 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.
By TramadoL18285
August 24, 2006 02:11 AM | Link to this
I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.
By TramadoL8220
August 24, 2006 04:26 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.
By TramadoL75092
August 24, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
John, You’ve disappointed me terribly. A few days ago, you defined intelligence (which you claim, along with Chuck, to have a lot of) as “the ability to synthesize complex and abstract ideas into something useful”. Yesterday, I thought I put on a good show for you, and, in return, no props.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
So after offering very little rebuttal to my ideas, in the end you tried to make some blind appeal to authority by deferring to people who have won Fulbright Scholarships because you don’t have the brain power to analyze my ideas for their own merit.
By chuck
August 24, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
This is an interesting article on the “Root Cause of Terrorism.” It comes from aish.com which I think is a Jewish website but the concept piggybacks on what we discussed yesterday…Muslim extremism. As I said yesterday, their goal was to eliminate all Non-Muslim governments and establish a totalitarian Muslim WORLD government. This article makes a lot of sense.
Do not be fooled by the apologists of terror.
These apologists tell us that the root cause of terrorism is the deprivation of national and civic rights, and that the way to stop terror is to redress the supposed grievances that arise from this deprivation.
But the root cause of terrorism, the deliberate targeting of civilians, is not the deprivation of rights. If it were, then in the thousands of conflicts and struggles for national and civil rights in modern times we would see countless instances of terrorism. But we do not.
Mahatma Gandhi fought for the independence of India without resorting to terrorism. So too did the peoples of Eastern Europe in their struggle to bring down the Berlin Wall. And Martin Luther King’s campaign for equal rights for all Americans eschewed all violence, much less terrorism.
If the deprivation of rights is indeed the root cause of terrorism, why did all these people pursue their cause without resorting to terror? Put simply, because they were democrats, not terrorists. They believed in the sanctity of each human life, were committed to the ideals of liberty, and championed the values of democracy.
But those who practice terrorism do not believe in these things. In fact, they believe in the very opposite. For them, the cause they espouse is so all-encompassing, so total, that it justifies anything. It allows them to break any law, discard any moral code and trample all human rights in the dust. In their eyes, it permits them to indiscriminately murder and maim innocent men and women, and lets them blow up a bus full of children.
There is a name for the doctrine that produces this evil. It is called totalitarianism.
Indeed, the root cause of terrorism is totalitarianism. Only a totalitarian regime, by systemically brainwashing its subjects, can indoctrinate hordes of killers to suspend all moral constraints for the sake of a twisted cause.
That is why from its inception totalitarianism has always been wedded to terrorism — from Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to the ayatollahs to Saddam Hussein, right down to Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat.
Those who fight as terrorists rule as terrorists.
It is not merely that the goals of terrorists do not justify the means they choose, it is that the means they choose tell us what their true goals are. Osama bin Laden is not seeking to defend the rights of Muslims but to murder as many Americans as possible, and ultimately to destroy America. Saddam Hussein is not seeking to defend his people but to subjugate his neighbors. Arafat is not seeking to build a state but to destroy a state; the many massacres of Jews he sponsors tells us what he would do to all the Jews of Israel if he had enough power.
Those who fight as terrorists rule as terrorists. People who deliberately target the innocent never become leaders who protect freedom and human rights. When terrorists seize power, they invariably set up the darkest of dictatorships — whether in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Arafatistan.
In short, the reason why some resort to terror and others do not is not any absence of rights, but the presence of a tyrannical mindset. The totalitarian mind knows no limits. The democratic mind sets them everywhere.
The essential steps to defeat international terrorism are being courageously undertaken by President Bush. By declaring that terrorism is never justified, and by deterring or destroying those regimes that support terror, President Bush has bravely charted a course that will lead the free world to victory.
But to assure that this evil does not re-emerge a decade or two from now, we must not merely uproot terror but also plant the seeds of freedom. Only under tyranny can a terrorist mindset be widely cultivated. It cannot breed in a climate of democracy and freedom.
The open debate of ideas and the respect for human life that are the foundation of all free societies are a permanent antidote to the poison that the terrorists seek to inject into the minds of their recruits.
That is why it is imperative that once the terrorist regimes in the Middle East are swept away, the free world, led by America, must begin to build the institutions of pluralism and democracy in their place. This will not happen overnight, and it is not likely to result in liberal, Western-style democracies. But given an option between Turkish-style freedom and Iranian-style tyranny, the choice is clear.
We simply can no longer allow parts of the world to remain cloistered by fanatic militancies. Such militancies, once armed with nuclear weapons, could destroy our civilization. We must begin immediately to encourage the peoples of the Arab and Islamic world to embrace the idea of pluralism and the ideals of freedom — for their sake, as well as ours.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
John, You’ve disappointed me terribly. A few days ago, you defined intelligence (which you claim, along with Chuck, to have a lot of) as “the ability to synthesize complex and abstract ideas into something useful”. Yesterday, I thought I put on a good show for you, and, in return, no props.
“Something useful” is the key. You confuse a rambling and incoherent concoction of unrelated items as a scholarly work.
So after offering very little rebuttal to my ideas, in the end you tried to make some blind appeal to authority by deferring to people who have won Fulbright Scholarships because you don’t have the brain power to analyze my ideas for their own merit.
It is called “satire”, silly troll.
By TramadoL52703
August 24, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Wow! Have I been busy! Mom came home and made me clean my room
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
As for your pseudo science claims, check the facts, bro. I don’t think you have the education to hang with me. In fact, I believe the only guy here with a real science education is 2D. But, I continue to give big points to Kevin for humility.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
Do not be fooled by the apologists of terror.
Any article that makes the mistake of referring to people who don’t believe that war is the answer to stopping terrorism as “apologists of terror” immediately loses any credibility its ideas may have.
Besides, Chuck - this article says that we must embrace PLURALISM in order to be free from terror, and that doesn’t really fit in with your own totalitarian Christian Fundamentalist yearnings, does it?
It’s funny - every article you post links you more and more and more with the Islamic fundamentalists.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
As for lozen, your “rebuttal” of Kurt Godel’s ideas by mentioning the idea of “partial truth” misses the mark completely. 2D’s observation that ALL scales of measurement are ultimately arbritrary is both pertinent, and correct.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
As for Billy’s complaint about “big words”, the only “big words I’ve used were people’s names and the names of scientific theories. I don’t see any examples like “sycophantic obsequiousness”. Sorry you didn’t catch the Biblios reference, because it has EVERYTHING to do with any discussion of the Bible. I’ll fill in the blanks for you….
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Bruno - I think we are still waiting for YOU to “be a man” and admit Carter cannot be held responsible for Hussein finalizing his rise to power.
unless of course you want to argue that every US President should establish world-dominance over what he thinks should be an acceptable(to the US) ruler, sending the military everywhere where he does not like the ruler. Feel free… LOL
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Yes, Cilao, Biblios means “BOOKS”, and this point has everything to do with any claim of literality. Because, in English, the term “the Bible” is a singular term which suggests that the Bible is a single document. This is essential to believing that it is the direct, unadulterated “Word of God”.
In fact, the Bible is literally what its Greek name suggests: a COLLECTION OF BOOKS. Even worse, which “Books” made it into the final version were voted on by committees of men. As such, many Gospels, such as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas never made the final cut, and thus, apparently are not the “Word of God ” also.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Other strong evidence that the Biblios is not unique is the fact that virtually every story in the Bible has a predecessor in an earlier religion. Flood stories are ubiquitous (there’s a big word for you, Mara)throughout ancient legends. Many Christian storied come straight from Zorasterism. In fact, let me tell you the story of a remarkable man who lived more than 2000 years ago….
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
is that why they are called “The Books of the Bible”? (sorry, could not resist..LMAO)
Lozen - I was not ignoring your alien question yesterday, I had a post never show. It started with something like “i could not tell you Lt.Col Carter’s actress name and I have looked for bikini shots of (Amanda Tapping).” But naw, public alien fantasies ain’t going to happen from here..LMAO
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Many Christian storied come straight from Zorasterism
72John has been pointing that out on this blog for at least a year.
I always like to point out that some of the Biblical Ten Commandments are direct ripoffs of the ancient Eqyptians 40 Negative Confessions. and have suggested Moses could be sued today for plagarism.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
His birth was predicted through an angelic visitor to his mother. His birth was accompanied by miraculous signs, and he was religiously precocious as a child. He led an adult ministry, got in trouble with the Romans, and was executed. Even after he left this world, his followers claimed he ascended to heaven and that they saw him alive afterward. Some books of his life still survive today.
This, my friends (Chuck), is the story of….Apollonius of Tyana, a famous neo-Pythagorean philopher of the 1st century AD.
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
Bruno, you’ve really got to wait for Zack and Chuck to show up if you want to plunge into discussions on the supposed validity of the Bible.
The rest of us really aren’t interested, and their rantings typically sidtrack the discussion into that territory every week anyway.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
John, my musings are somewhat rambling, but I’m trying to meet your standard of intelligence via mountains of “complex and abstract ideas”. If you cut and paste, you will see the central point is the same: People like you claim that their political opinions are strictly motivated by facts and logic, when in fact,is has everything to do with emotion and group membership (or exclusion).
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
But, I’m going to save my biggest guns for Chuck, because I think he needs the most help here to see the light.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
My beef with you, Chuck, is that you take two of my favorite topics, conservative ideas and the Bible, and twist them in a way to guarantee that you will never win one person over to your side. If you haven’t noticed, the liberals have been doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot the pase 5+ years, almost guaranteeing a Republican victory. The reason that you’re dumber than any liberal, 149 IQ and all, is that you’re not happy to let them hang themselves, you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
2D is right again in his comment about your smarts—If you only apply them in a way that leads to hate, how smart is that??
By Troglodyke
August 24, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
As a longtime lurker and infrequent poster here on the verdant soil that is W2W, I must say I am enjoying this Bruno character more with each post. Does he have the right amount of pomposity to stand next to the likes of John? It remains to be seen. He seems a cool-headed fellow, so in that department, he outshines John. Yes, he does produce some blather, but rather than it detracting from his material, it amuses me.
And he is spot-on in his musings about religious belief, which is refreshing in such a Chuck-Randy-Zack triumvirate. He softens John’s refutations of religion, which are astute and gravely necessary, but are often overshadowed by his hostility.
I find Bruno a refreshing twist. Carry on.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
You see, a WEAPON is nothing more than a TOOL which is being misused. In your case, instead of using the Bible as a tool, you use it as a weapon. In a minute, I’m going to turn the tables on you, and use the Bible as a weapon against you, you pathetic lightweight. Since I doubt if you’ll be able to answer me, you might need to get your minister to help you out.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Before I begin my Biblical assault, I will state publicly that I know there is no hope in changing your mind, Chuck, because I believe you are borderline psychotic, if not full blown. Evidence of that can be found in your tirade about my mention of Heisenberg. You constructed a two paragraph house of cards based on nothing, and were actually able to DRAW CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE MERE MENTION OF A WORD.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
First, let me enlighten you about the Uncertainty Principle, since your googled answer was NOT CORRECT. It REALLY HELPS to get your info straight, Chuck, before condemning someone.
The Uncertainty Principle is, in fact, an observation made about electrons. When trying to measure the speed and position of a particle at any given instance, there will always be experimental uncertainty with your measurement. According to Classical Mechanics, however, no barrier exists to refinement of your measurements, so that with enough effort, you could measure the position and speed to any arbritrary precision. That is to say, these thingS are KNOWABLE, even though it may require great effort to determine the precise answers.
By Reason
August 24, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
“Everybody’s talking at me, I don’t hear a word they’re saying, Only the echoes of my mind.” - Harry Nilsson (1969)
By The72John
August 24, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
John, my musings are somewhat rambling, but I’m trying to meet your standard of intelligence via mountains of “complex and abstract ideas”
yawn. I don’t believe I ever said anything about mountains, or even suggested that abstract thought constituted spouting off about various scientific theories that one vainly then tries to make apply to human behavior.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Heisenberg discovered that , amazingly enough, that this isn’t true—i.e. it is physically impossible to simultaneously measure the exact position and exact linear momentum of a particle.
The impact of this discovery is important in Physics, of course, but it does carry deep philosophical meaning as well, which Chuck alluded to in his rant. Philisophically, or should I say, epistemologically for Mara, this means, quoting Chuck’s source “some pairs of properties are linked in such a way that they cannot both be measured precisely at the same time.”
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
As such, the Uncertainty Principle only applies to PAIRS OF OBSERVATIONS, IT MAKES NO COMMENT ABOUT SINGLE OBSERVATIONS. As such, it doesn’t mean the closer you get to something, the more it slips away, or other misinterpretations I’m seeing here on this board.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
The connection, John, before you get your panties in a wad is this: The common characteristic Chuck and the fundamentalist Muslims share is CERTAINTY OF THEIR VIEWS. The branch of philosophy which deals with questions such as this is epistemology, which I’m sure you know from your extensive education. You see, both Godel’s Theorem and the Uncertainty Principle prove LOGICALLY (which I believe is Chuck’s standard of intelligence), that the PROCESSES OF LOGIC ARE FLAWED AND LIMITED.
By Logic
August 24, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
“Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the earth — or slinks through slimy seas has a brain! From the rock-bound coast of Maine to the Sun…. oh - oh, no — — ah - Well, be that as it may. Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning — where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts — and with no more brains than you have….”
Wizard (1939) The Wizard of Oz
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Which you see, John, goes back to my original charge that it is EMOTION which drives our opinions, NOT FACTS AND LOGIC.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
You see, John, like you, as a young man I had extremely high test scores throught school, and went to one of the top colleges in the entire world in which I was the top student in my class. FORTUNATELY I LATER OVERCAME THOSE HANDICAPS TO SUCCESS ONCE I REALIZED THAT OTHER THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
So for me, all this brain stuff is strictly a past-time, but it is fun to puncture holes in the over-inflated egos of self-congratulatory people like you and Chuck.
By lozen
August 24, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
I’m with ya John….YAWN!
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
So, Chuck, let’s get our Bibles out and study a little together. I’m not going to snipe at you from the sidelines like the Libs, I’M GOING TO BEAT YOU AT YOUR OWN GAME, just like I beat John at his own game.
By Reason
August 24, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
“high test scores throught school”…I’m looking, but I’m not finding this word in the dictionary.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Before we get into specific quotes, we need to address the Apocalypse question right away. Any fair reading of the Bible shows that both Christ and the Apostles believed that the Second Coming was imminent, certainly within their lifetimes. Because that didn’t happen, the sayings are now reinterpreted in some allegorical way to cover up—NOT VERY LITERAL, CHUCK.
By Logic
August 24, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
At the end of the day you’ve won an argument on a blog in the AJC entitled “Woman to Woman”. There’s a paper that’s looking for enlightening opinions, it’s called The Wall Street Journal. If your through cutting your teeth here I’m sure they’d be happy to hear from you. It should cure your yawning.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
And again, without rehashing too much,there are so mnany obvious inconsistencies between the various Biblios, you have to excuse logical consistency altogether to cling to a literal interpretation.
By Just Being Me
August 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I see I’ve missed all the action… welcome Bruno.
LOL@ Troglodyke’s 9:54a. Hilarious!
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
isn’t there a science blog somewhere?
Snore.
so was it Havad or MIT? I was actually on the Havad campus last fall.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
As such, the Uncertainty Principle only applies to PAIRS OF OBSERVATIONS, IT MAKES NO COMMENT ABOUT SINGLE OBSERVATIONS. As such, it doesn’t mean the closer you get to something, the more it slips away, or other misinterpretations I’m seeing here on this board.
Except that the Uncertainty Principle specifically refers to particle physics and not to measuring human emotion or anything else. Even though some disciplines, sociologists and anthropologists, for example, have tried to extend the “The action of observation changes that which is being observed” component of the principle to other areas, the fundamental fact is that Heisenberg is appropriately used only in terms of particle physics.
As for this conclusion: “Which you see, John, goes back to my original charge that it is EMOTION which drives our opinions, NOT FACTS AND LOGIC.” is meaningless. You don’t prove it or even begin to prove it. You’ve decided that it is axiomatic, throw a whole lot of pieces of various disciplines together in a big melting pot with a veneer of erudition and then say “Voila! I’ve proven my theory!”
But everything you wrote was empty fluff. Completely hollow. You dressed it in trappings of theories and theorums, but had no focus, no thesis, no unifying theme, no anything other than a vaguely cobbled together string of inappropriately applied nonsense.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
But, one final point before getting down to verses regarding MY view of the Biblios. At one extreme, you have John and others who apparently reject the Bible out of hand because of these logical inconsistencies. Unfortunately, they are “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, no pun intended. At the other extreme, you have Chuck, Randy, and others who suspend logic altogether in order to use the Bible as a weapon in order to establish dominance within their group. Is it coming together for you a little, John? And how about a middle ground??
By The72John
August 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
just like I beat John at his own game.
ironically, this quote follows:
it is fun to puncture holes in the over-inflated egos of self-congratulatory people
Gosh…self-referential, much?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
My view is this: Yes, Virginia, there is a Christ. Go find the famous editorial “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” and substitute the word Christ for Santa Claus, and then you’ll know where I stand.
By Renee
August 24, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
I think I nodded off again too lozen.
HEY JBM!!!! ~smooches~
Chilao - as always, you keep me well entertained!!
By lozen
August 24, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Hi JBM. What would you like to talk about - since you’ve been missing for a while? What’s on your mind lady?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
But on to the Bible…
First, Chuck, since you’re a literalist, then obviously you and your church members strictly follow the Bible in your practices. As such, please answer the following questions: A. On what day of the week do you worship? B. Do you celebrate Easter? Do you boil eggs and color them? C. Do you celebrate Christmas? D. As part of your Christmas celebration, do you put up a tree, and construct a manger scene with three Wise Men? E. Which version of Creation do you believe? F. Which night in relation to Passover was Christ executed?
Answers to follow.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Answers: A. Sabbath is from a Hebrew word which literally means “Seventh Day”. Because God rested on the “seventh day of creation”, it eventually became a holy day. (the actual Hebrew word for “day” used in Genesis does NOT mean a 24 hour period—another huge misconception about the Bible that the literalists like to skip over). However, the seventh day was, and still is SATURDAY, NOT SUNDAY. As late as in Hebrews in the New Testament, this point is still made. There is NO BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION TO WORSHIP ON SUNDAY, IT IS STRICTLY A MAN MADE ALTERATION OF THE LITERAL WORDS OF THE BIBLE.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
B. Easter is as bogus as Christmas, which I will examine in the next answer. While some could argue for celebrating Passover, THERE IS NO BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION TO CELEBRATE EASTER. After Christ died, the apostles didn’t meet once a year on the anniversary of his Crucifixion. In fact, history shows that it was another made-up “Christian” holiday made to divert people away from celebrating pagan fertility rituals held at that time of year. You see the connection to eggs, Chuck? Pagan fertility rites use eggs.
By Lyrazel
August 24, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Some day I might read this blog…but then again….
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
C. Christmas is probably even more bogus than Easter. At least Easter ties in with the Resurrection, Christmas falsely celebrates a birthdate. First and foremost, once again, there is NO BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS. Once again, it was a created holiday to divert people away from pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. The only biblical reference to the possible time of year of Christ’s birth is vague, so we really can’t know the date. As for trees, Chuck, I’m sure you’re familiar with Jeremiah 10 which reads from my NIV “For the customs of the people are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest…they adorn it with siver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.” Talk about PROPHESY, Chuck!!! As for the Wise Men, an undisclosed number of them arrived looking for the baby Christ about TWO YEARS AFTER HIS BIRTH. So how do only three of them end up at the manger??
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
I know John and Billy find my “factoids” to be useless, but Jeremiah 10 is GREAT AMMUNITION for fighting self-described Bible “literalists” like Chuck and Randy, who probably don’t even get their pagan rituals right.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
E. The Creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2-4 are at odds with one another. Check my earlier blog regarding the inconsistencies.
F. Ditto for the inconsistent accounts of Christ’s movements, arrest, and crucifixion contained in the four Gospels. OOps, by saying “ditto”, does that prove the “Dittohead charges against me?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Quick aside again to John—For such an “inclusionary” person, you seem eager to get me off “your” board. Is the monopolization starting to look familiar?
By Mara
August 24, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Hey JBM!! We missed you! Nice to have you back :^)
I’m with the rest of you…yawning and bored. Don’t know which is worse, Bruno touting his huge intellect or that he’s actually responding to chuck-n-Randy, which mires us once more into a fruitless discussion on the validity of the Bible. Of course, none of us have been able to do so with the authority of Bruno and his fresh, never-before-thought-of arguments, so maybe he will finally convince them that they’re misguided.
(yawn)
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
One another aside—How can you say I’m not original?? Certainly each of my individual “factoids” is a regurgitation, but you yourself admitted that you’ve never seen such diverse thoughts strung together in this way.
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
didn’t I point out that seventh-day thing with Chuck about 6 months ago, and got a whole bunch of ‘man said this, and man said that’ stuff from Chuck? makes ya wonder…hmmmmmm.
By Renee
August 24, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Perhaps I’m nodding off because my intellectual level is unable to comprehend the subject at hand……so, on that note…
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Renee, Bruno might be retired, so does not view this blog like alot of the rest of us, as entertainment, which it certainly can be.. LOL
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Back to the Bible briefly, then I’ll let John monoplize the board once again.
The core isuue, once again, Chuck is your CERTAINTY regarding the Bible. Although you claim to be a lover of LOGIC, I doubt if you accepted the findings I presented to you from Godel and Heisenberg. So let’s go back to the Bible. 1Corinthians 14:33 states that “God is not the author of confusion”. I couldn’t agree more about this statement, Chuck.
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I’m telling you: wait for Chuck and Zack if you want to argue about the Bible. They’ll give you no choice, because they’re unable to think about anything else.
But the rest of us couldn’t care less. At this point, I’m willing to reopen the original topic on the Democrats and their handling of the Iraq fiasco, if it’ll head off the religious babble.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Quick aside again to John—For such an “inclusionary” person, you seem eager to get me off “your” board. Is the monopolization starting to look familiar?
Anyone else see anywhere that I’ve suggested Bruno leave? Nope? Didn’t think so.
Ohh…do you think you’re “teaching me a lesson”? I see. Well, add patronizing to pretentious and pompous.
*One another aside—How can you say I’m not original?? Certainly each of my individual “factoids” is a regurgitation, but you yourself admitted that you’ve never seen such diverse thoughts strung together in this way. *
Less is More.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Renee, Bruno might be retired, so does not view this blog like alot of the rest of us, as entertainment, which it certainly can be.. LOL
Or possibly he’s just a pr-ick.
By Lyrazel
August 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
I am just terribly bored of yet another person trying to use fact against faith for proving irrelevant points to posters who will never read these comments because they know it is against what they believe. Inevitably will come a 900 page essay slipped in off the web by copy & paste. Don’t you think everyone has argued this topic to death? Its so boring. Its also inevitable on this board…scarce a week ever goes by when someone does the Its My Religion And I’ll Preach If I Want To dance in uppity persuasion leading to endless copied treaties stolen off the web that scroll for miles. Ya’ll make Tramado’s posts exciting…………..
By Just Being Me
August 24, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
(((((((((((((((Renee)))))))))))))))))) (that’s a cyber hug in case you didn’t know). LOL!
I miss you pumpkin… sry couldn’t answer the phone last night. you know how i do. LOL! Got ur e-mail this morning though.
Hi Mara!!!!! I came back last week, but I think you were out. Hi Lozen!
I don’t really have anything on my mind…. I think I’m getting over my addiction to this blog. It’s gotten so boring.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Continuing.. But as for man’s IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE of GOD’S PERFECT KNOWLEDGE, the Bible is clear. As I alluded to earlier, 1Corinthians 13:12 states “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.” And as for predictions of the Second Coming, who can forget Acts1:7 “It is not for yuo to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
And speaking of arrogant, how can you, Chuck, claim such great certainty of the meaning of the Bible when the APOSTLES THEMSELVES ADMITTED IGNORANCE FREQUENTLY. Check out Mark 9:32, Luke 2:50, Luke 9:45 and especially Luke 18:34 “And they understood none of these things ; and this saying was hidden from them, neither knew they the things which wee spoken”
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
I don’t know Chuck’s explanation of his certainty, could it be the tired, old “I’M SAVED, SO I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I’M SAVED” And, yes, Chuck, there are boatloads of bible quotes to reinforce this, but in terms of Logic, this is known as a TAUTOLOGY, like a=a, so therefore a=a. It doesn’t prove a thing.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
So you see, Chuck, in the end your certainty about the Bible is false. And, to connect the dots for John, your true motivatins, then, are NOT truth, salvation, etc. It is all about dominating people. Maybe all that works for some of the sheep with whom I’m sure you’ve surrounded yourself with, but not against a REAL DOMINATOR who can see through your crap.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Before I surrender control back to the John and Mara Mutual Admiration Society, I would like to thank Kevin for his support and fresh outlook. I will include a few more math gems for you to ponder in my final post in a moment.
And to 2D, I couldn’t win you over here, but I can tell that you, compared to anyone else here, have a real IQ. I would greatly fear you in a poker game. I’ve never met you, but I guarantee you have one HELL of a poker face. Do you play holdem?
By Mara
August 24, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
JBM - yeah, I was out for 2 1/2 weeks doing training classes and jury duty so I missed the “Welcome Home” party. :^( Wanted to be there, though. I agree about the quality of this blog going downhill. Lots of new trolls in the last few weeks, most with little to contribute but lots to say. BOH-ring…
Brian Curtis - I’d be happy to get back to the topic, too. Did you see the article in the WaPo today (that disgusting librul rag!)? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301878.html
Quick excerpt:
Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was “progress.”
For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.
… * Using such terms as “havoc” at Monday’s news conference, Bush made no effort to suggest the situation in Iraq is improving. *Instead, he argued: “If you think it’s bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself.”
Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose research on public opinion in wartime has been influential in the White House, said Bush has little choice.
“He looks foolish and not credible if he says, ‘We’re making progress in Iraq,’ ” Gelpi said. “I think he probably would like to make that argument, but because that’s not credible given the facts on the ground, this is the fallback. … If the only thing you can say is ‘Yes, it’s bad, but it could be worse,’ that really is a last-ditch argument.”
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Kevin, it’s a terrible shame that the great ideas of math get buried in all the mindless rote teaching that passes for education in America. Where is the good stuff? I can only echo the advice of you might have heard in your last math class concerning Laplace Transformations. Laplace said ” Read Euler, read Euler. He is the Master of us all.” Eulers masterpiece, in my opinion, was his discovery through infinite series expansions, that e ^ (i * pi) - 1 = 0. If Chuck were really smart, he would quit looking for God in the Bible and listen to Laplace.
By Renee
August 24, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
I actually do play holdem very well, but…since I have no real IQ, I doubt I could beat you ~sigh~
JBM -sounds like you are on tramdol LOL!!!
I for one can’t wait to get back to the John and Mara Mutual Admirational Society!!!
~think aloud~ Who will I admire most, first…John or Mara, Mara or John…let me mull over it a little while longer, and I will get back to the both of you…
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
One last word about Science and Scientists for the pseudo-atheistic/Big Bang/Eolution idiots. If you would bother to read the biographies of all the true GIANTS of Math and Science, without exception they were all MEN OF GREAT FAITH. The list is long, I’ll name a few for you here: Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Euler, Carl Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, James Maxwell, Pascal, Riemann, and Stokes. Even the so-called atheistc Albert Einstein admitted later in life that “God can’t be playing dice with the Universe”
By Renee
August 24, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
actually, arguably, John could be the most admirable, for time as well as intellect given on the blog, however, Mara, has been able to show a great deal of intellect in such a short period of time….
It’s so hard to choose….
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
As for my own pride/humility, I can easily whip up on you guys with ..how does Rush Limbaugh say it…half my brain tied behind my back ( Chilao, Kevin and 2D excepted). But, when I read Euler, I cry, because my brain compared to that guy is the smallest pea in the pod. How could I even compare my brain to God, as apparently Chuck does since he can speak for God.
By 2D
August 24, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Bruno… I appreciate the compliment, and my not chiming in isn’t necessarily you not winning me over (although I am not totally sold). It has more to do with me swamped at work today.
Strange as it may sound, considering the recent fascination with Texas Holdem, I don’t play and don’t really care for the game. I much prefer Hearts, Spades or a game from up North called Ueker (like the former baseball player).
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
One last math thought for kevin (and possibly 2D) is the concept which ties together Irrational Numbers, the arbritrariness of scales, and Heisenberg. The story goes that Pythagoras was excited by all his early dicoveries of perfec whole number ratios in nature, like the musical scales. BUT (and this is just a story, no evidence of his actual life exists), when he discovered his famous Pythaorean Formula, he ran smack into Irrational Numbers like the square root of 2. This occurrs in a right triangle whose other sides are 1 and 1.
By Mara
August 24, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Renee - LOL!! (hand waving wildly) Me, me, me!! John always gets to be admired first!! It’s my turn…c’mon, admire me first! (heh,heh,heh…)
John - nice turn of phrase in your 12:08. But then, I’m biased cuz I admire you so much…
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
But, as 2D knows, the hypotenuse doesn’t HAVE to be an Irrational Number. By changing scales, you can make the legs of the same triangle Irrational, and the hypotenuse Rational. But, you can never make BOTH the legs and hypotenuse of any equilateral right triangle Rational AT THE SAME TIME. Call me crazy, but isn’t this kind of like the Heisenberg principle?
By Renee
August 24, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Mara - I think you are right. I have admired John consistently first for quite a while now. Thank you for bringing that to my attention!!!
John, I am sorry to inform you that…..
While you will be admired today, the initial excess of admiration will be going to Mara….
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Well, gotta run. Have fun trying to pick me apart. You can yawn and dimiss me, John, but I’d much rather see a real discussion of the ideas. Isn’t that what you keep shouting about?? I’ll come back someday soon to take on any evolutionists here. One last spelling correctin for you—the man’s name is Schrodinger, not “Schroedinger”..leave out the extra e.
By lozen
August 24, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Admiring you Mara. Admiring you 72John. Admiring Mara first. Pychopaths taking over the blog! The longer this inconsiderate a***** goes on and on the more obvious it is that somebody else slipped away from the guys in the white coats this week.
By Mara
August 24, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Renee - you, my dear, are no lightweight in the brains department either. Would you care to join us in our ” Mutual Admiration Society”? We’ll be taking pledges next week, if you’re interested…
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Scrodinger is important to me because, unlike you who may have read about his theories, John, I was forced as an undergraduate in an advanced PChem class to actaully APPLY those equations to the bonding of hydrogen with hydrogen. The equations filled several pages, and I’m not really sure I actually understood a one of them in any real sense. What struck me is that all that complexity was require to describe H-H. What would happen if you tried to describe the formation of RNA in a cell using quantum mechanics?
By The72John
August 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
You can yawn and dimiss me, John, but I’d much rather see a real discussion of the ideas
Let me know when you start, OK? Bludgeoning people over the head with mathematical formulae hardly constitutes “a real discussion of ideas”.
One last spelling correctin for you
I hope this was an intentional and ironic “correction”, because if not, then OH, the irony.
You know, Bruno, the difference between me and you is that while I may be arrogant and argumentative, at least I start with the best of intentions. You came here for no other purpose than to ridicule and attack people, and to try to impress everyone with your “intellectual superiority”. No matter how many theories you quote, or how many mathematicians, physicists and scholars you name-drop, you will never be anything other than a smug, self-indulgent and boorish prig of a human being.
By Mara
August 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
One last spelling correctin for you—the man’s name is Schrodinger, not “Schroedinger”..leave out the extra e.
(snicker, snicker) anyone notice that the Bruno the Spelling Czar mispelled “correction”?
lozen - Finally. My due. (basking…basking) :^*
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
yeah, I ran into that with the ‘e’, seems it is used both ways. A German would know best.
Bruno - are you female? or just arguing US Presidents are directly responsible for every military coup on the planet? Because stating Carter was responsible for Hussein is going down as one of the wackiest-Nutjob things ever stated on this blog. Are all conservatives WackyNutjobs?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
So that’s why Science is a bunch of crap. Plus, if you closely examine the Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. all systems tend toward entropy, you will see that it isn’t true when examining LIVING SYSTEMS. LIFE IS A NON-ENTROPIC PROCESS UNTIL WE DIE. So, John, I’m no Bible thumper as I hope I have shown, but I know that life is a miracle, and didn’t come from some explosion of matter we’ve never seen before. Gee, talk about a LEAP OF FAITH….
By GOB
August 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
I agree about the quality of this blog going downhill. Lots of new trolls in the last few weeks, most with little to contribute but lots to say. BOH-ring…
This is what happens when I am not contributing much anymore….
By Renee
August 24, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
AWWWWWWW shucks now, Mara!!!! ~blushing profusely~
Did my comment on my ‘hold em expertise let you in on my incredible brain functions??? LOL, hahahahaha
By Renee
August 24, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
LOL @ spelling czar…or should it be Spelling Czar…hahahaha
By GOB
August 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
So that’s why Science is a bunch of crap.
Well, I am convinced…
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Wow. I can’t believe that, right at the end, Bruno pulled out the old “Second Law of Thermodynamics” BS to try to challenge evolution.
For those who haven’t heard anything more intelligent from the creationist crowd, the Second Law argument is one of the oldest, tiredest, and most easily discredited “attacks” on evolution yet. It’s actually kinda pathetic how easily refuted it is, to the point that several Intelligent Design and similar sites now recommend AGAINST using it—because it makes creationists look so stupid.
Here it is in a nutshell: According to the Second Law, the entropy (total disorder) of a closed system always increases as the result of any thermodynamic process. If you roll a stone, you lose some heat energy. If you convert gas to kinetic motion, the process is less than 100% efficient; and so on.
Two things to note immediately: 1. It only applies to CLOSED systems, i.e., ones with no external energy source (anyone heard of the Sun?); and 2. It says nothing about localized order increasing as long as the system’s TOTAL disorder gets a net gain.
Bruno, my respect for your claimed credentials has just dropped several notches. Really, the Second Law argument…? That’s just pathetic. How embarrassing for you.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Quick to 2D, I am very familiar with Hearts, Spades, and Euchre ( I won’t bust YOU on sp., buddy, because you’re not a pompous a** like Mara and John.) ;>] . They’re all great games. The greatest (non-card) game, in my opinion, is Go. As for cards, once you try holdem, you’ll never go back. Of course, wimps like John would never play poker, because you have to put your money where your mouth is. the first time I went all-in against him, he would soil his pants and fold his A-A against my 2-7 offsuit.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
I won’t bust YOU on sp., buddy, because you’re not a pompous a* like Mara and John.)*
You understand that you are a bigger a* than I have ever been my life, right?
Of course, wimps like John would never play poker, because you have to put your money where your mouth is. the first time I went all-in against him, he would soil his pants and fold his A-A against my 2-7 offsuit.
And this is exhibit A.
By Ratiocination
August 24, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
“There are 3 types of people in this world, those that are good with math and those that aren’t”
By Renee
August 24, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Mara (or John) - are memberships also being taken for the Pompous A* Society???
By Mara
August 24, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Chilao - I admit that I quit reading Bruno’s posts after he started competing with ol’ chuck for the most boring religion-based post so I must have missed the part of the argument that gave rise to the gender question…care to explain?
GOB - see what you’ve done to us?! Now aren’t you ashamed of yourself?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
You are absolutely right, Brian, regarding the strict interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But….there is some wiggle room in the meaning of the word “closed”. By incorporating the First Law of Thermo (net energy remains the same), one could argue that the Earth + Sun = a “closed” system.
My point, really, is that even the GREATEST LAWS of Science have difficulty describing REAL LIFE SYSTEMS.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
P.S. I had to consult some of Clinton’s lawyers to get that kind of wiggle room ; > } .
By Mara
August 24, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Mara (or John) - are memberships also being taken for the Pompous A Society???*
you’ll have to ask Bruno…
By The72John
August 24, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Mara (or John) - are memberships also being taken for the Pompous A Society???*
I’m afraid that there is only room for one member. His own personal pomposity is so enormous that it’s been added to the list of fundamental forces.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Chilao, finally, sorry to ignore your challenge to my manhood. I was too busy foaming at the mouth to get to you.
By Chilao
August 24, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Mara - “real men” admit their errors, as I did earlier. (about the exact date Hussein consolidated FULLY his power)
By The72John
August 24, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
My point, really, is that even the GREATEST LAWS of Science have difficulty describing REAL LIFE SYSTEMS.
Actually, I think your point, really, is that you change your point whenever the whim takes you or circumstances cause you to take a new position.
By chuck
August 24, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Bruno:
A. I worship EVERY day of the week. The Bible teaches that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to keep that temple holy. Since Christ died for us. To try to contain worship to just ONE DAY would be to deny the greatness of the gift that God gave us.
Also, the commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 states that the seventh day of the week, Saturday, is the day which the Lord selected as the day of rest and worship. However, in the New Testament the Christian church began to worship and rest on the first day of the week, Sunday. Are Christians violating the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on the first day of the week rather than the seventh day? I do not think so. First, the basis for the command to observe the Sabbath, as stated in Exodus 20:11, is that God rested on the seventh day after six days of work, and that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. The Sabbath day was instituted as a day of rest and worship. The people of God were to follow God’s example in His pattern of work and rest. However, as Jesus said in correcting the distorted view of the Pharisees, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). The point Jesus made is that the Sabbath was not instituted to enslave people, but to benefit them. The spirit of Sabbath observance is continued in the New Testament observance of rest and worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Second, it must be remembered that, according to Colossians 2:17, the Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” The Sabbath observance was associated with redemption in Deuteronomy 5:15 where Moses stated, “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” The Sabbath was a shadow of the redemption that would be provided in Christ. It symbolized the rest from our works and an entrance into the rest of God provided by His finished work. Finally, although the moral principles expressed in the commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, the command to set Saturday apart as a day of rest and worship is the only commandment not repeated. There are very good reasons for this. New Testament believers are not under the Old Testament Law (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:2425; 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13; Heb. 7:12). By His resurrection on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1), His continued appearances on succeeding Sundays (John 20:26), and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Sunday (Acts 2:1), the early church was given the pattern of Sunday worship. This they did regularly (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Sunday worship was further hallowed by our Lord who appeared to John in that last great vision on “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). It is for these reasons that Christians worship on Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath.
More Answers to come!
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
If you reread my blog I said that J.C. (the OTHER J.C.) fell asleep at the wheel while Khomeini and Hussein assumed power. I didn’t blame him for their rises to power, but simply noted that he wasn’t really concerned at the time other than the egg on his face he got for the hostage situation. As a matter of fact, I think there were even positive press release about Hussein touting his building of schools, etc. Help me out here googlers and Wikipediaites, it strains my memory.
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno: Actually, all that science DOES is explain real-life systems. That’s the purpose of science, and it does it very, very well.
And if you incorporate the Sun into the Earth-Sun system, the whole second-law objection disappears—because the Sun IS losing energy. Therefore, the entire point of bringing it up—to allege that evolution somehow violates it—becomes moot. Sheesh.
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
…. and there we go! Chuck’s here, and he’s found the debating partner of his dreams. They can now babble about the Bible to their heart’s content.
I suggest the rest of us tiptoe away quietly and come back when the nonsense dies down.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
But, to be fair, Jimmy was more likely concerned with Russia, like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr., so that Middle East policy became subservient to fighting the Commies. I do remember Jimmy really socking it the Russkies with the 1980 Olympic boycott. I’m sure that really hurt their feelings something terrible.
By Mara
August 24, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Chilao - Mara - “real men” admit their errors, as I did earlier
so do “real women”. When we make errors, that is. ;^P
By Renee
August 24, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Okay, now I know the blog is done, stick a fork in it!!
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
According to the First Law of Thermo, Brian, the sun isn’t losing energy. That’s why the Law is also known as “The Conservation of Energy”
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
BUT ,and here’s the rub—Clinton’s lawyers have definitely confirmed that the word “system” can be defined basically any way you want it to. You can make your “closed system” as big or small as you like, as inclusive or exclusive as you like. Go back and learn some more Set Theory, buddy.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
AND to my new fans who have declared that I have out-pompoused John, and out Bible-thumped Chuck, many thanks.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
I told you that I could beat both of them at their own games.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Chuck—I’m not impressed with your rambling rebuttal to why you WRONGLY worship on Sunday. The fact that the Apostles and early Christians did meet on Sundays at times, in NO WAY CHANGED GOD’S COMMANDMENTS. They all continued their Sabbath worship as all records would indicate.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The only way it was changed was through pure MANLY TRADITION. that is, some committee voted on it. If you are a literalist, Chuck, how can YOU CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD?
By chuck
August 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
B. Neither is there a prohibition AGAINST CELEBRATING EASTER!!!
A few churches teach that Easter is a pagan holiday. They frown on the idea of celebrating the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday morning. Christians are not celebrating Jesus, they say, but an ancient pagan deity when they participate in such activities as Easter sunrise services.
But this is based on several misunderstandings. The New Testament gives no grounds for limiting Christian fellowship and worship on Easter. Let’s examine a few objections that are commonly made against Easter and see whether they have any merit.
The Word “Easter”
The first issue is the word “Easter” itself. (Of course, this objection is completely irrelevant in many nations, because the word for this Christian spring festival in other languages has no connection with the word “Easter.”) As well, we should remember that the resurrection of Jesus was celebrated in the spring for centuries in Christendom before the word “Easter” was adopted as a label for this festival in the English language.
Nonetheless, critics claim that the Word “Easter” is derived from the name of a Germanic goddess of spring, Eastre. The English monk, Venerable Bede, who lived in the eighth century, popularized this view. However, this idea is not at all certain. The King James translators certainly did not understand the word “Easter” in this way when they used it to translate the Greek pascha, or Passover, in Acts 12:4!
Another explanation is that Easter derives from an Old German root, ostern, for dawn or east, which is the time and place of the rising sun. This makes more sense as a reason why a day commemorating Jesus’ resurrection would have begun to be called “Easter.” Jesus is thought to have risen around dawn or sunrise on resurrection Sunday (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2). Since he is called “the sun of righteousness” (Malachi 4:2), it would be quite appropriate to call a day in honor of his resurrection, “Easter” – the dawn of the Rising Sun or Son, Jesus. (The Lord God of the Old Testament is called a “sun” in Psalm 84:11.)
In any case, even if the word “Easter” was associated with an ancient goddess, it does not mean we cannot use the word today. We have many words in the English language that were connected with ancient gods. For example, our word “cereal” comes from the name of the ancient goddess of agriculture, Ceres. The word “cloth” comes from Clotho, the spinster goddess who was said to spin the thread of life. The word “hymn” is thought to come from the god of marriage, Hymen, and in ancient times meant any song offered in praise or honor of a god or gods. But when we use “hymn” in church services we mean a song sung in praise of the one true God. When we use the word “cereal” we’re not thinking of the goddess or worshipping her, but of corn flakes or granola. Cloth is cloth to us, not Clotho.
Easter Sunrise Services
In connection with the word “Easter,” the concept of an Easter sunrise service is also labeled as pagan by detractors. They point to Ezekiel 8:14-17, which describes individuals with their faces toward the east, worshipping the sun. This practice in Ezekiel is spoken of as idolatry and an abomination in God’s sight. Critics maintain Easter is a replica of this vain worship in ancient Israel.
However, in Ezekiel the individuals were forsaking the worship of the true God, as is evidenced by them turning their backs on the temple of the Lord (verse 16). They were purposely worshipping the sun. When Christians attend an Easter sunrise service they worship God and Christ, remembering and rehearsing the meaning of the resurrection. The dawn or rising of the sun has great symbolic value in that it reminds them that Jesus is the Dawn of our salvation, and that he had risen on a Sunday morning along with the sun.
Did pagans worship the sun, though? Yes, of course. Pagans worshipped many things, including stars, the moon, many animals, and even the earth itself. Devout Christians see this, and sometimes confuse ancient forms with modern substance. They point to the association of some modern tradition with an ancient religious celebration, and shout “pagan.” Similarly, “once pagan, always pagan” is the way some people erroneously reason. While they may admit the transforming power of Christ for people, they deny it for customs and traditions.
Israel’s worship system
Yet, what is often overlooked is the fact that many of the practices God commanded for ancient Israel had previously existed in paganism. Temples, priests, priestly vestments, incense, animal sacrifices, harvest time as the lynchpin of festivals—these and other forms used in pagan worship systems found their counterpart in Israel’s worship system given by God.
The annual festivals or “holy days” God gave Israel as part of the old covenant were based on the cycle of the moon. The festival of Trumpets came on the new moon of the seventh month. Israelites even had a new moon celebration with a blowing of trumpets (Psalm 81:3). Yet, the moon was regularly worshipped as a god or goddess in other cultures. That’s where we get our name for “Monday.” It was the day set aside in honor of the moon. If we were to apply the reasoning some people use to call Easter celebration “pagan” to Israel’s worship system (which God gave them), we would be falsely painting it with the brush of paganism.
In fact, God transformed many pagan customs into a form of worship devoted to him. Even the sun, universally worshipped as a god by pagan cultures, is used in Scripture to symbolize an aspect of Jesus’ glory. Luke called him “the rising sun” (Luke 1:78). Jesus is also called the “bright Morning Star” in Scripture (Revelation 22:16). God can use symbols misappropriated by pagans and transform them for his own use, and for acceptable worship.
The point is that even if there once was a pagan “Easter” festival in the spring, or if the word itself had some pagan significance, it doesn’t matter. No one takes the phrase “Easter sunrise service” to mean some old pagan rite or thinks that he or she is worshipping the sun.
As pointed out about Monday, all the names of the days of the week have a pagan significance and were named for various pagan deities. Sunday was the day of the sun; Monday was the moon’s day; Tuesday was Tiw’s day; Wednesday was Woden’s day; Thursday was Thor’s day and Friday was Frigga’s day. The latter four were all Norse deities. But we don’t worship pagan gods when we say or use these names for our days. We don’t think of worshipping old gods when a new day comes. That’s the way it is with the word “Easter.” Whether or not it had a pagan connection doesn’t matter. We don’t think of it in these terms anymore.
The same applies to worship services on Easter Sunday morning or during resurrection Sunday. If there were pagan “resurrection” celebrations to various gods on Sunday – and no doubt there were – it doesn’t matter. Those institutions, if they existed, have been transformed by God for his use just as he transformed pagan sacrificial and priestly systems for his use. Israel’s religious system may have had forms already in use by pagan religious, but God meant these to be transformed as vehicles for godly worship.
Christians do the same thing with worship on Easter. Today, on Easter Sunday, Christians worship Christ. That’s what’s important. Unless we are to conclude that celebrating Christ’s resurrection is in itself a detestable thing, its celebration on what was once a pagan holiday is irrelevant. We must remember that Pentecost, one of the Old Testament festivals given to Israel by God, fell on Sunday. As well, the Holy Spirit first came on this day, as we know from Acts 2. Knowing this, we understand that Christians who keep Easter are not involved in pagan worship. They do not worship nor regard pagan gods. They honor Christ as Lord and Savior.
Easter eggs, rabbits and things
We should explain one other major objection to Easter. What seems particularly offensive to some people is the use of colored eggs at Easter. A related objection has to do with references to rabbits, which are known for their prodigious reproductive capacities.
Of course, it is quite evident that pagan people used eggs in rituals and ceremonies dedicated to their gods, and in fertility rites. But let’s first ask why eggs might have been used in religious activities. They are certainly a symbol of new life, and thus would have been a ready metaphor of fertility. Since nature comes alive in the springtime, we shouldn’t be surprised that eggs may have been associated with festivities at this time. It certainly is also true that many of the pagan fertility rites were associated with abominable practices such as temple prostitution and other revelry.
On the other hand, let us look at fertility and the egg from another point of view. God created the egg, and since he is the giver of life, it would not be wrong to think of the egg as a symbol of the blessing of life that God gives to us. We don’t confuse the egg with life. As Christians, we know God created life and that it comes from him.
Fertility is something God himself commanded. He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Children are a blessing from the Lord. So is an abundance of livestock and fish. The ability of life to reproduce is a great and necessary gift of God so that we might live our physical lives.
The ancients were not wrong in understanding the key role of fertility in life, nor in knowing that sex and reproduction are gifts of God. What they erred in was worshipping the created rather than the Creator, and then worshipping in ways that were abominable to God – such as in fertility revelry, which included temple prostitution.
But there is nothing inherently evil about eggs or rabbits. When associated with Easter, neither are used in the way pagans may have used them. In fact, eggs are hardly thought of in a religious way at all in modern times. The egg-rolling festivity is merely a secular time of fun for children, and nothing more. We put chocolate bunny rabbits in Easter baskets, but they have no Christian religious association. Besides, the pagan linkage simply no longer exists. There is no need to look on Easter eggs or bunnies as evil, for God created both.
Easter celebration not in Bible
Another objection to Easter observance made by some is that it is not mentioned in the Bible. Some people feel we should not set apart any day for worship unless it is specifically commanded in the Bible. Since there is no direct example of the church celebrating the resurrection on Easter Sunday, these people say we should not do it.
Of course, there is no command in the New Testament to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. However, neither is there a command not to celebrate or memorialize it. Consider this. If we could only have those religious worship times and activities that the New Testament specifically mentions, then we would be able to do almost nothing in terms of worship and Christian ceremony. None of the apostles are shown to have performed a wedding ceremony or conducted a funeral, for example. There are no examples of church services such as we have them in our churches. But these are a part of our lives, and Christian experience and worship.
The central issue regarding Easter observance is this: How much freedom do Christians have in the new covenant, either individually or as a church, to express their faith, worship and thanks toward Christ in forms not found in the Bible? Are Christians free to innovate in worship? May church leaders establish special days to celebrate the great acts of salvation?
True, the Bible nowhere tells us to celebrate Easter. But, as mentioned earlier, it also nowhere says not to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus on this day. The fact is, the Bible gives examples where God permitted human beings to set up times and forms of worship other than what he specifically commanded.
When Israel added Hanukkah and Purim to its religious calendar – events that celebrated God’s saving acts in Jewish history – these were acceptable to God. Jesus attended temple worship during Hanukkah, then called the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22). The Jews added the synagogue and its traditions, and nowhere is this said to be displeasing to God. In John 7:37 it is widely recognized that Jesus made reference to the Jewish water-drawing ceremony, which pictured the salvation they looked for. Jesus did not condemn this ceremony but used it as a convenient vehicle for explaining that he was the one who would bring true salvation.
Examples such as these have led many Christians to conclude that the church also has the freedom to add to its calendar festivals that celebrate God’s redemptive acts through Jesus. Central among these is the resurrection of Jesus, which is celebrated in the spring (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
It is not a sin to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ at Easter. Rather, it is pleasing to God to see his people worshipping Jesus and having understanding of the meaning of his resurrection. After all, Jesus’ resurrection should be a cause of great rejoicing and celebration. It is our hope for eternal life.
Love, not command, is what motivates many Christians to celebrate Easter. To harshly judge those who choose to practice their faith in this spirit of devotion conflicts with many New Testament principles. The fact that non-Christians or even some Christians celebrate Easter in a secular manner only or, perhaps even in a profane way, is no reason to avoid worshipful celebration during the Easter season. If some celebrate during Easter in a wrong way, this is not the problem of the season but of the people who celebrate it in a wrong manner. Just as some may need to put “Christ back into Christmas,” others may also need to put Jesus back into Easter.
We encourage all those who celebrate Easter to make Christ the center of their celebration. The decision to observe Easter, and how to observe it, is a personal matter. Members of the church are free to celebrate or not to celebrate Easter. The church hopes that Christians who celebrate Easter and those who do not are both seeking to honor Jesus Christ (Romans 14:5-6).
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Chuck, once again you’ve only proven my point, EASTER IS A MANLY CREATION. Your best defense is that it’s not specifically prohibited?? All your rationalizations of why YOU PERSONALLY LIKE THE SYMBOLISM ARE IRRELEVANT. THERE IS NO COMMANDMENT OR INSTRUCTION TO CELEBRATE EASTER.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Like I said before, Chuck, your theology is nothing more than a house of cards any big gust of wind will knock over. And I can provide a gust, can’t I John?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
I’m having some difficulty deciding what denomination you likely attend, Chuck. Your constant deference to tradition would make you a good Catholic. But since Catholics don’t claim to worship every day, I’m guessing evangelical. Do you run around the church babbling incoherently, Chuck?
By Brian Curtis
August 24, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Bruno: Wow, I think you’re getting less intelligent with each passing hour.
Now you claim that, “According to the First Law of Thermo, Brian, the sun isn’t losing energy. That’s why the Law is also known as ‘The Conservation of Energy’.”
This degree of misunderstanding just HAS to be deliberate. You can’t really be this ignorant, can you? Where do you think our energy comes from, if not the Sun? Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.
Take some high-school science sometime, Bruno. I know how much you despise those college degree programs, but even first-year physics would have helped you avoid a blunder this bad.
By chuck
August 24, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure Bruno. Do they let you use the computer EVERY DAY at the mental institution where you reside?
By The72John
August 24, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
And I can provide a gust, can’t I John
Of fetid, stale air, indeed.
By Scalia
August 24, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Oh no!!!! I feel like the Wicked Witch of the West after they doused her with water. The long post have started!!! Run for the hills.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
But since Catholics don’t claim to worship every day, I’m guessing evangelical
Technically, Catholics worship at least seven times a day.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Brian, if you consider the sun and the area of space into which it’s radiant energy “leaks”, there’s your closed system in which the Conservation Laws do apply.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
BUT, Brian, you’re grossly missing my point, which at least John got. I’m not trying to discuss the merits of these ideas within the narrow context in which they were originally created. I’m trying to do the opposite—i.e. show that outside of these sometimes unrealistic constraints, a lot of these Laws break down.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
And Chuck , so you know, I caught your anti-Semitism already.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
When you referred to Saturday as the “Jewish Sabbath” you just profaned the name of God right her on this board. And you know, God reads this board, right, Chuck?
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
The only references to Sabbath in the Bible always say “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God”. It is NEVER REFERRED TO AS THE JEWISH SABBATH.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
In fact, the true Sabbath is alwsys spoken about with great reverence. In contrast, Sunday is NEVER CALLED A SABBATH DAY AT ALL, LET ALONE THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH, THE LORD’S DAY, OR EVEN A REST DAY.
By Mara
August 24, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I’m outta here. John, Brian…keep up the good work. The rest of you, do not despair. Tomorrow is Joke Friday! Hopefully we can at the very least fill the posts with amusing tidbits as opposed to this very tiresome twaddle that’s been foisted upon us. (yawn)
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
And as far as man’s ability to create new holidays and religious symbols, you better reread Exodus and the story of the Golden Calf, along with Matthew 15:1-9 about God’s wishes about how man should celebrate.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
As for your faith in Science to describe living systems well, Brian, what Science books have you been reading? I recently read that, despite using the most powerful computer modeling available, no one can accurately predict the behavior of a single drop of water as it falls. You’re obviously not very familiar with chaos theory, either. I’ll gladly stack my science education credentials against yours.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
I recently read that, despite using the most powerful computer modeling available, no one can accurately predict the behavior of a single drop of water as it falls. You’re obviously not very familiar with chaos theory, either. I’ll gladly stack my science education credentials against yours.
Forgive the intrusion of a weak-minded fool, but I thought that the basic purpose of Chaos Theory was to describe the underlying order of seemingly disordered systems.
The fact that existing technology is not able to handle the necessary calculations speaks more to the power of our technology rather than to any deficiency of the science itself.
Or maybe I’m just too stupid to really understand.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
One last comment on science for you, Brian, since it appears to be your God. Many moons ago in a course on ElectroMagnetism, on the first day of class, someone had changed “E/M” to “F/M” on the blackboard. The professor started laughing, but I didn’t get the joke. This was a very serious course in which we were expected to derive Maxwell’s equations in differential form.
He told us that F/M stood for “Fu**ing Magic”, and went on to explain that that is how he and the other professors actually viewed the material themselves. Around 30 years later, I still agree.
By Bruno
August 24, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
So sayanara until this week. Get ready for a debate on evolution next week. It’s really gonna get thick. P.S. John, Didn’t you suggest I go to the Wooten blog already? Your discrimination hurt my feelings.
By The72John
August 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Get ready for a debate on evolution next week
Hey, I have an idea - how about you discuss the topic? Or…are you afraid your pre-fabricated responses won’t address it?
P.S. John, Didn’t you suggest I go to the Wooten blog already? Your discrimination hurt my feelings
I just wanted to you be able to meet other smug conservatives who use the appearance of education and intellect to mask their own inadequacies and bash liberals for hours on end.
And feelings…do you have those?
By Kevin
August 24, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Wow,
I have missed out on some great discussions today. Mathematics, thermodynamics, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!
Bruno and Brian Curtis - excellent debate on thermodynamics. Before I weigh in on the subject I would like to say that I actually have taken two courses in thermodynamics. However, I do not claim to be an expert in the field and it has been many years since I have actually solved any equations dealing with this subject. Without running to Google, or without dusting off my old textbook, here is my take on the debate.
BC - a well-written, concise summary of the second law. Entropy increases because there is no such thing as a truly reversible process. However, as you have correctly stated, entropy can decrease for a localized system - your refrigerator is a good example of this. Heat flows from a low temperature source (the inside of your frig) to a high temperature source (your kitchen). Since the energy is flowing from a low temperature source to a high temp source, the entropy of the frig is decreasing. Shouldn’t this violate the second law? Actually, no. Directed energy from outside of the system (your compressor) makes this heat transfer possible. While the entropy decreases for the refrigerator, the total entropy increases for the system (your frig) plus its surroundings (the kitchen).
Creationists will say that this principle can be applied to the origin of the universe. If simple organisms evolved to form more complex organisms, then either the second law has been violated or directed energy had to be applied to make evolution possible. Is this an abuse or misuse of the second law? I am not sure, but it certainly makes for an entertaining debate.
By TramadoL96804
August 24, 2006 09:44 PM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
By TramadoL96067
August 25, 2006 12:53 AM | Link to this
Basically nothing noteworthy happening right now, but eh. Today was a complete loss. I haven’t been up to much recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
By TramadoL20812
August 25, 2006 02:58 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL74185
August 25, 2006 04:42 AM | Link to this
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.
By Mara
August 25, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this
Friday joke for Bruno and Kevin :
ANOTHER WAY TO EXPRESS THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
0th: There is s**.
1st: You can’t get rid of it.
2nd: It gets deeper.
3rd: A nice, empty trashcan is wishful thinking.
By Mara
August 25, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this
in response to the extremely boring discussion yesterday, I’ve decided to make an attempt at limiting my jokes to science jokes. Just to remind everyone that science and mathmatics don’t have to be as boring as Bruno makes them…
Noah’s Ark lands after The Flood and Noah releases all the animals, saying, “Go forth and multiply.” Several months pass and Noah decides to check up on the animals. All are doing fine except a pair of snakes. “What’s the problem?” asks Noah. “Cut down some trees and let us live there,” say the snakes. Noah follows their advice. Several more weeks pass and Noah checks up on the snakes again. He sees lots of little snakes; everybody is happy. Noah says, “So tell me how the trees helped.” “Certainly,” reply the snakes. “We’re adders, and we need logs to multiply.”
By John
August 25, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this
“But it’s also a bad idea to cast a vote on little more than knee-jerk partisan politics.” I cant beleive that a knee-jerk partisan used this line. There is so much mis-information here. Silly a**ed chicks stopping in on their way to class to write about how General Franks prosecuted the war incorrectly. If you haven’t read the first book on this topic,or you get your news from this newspaper, you aren’t qualified to make this assessment. I served in the Army, I have read the personal account of how this war was prosecuted, and I think you have a depraved perspective. During WWII at the Siegfried line over a 6 month period, over 10,000 soldiers were killed. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Line - Thousands more were wounded. Your objections to this war are a straw man and are directly related to your hatred for our President. Just admit your lack of patriotism and your childish actions and we will all get along a lot better. How can you ignore enough Sarin to kill everone in this country? They have found it Iraq. George Orwell had it right.
By Brian Curtis
August 25, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
Kevin: A quick aside, because Joke Friday is sacrosanct.
Complex organisms evolving from simpler ones is not a violation of the Second Law, because it’s another example of localized order increasing at the expense of overal disorder—in this case, energy intake from outside the system (in our case, this is ultimately the Sun). Since no process is 100% efficient, this means some energy is wasted and the Second Law applies—as it always does.
Bruno: So now “science is my god”? Oh, this is getting funnier and funnier. Science and magic may look alike to the simpleminded, but one is provable and testable, and the other is written down in the Bible.
But now, on with the jokes!
A very elderly gentleman, (mid-nineties) very well dressed, hair well groomed, great looking suit, flower in his lapel, smelling slightly of a good after-shave, presenting a well tended image, walks into an upscale cocktail lounge. Seated at the bar is an elderly looking lady, (mid-eighties).
The gentleman walks over, sits alongside her, orders a drink, takes a sip, turns to her and says, “So tell me, do I come here often?”
An elderly gentleman had serious hearing problems for a number of years. He went to the doctor, who was able to have him fitted for a set of hearing aids that allowed him to hear 100%.
He returned to the doctor in a month, and the doctor said, “Your hearing is perfect. Your family must be really pleased that you can hear again.”
The man replied, “Oh, I haven’t told my family yet. I just sit around and listen to the conversations. So far I’ve changed my will three times!”
Two elderly gentlemen from a retirement center were sitting on a park bench when one turns to the other and says: “Slim, I’m 83 years old now and I’m just full of aches and pains. I know you’re about my age. How do you feel?”
Slim says, “I feel just like a newborn baby.”
“Really!? Like a newborn baby!?”
“Yep. No hair, no teeth, and I think I just wet my pants.”
An elderly couple had dinner at another couple’s house, and after eating, the wives left the table and went into the kitchen. The men were talking, and one said, “Last night we went out to a new restaurant and it was really great. I would recommend it very highly.”
The other man said, “What’s the name of the restaurant?”
The first man thought and thought and finally said, “What’s the name of that flower you give to someone you love? You know, the one that’s red and has thorns.”
“Do you mean a rose?”
“Yes, that’s the one,” replied the man. He then turned towards the kitchen and yelled, “Rose, what’s the name of that restaurant we went to last night?
A couple in their nineties are both having problems remembering things. During a checkup, the doctor tells them that they’re physically okay, but they might want to start writing things down to help them remember. Later that night, while watching TV, the old man gets up from his chair. “Want anything while I’m in the kitchen?” he asks.
“Will you get me a bowl of ice cream?”
“Sure.”
“Don’t you think you should write it down so you can remember it?” she asks.
“No, I can remember it.”
“Well, I’d like some strawberries on top, too. Maybe you should write it down, so you won’t forget it?”
He says, “I can remember that. You want a bowl of ice cream with strawberries.”
“I’d also like whipped cream. I’m certain you’ll forget that, write it down?” she asks.
Irritated, he says, “I don’t need to write it down, I can remember it! Ice cream with strawberries and whipped cream. I got it, for goodness sake!” Then he toddles into the kitchen.
After about 20 minutes, the old man returns from the kitchen and hands his wife a plate of bacon and eggs. She stares at the plate for a moment and sats, “See? I knew you’d forget. Where’s my toast?”
Three old guys are out walking. First one says, “Windy, isn’t it?” Second one says, “No, it’s Thursday!” Third one says, “So am I. Let’s go get a beer.”
A man was telling his neighbor, “I just bought a new hearing aid. It cost me four thousand dollars, but it’s state of the art. It’s perfect.”
“Really,” answered the neighbor. “What kind is it?”
“Twelve thirty.”
Morris, an 82-year-old man, went to the doctor to get a physical. A few days later, the doctor saw Morris walking down the street with a gorgeous young woman on his arm. A couple of days later, the doctor spoke to Morris and said, “You’re really doing great, aren’t you?”
Morris replied, “Just doing what you said, Doc: ‘Get a hot mamma and be cheerful.’”
The doctor said, “I didn’t say that. I said, ‘You’ve got a heart murmur; be careful.’”
A little old man shuffled slowly into an ice cream parlor and pulled himself slowly, painfully, up onto a stool. After catching his breath, he ordered a banana split. The waitress asked kindly, “Crushed nuts?”
“No,” he replied, “Arthritis.”
By The72John
August 25, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
Just admit your lack of patriotism
suggests that
George Orwell had it right
if far more accurate than this poster realizes.
By The72John
August 25, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this
As everyone knows, Ghandi spent a lot of time walking around barefoot. He also fasted on a regular basis, so he was kind of frail. When he DID eat he ate nothing but vegetables, so it made his breat kind of funky.
That makes him…
Are you ready?
This is really bad…
A super-fragile calloused-mystic hexed with hallitosis.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
A few quick blogs before I have to return to the mental hospital for the weekend. First, I’ve got to set the record straight about the Laws of Thermodynamics and how they can rightly be applied. I can’t let Kevin’s and BC’s mistaken interpretations stand, especially since BC is telling me to go back to high school.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
As you correctly stated, Kevin, these idealized Laws only apply to “closed systems”. But, all Clinton lawyer jokes aside, Ibelieve this phrase is trickier than you guys are giving it credit to be. BC asserted that the First Law of Thermo doesn’t apply to the sun because the sun can’t be part of any “closed system”. I still politely disagree with this analysis.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Then, Kevin presented the classic “refrigerator in a room” as representing a “closed system”. Think about it, Kevin. That room can’t have perfect insulation. so part of the heat in the room “leaks” into the Earth’s atmosphere. In turn, the Earth’s heat “leaks” into the Solar System and beyond, leading to Universal Warming. So, Kevin, is your example really a “closed system”?
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Quick aside to Libs: You see, when you run your refrigerators, you are not only causing Global Warming, you are actually causing Universal Warming. So, all Libs unplug your refrigerators NOW before you mess up the whole Universe.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
An even deeper problem with the Second Law of Thermo is found in the phrase “tends to”. Without going through the gory details, ultimately Statistics are used to make estimations during the application of these Laws to real systems—ever heard of Statistical Thermodynamics? Having gone through these equations personally, I can only repeat “There are lies, damn lies, and Statistics.”
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
The big point here, as with all Science, is that ll these formulas are IDEALIZATIONS, and break down quickly in real life. The reason is the same as why Chuck is wrong: God is perfect, but Man is imperfect. Therefore, our attempts to understand God, buth through Science and Religion will ultimately fall short.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Mara - if you follow the Carter/Hussein postings, Bruno used ‘like a man’ when I corrected an error of mine concerning Hussein’s rise-to-power timeline. (and I immediately went into the muscle flexing, a la the cartoon at the beginning of the original French version of La Cage Aux Folles…LMAO).
Bruno - kinda semantics on the ‘asleep at the wheel’ vs. ‘responsible for’ but I suppose you may have learned that kind of double-speak from the MasterOfMisinformation, Limbaugh. I realize Carter COULD have done the Reagan/Bishop thing and made up some story about endangered students in Iraq. LOL
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
So, this doesn’t mean we should stop trying to understand God, but JUST KEEP A LITTLE HUMILITY. The certanity which both Chuck on the religious side, and BC on the Science side, are false. My purpose in taking them on is simply to show them that their manly knowledge is limited.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
So, John, if you must categorize me, call me an epistemological nihilist. I’m not sure if that’s an “approved” phrase or not, I just made it up, like I do almost all of my thoughts. You’re not goiing to find any books out there linking Math, Science, Religion, and Politics like I have here.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
One last word to Chuck—I’m concerned for your eternal salvation after you blasphemed God in public on this board. You better start repenting, my friend.
By John
August 25, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
72John
I am referring to the hearts of the individuals that can’t see two sides of the issue. I will admit that I don’t want young people dying any more than anyone else, but I also don’t want my children blown up or gassed here at home either. It is about the big picture and folks that are flinging poo just because they hate George Bush and can’t be convinced of the danger no matter what…. It clouds their judgement and it is unpatriotic to not support your leadership during a time of war. Read “John Adams” by David McCullough, the same rhetoric 200 years ago.
Just admit your lack of patriotism
suggests that
George Orwell had it right
if far more accurate than this poster realizes.
By The72John
August 25, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
My purpose in taking them on is simply to show them that their manly knowledge is limited
Physician, heal thyself.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
So, BC, you really believe Science is “truth”, and the Bible isn’t? I’m telling you, bro, you have an overinflated ego like John and Chuck. You don’t really understand Science, all you can do is parrot. Then, when you come to the parts you don’t really understand, you’re only too happy to fill in the details with whatever you want, then argue about your fantastical constructions.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
For example, your believing in “local exceptions” to the Law of Entropy is crap. These exceptions aren’t just a matter of making your “closed system” more inclusive, but point to a fundamental problem with the Law itself. Science proves that MAGIC exists. Unfortunately, your Science education is too limited to understand that documented fact.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
The bottom line. BC, you are just as dogmatic in your misguided faith in Science as Chuck is in his misguided religious faith. Unfortunately, both of you are (1) Too stupid to realize it (2) Too arrogant to admit it if you ever did figure that out.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
P.S. In case you haven’t figure it out yet, I don’t get my ideas from Intelligent Design websites or any other websites. I’ve been thinking about these problems for more than thirty years and have read more REAL Science books than you ever heard of.
By The72John
August 25, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
It is beyond unbelievable to hear this overblown, puffed-up preener accuse anyone of being egotistical.
it is unpatriotic to not support your leadership during a time of war
Well, no it isn’t. If you don’t support the cause and believe it is the wrong thing for a nation to do then it is MOST patriotic to challenge your leaders. That’s what makes our nation different - we have the responsibility to challenge our leaders when they do the wrong thing.
When our leaders put us at risk for their own purposes, that’s when we must challenge them Otherwise freedom is meaningless.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
and that is my number one dislike of Carter, pulling the US out of the 1980 Olympics. People/kids train their whole lives, to end up with some wouse throwing a hissy fit and taking his marbles and going home.(cancelling the US participation). Olympics still went on, didn’t they? LOL
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying:
“Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed.”
“OH NO!” the President exclaims. “That’s terrible!”
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands, crying quietly.
Finally, the President looks up and asks, “Just how many is a brazillion?”
By The72John
August 25, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
I’ve been thinking about these problems for more than thirty years and have read more REAL Science books than you ever heard of.
And yet, no Nobel prize. What a tragedy.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
And Chuck, whenever you decide to show your blasphemous face again, I want to let you know I perused the entire New Testament last night, and could only find ONE INSTANCE OF A RELIGIOUS MEETING ON SUNDAY IN THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. That can be found in Acts 20, AND EVEN THEN IT WAS A NIGHT MEETING. THERE ARE NO OTHER INSTANCES OF ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY ON SUNDAY, IT WAS ALWAYS BEEN DESCRIBED AS SIMPLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
John, If the Nobel people tried to give me a prize, I would spit in the face of those pinko bastards. And, if I did win, I would just throw it in the box in my garage with the other awards I have won. You haven’t heard me trumpet myself other than to mention I went to a phenomenal undergrad college, and then only to answer those here calling for credentials.
By Mara
August 25, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Mara - if you follow the Carter/Hussein postings, Bruno used ‘like a man’ when I corrected an error of mine concerning Hussein’s rise-to-power timeline. (and I immediately went into the muscle flexing, a la the cartoon at the beginning of the original French version of La Cage Aux Folles…LMAO)
sorry Chilao. Usually I happily read your posts because I find them interesting but I skipped over those, mostly because they engaged the troll. I skip over all his posts, and those addressed to him. (shrug) I’m just not that interested in his opinions.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
I have bragged that I could whip up on all the lightweights here, as I have, but that’s no real accomplishment. My real hope for you personally, John, is to research these ideas at your leisure. I honestly believe that you are (1) A very decent human being (2) Very intelligent (3) Angry at the world due to your personal experiences in life
By lozen
August 25, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Skipping all of windbag’s postings and going right for the jokes! Brian, funny old folks jokes!
A research professor (Renee), Cloned people from ape DNA. The project went well, Anyone can tell, ‘Cause they’re members of congress today.
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
And sorry to appear to be talking over everyone’s head—I had to leave out all the prerequisite knowledge due to space limitations. Please, go find a non-arrogant Georgia Tech prof one day, and ask him about the merits of these ideas.
By The72John
August 25, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
John, If the Nobel people tried to give me a prize, I would spit in the face of those pinko bastards. And, if I did win, I would just throw it in the box in my garage with the other awards I have won. You haven’t heard me trumpet myself other than to mention I went to a phenomenal undergrad college, and then only to answer those here calling for credentials.
Wow, you just become more obviously irrational and unstable with every post, don’t you? I bet you’re on a whole slew of medications, hmm?
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Hey Mara, You may think you’re smart because you can throw a few big words around, but you couldn’t think your way out of a paper bag.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Mara - I understand.. LOL (but I really had to stand up, look down at my crotch, and start doing the LaCageAuxFolles cartoon..ummp, awmpd, ummp, awmmp, like a Venice Beach/Muscle Beach athlete)
By Bruno
August 25, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Well, the guys in the white coats are here. I’ll talk to all of my new fans here next week.
By Archie
August 25, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
“What do you know now that you didn’t know then?” Edwards asked Wynn.
“I know the president lied,” Wynn answered. “I know President Bush would lie. I know (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice would lie. I know (Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld is stupid.”
This was the exchange between Albert Wynn,a democrat who voted for the war and Donna Edwards,a democrat who is running against Wynn.
“Here’s what I knew then and what I know now,” Edwards said. “Iraq was no imminent threat. The U.N. inspection team found no weapons of mass destruction. And Iraq was not involved in 9/11.”
Wow I said this earlier in the week and I am not running for anything. Once again, no the democrats are not too focused on the negatives of the war. Bush is going to setup a military base in Iraq so that we can launch an attack against Syria or Iran from there. His plan is to protect America but I don’t understand the need to lie. I wonder did he,Bush, overreact to 9/11?
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Lozen - was catching up on my Playboy reading the past few days, Sept>Aug>July, and learned July had a Margaret Atwood short story, but I will not get to read until this weekend.
By Renee
August 25, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Bruno - I think it’s one thing to have debate, even intelligent debate, but this arrogance and superiority complex on your part is quite tiresome. You stating that Mara is not smart enough to think her way out of a paper bag is, in my opinion, a statement to make yourself appear bigger are more intelligent. I’m sure you know that the delivery of the message can lose the actual message. I have read very little of what you have actually written due to your arrogance, and constant kissing of your own a-s-s. It’s one thing to toot your own horn, but how dare you try to belittle others.
I don’t care how much knowledge one has (or think they have), we are all people, from very different walks of life, and all of us have a pretty good wealth of knowledge. What makes you think you are better than any of us. I don’t care of you are an actual MENSA member, you are a person who urinates and defecates like anyone else, and could learn something from the “little people” out here.
Jeeeesh
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
for the Georgians:
Mr. (Ralph) Reed also argues that his stopping gambling in Texas and Alabama was a good thing and of itself, even though he was hired by rival casinos to do it. Using the same reasoning, Lucky Luciano was on solid moral ground when he knocked off Dutch Shultz.
Garrison Keillor/September Funny Times
Renee - people like Bruno suffer from inferiority complexes, and in spite of all of their accomplishments, (which you would THINK would take care of it) still feel inadequate and therefore behave the way they do. Have known many in life, in person, just like him.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
His plan is to protect America but I don’t understand the need to lie. I wonder did he,Bush, overreact to 9/11?
Why do dogs bark? Because they are scared.
By lozen
August 25, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
A promising PhD candidate was presenting his thesis at his final examination. He proceeded with a derivation and ended up with something like: F = -MA He was embarrassed, his supervising professor was embarrassed, and the rest of the committee was embarrassed. The student coughed nervously and said “I seem to have made a slight error back there somewhere.” One of the mathematicians on the committee replied dryly, “Either that or an odd number of them!”
By Linda
August 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
I sure don’t know who Shaunti’s talking to in the military putting such a positive light on the war in Iraq - I’m about halfway through a book I’ve seen mentioned and quoted that picqued my interest in the background of this war; this book almost seems to be the modern day equivalent of WWII’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, except this book is on the Iraq war (called “Fiasco”), and is an in-depth and very well researched accounting of the lead up to this war. An extraordinary amount of senior military and administration officians were interviewed, as well as thousands of official documents. The author, a Pulitzer price winning author, is a Pentagon reported who previously worked for the Wall Street Journal for 17 years, hardly a left wing liberal spinning newspaper. Not halfway through this book, it is so obvious that most of the upper echelons of our military command at the top level advised against this war, was very concerned that it would divert resources from Osama Bin Laden, and shows the complete disdain and refusal to acknowledge the potential problems both before invasion and as they arose in Iraq from our so-called civilian “leadership”. It leaves me immensely angry that we continue to lose young kids over there for a venture that we’re never going to win, no matter how much spin Shaunti wants to put on it. I have always been a moderate mostly Republican voting mainstreamer, until this bunch got in power. They should be impeached and tried for treason.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Man sitting on couch, watching TV, says to his interrupting wife “Heh, could you give me the silent treatment until about 8:30?”
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
They should be impeached and tried for treason.
well we know THAT will not happen with the current Congress.
By Brian Curtis
August 25, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno, if you think you’ve proven anything but your incredibly boring arrogance, you’re as mistaken as ever. Even with all your inane ramblings, you’ve garnered less than 5% of my attention this week.
I’m impressed that your “30 years of sitting and thinking about stuff” has somehow produced more knowledge than centuries of research by brilliant men who took the trouble to test and verify their findings. But I guess that would get in the way of your self-congratulatory style.
You’re really making everyone yawn, Bruno… not because your so-called ideas are over our heads, but because they’re beneath notice. Permit me to ape your argumentation “style” for a moment:
See how inane such “arguments” are? Probably not. Good grief, what an insecure loser you are to be so concerned with impressing people on a blog.
By Brian Curtis
August 25, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
As for a Friday joke… Bruno’s it.
By Mara
August 25, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Thanks, everyone, for the kind comments and support. I don’t know what I did to earn “the wrath of Bruno”, and frankly, I don’t really care. But his comments do illustrate a tendancy I’ve noticed in a lot of right-wingers. Instead of arguing a topic on it’s merits, they devolve into personal attacks or change the subject. Bruno used both tactics here. Frank Luntz would be proud…
Chilao - though I haven’t seen the original, I did love “The Birdcage”. One of these days I’ll just have to rent “La Cage aux Folles”, if only for my own cultural growth.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Mara - you have to see the original *LaCageAuxFolles, if only for the cartoon at the beginning. I saw it bigscreen, indie-house. and only once and UNforgettable.
I’ll have to see if the video of the cartoon is available on-line, it may very well be, but have never checked.
By Renee
August 25, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
LOL Brian!!
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Mara - the whole DVD of the original French version is only $12.78 at amazon, but the cartoon(animated sequence intro, actually) is not mentioned by reviewers there.
in a nutshell, it is the egg, on a nest, and the sperm play cowboys and indians in an attempt to be the one to impregnate. Once impregnated, the egg develops into a very feminine creature. but at some point she looks down and sees a major only-male appendage, and immediately starts doing the muscle-flexing, like a macho body-builder. Hilarious.
By Chilao
August 25, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
As for a Friday joke… Bruno’s it.
Good joke contribution, good joke contribution.!
By Mara
August 25, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
the sperm play cowboys and indians in an attempt to be the one to impregnate
LOL!! Oh, the picture in my mind
Brian made a funny! :^P
Linda - when you finish “Fiasco” pick up “The End of Iraq”. Each book is pretty good on its own, but the two together give a great overview on the entire venture to date. Highly recommend.
By The72John
August 25, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Just want to point out that, yet again, I have ventured over to the Wooten blog and discovered that, yet again, it represents the pinacle of screaming and name-calling masquerading as political debate.
Those guys make our hopefully-departed Bruno look like a rank amateur in the pompous, over-inflated ego department.
By Kevin
August 25, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno and BC:
Bruno - I agree. The total entropy of the universe increases for the process I illustrated. I was merely trying to simplify the example by limiting the discussion to the frig and kitchen. If the entropy increases for the kitchen, it would eventually increase for the universe. I have no misconceptions!
BC - I agree except that I believe the energy from outside the system would need to be “directed energy” in order for this type of evolution to occur. However, I will freely admit that the vast majority of scientists disagree with my position.
Now for my feeble attempt at humor:
Three men are waiting to be executed by the electric chair. The warden asks the first man if he has any last words. The man replies “I am from the University of Alabama, and I love Bear Bryant”. The switch is thrown, but the chair doesn’t work. The warden, still in disbelief that the chair malfunctioned, pardons the man of his crime!
The second man is then brought to the chair and asked for his last words. He replies “I am from UGA and I love Vince Dooley”. The switch is thrown, but again the chair doesn’t work. This man is pardoned for his crimes as well.
The third man is strapped into the chair and asked for his last words. He replies “I am from GA Tech, I am an electrical engineer, and if you would just cross the red and green wires this darn chair would work”!
I am a Tech grad, but that is the only joke I could remember. I warned you it was a feeble attempt at humor!
Have a great weekend all!
By buy ionamin
August 30, 2006 05:48 AM | Link to this
buy ionaminbuy ionamin [LINK http://241-part-3.blogspot.com/]buy ionamin[/LINK] [URL http://241-part-3.blogspot.com/]buy ionamin[/URL]