Letter to the Editor
Give a chance
Published Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!How quickly we forget.
I’d like to remind Kathleen (Mike) Dalton (Letters, Oct. 8) that in eight years George Bush took this nation from no deficit to financial collapse. History shows that the United States does not win political wars, and, in George Bush’s tenure, he started two very intractable wars. How many GIs died for Bush’s sins?
George Bush managed to alienate many countries, including some of our allies. I am not sure how to address Dick Cheney’s cronyism in the White House. He even managed to shoot someone in the face.
In short, George Bush made a hell of a mess of our nation, destroyed this nation’s credibility and our world standing. With the press outright saying that Bush was a bad president, that’s bad.
President Obama is striving to do two things: straighten Bush’s messes and fulfill his campaign promises. President Obama has been in office less than a year. Give him a chance, or are you one of those people that want instant gratification? In my estimation, it will take him more than one term to get our head above water again. This mess wasn’t made overnight.
Dalton should stop worrying about smaller things and raise her sights and look at the bigger picture. If she is tired of seeing President Obama on television, she should turn off the damn TV and go for a walk. It’ll clear her head.
I believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Well said.
Nonsense. Obama is a spending disaster. For a visual representation go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwD...
Keep in mind that the profligate spending under the so-called health care plan would make this even worse.
'intractable wars' - Imagine that! If only we could win them before they start and not put soldiers in harm's way ( seeing one who enlists as a soldier could never have the intellectual capacity to realize that would ever occur - yeah, that's it).
Harry Whittington shares in the blame for being shot in the face while bird-hunting, by the way. Read about the details of the hunt.
As far a Obama getting a second term by continuing what he has 'accomplished' in six months, don't count on it.
'That mess wasn't made overnight' wasn't made in only eight years and isn't past-tense as it has been accelerated in overdrive by the present puppet.
Your last sentence smacks of a scene in 'Tommy Boy'- "Um, he seems like a nice guy." (Boy's statement about businessman who attempted to destroy his father's business. The villain's ads made him appear to be nice,after all.).
You have expressed that you are the anti-Dalton, nothing more or less.
Sorry, just calling 'em the way I see 'em.
NativeSon - You bring up a national debt road trip and I a financial business road trip movie around the same time. The end of the YouTube clip ends with 'Isn't he dreamy?' and the end of my commentary ends with "Um, he seems like a nice guy."
Coincidence? I think not!
GIVE IT UP ALREADY. I'm sick and tired of hearing how bad of a pres. Bush was and how the messiah has a lot of work ahead of him and THATS the reason things aren't getting done. I've only been following politics for a short time so i don't know that this is how its supposed to go, but I"m pretty sure its not. EVERYONE needs to stop whining and complaining about Bush. Its been a year and still when I ask what has Obama done anyone that supports him says Bush this or Bush that. YES BUSH SUCKED, but was he the worst pres? probably not. Get over it already. Wasn't your website moveon.org? well now is the time to start moving on already. or was that like most everything the messiah has done and just talk.
At the rate Obama is spending money I don't think we have the luxury to give him anymore chances. The nation will be bankrupt and we all will suffer. Perhaps if he would stop campaigning and start acting like a President this would change but frankly, he doesn't have the experience or the knowledge to run this country. He has set a new level in cronyism in the White House that makes Dick Cheney look like a cub scout. This administration has not accomplished one thing they have promised during the campaign. Hell, he won't even appear on FOX News yet claims he will talk with our enemies unconditionally. He did a great job in Copenhagen and won a Nobel Peace Prize for rhetoric. Before he is done he will be known as the weakest President to ever serve.
The nation was bankrupt before obama spent one day in office. Bush
and his neo-con warmongers already seen to that.
I, for one, am sick and tired of all the crap!
Pointing fingers at one party or one man. Good gosh people, take a little responsibility upon yourselves and stand up and accept that you are accountable for some of this mess we now call our Nation!
Yep, blame who ever you want, but excuse yourself. It's easy to blame the other guy or party. Makes me sick to see how simple and easy it is for "we the people" to stomp our feet and point a boney finger at others!
Better wake up and smell the coffee!
We don't win political wars? Aren't all wars political?
A lot of fiction in this letter.
When we were supposedly on the brink of economic disaster, we were in a position to recover from a cyclical recession. Now we have close to 10% unemployment. Mainstream media tells us that the recession is over, but our own eyes tell us different. Instead of war debt, we now have debt on every level. With much more on the way. Our currency is likely to be replaced as a means of international exchange.
Cronyism is rampant in the Obama administration. Law breakers and 60s style radicals are in charge. Most of the country is opposed to Obama's domestic agenda, but that doesn't matter. Congressional Democrats run the Hill as partisan as most have ever seen. They actually lock Republicans out of committee meetings.
Now our allies don't abandon us. We abandon them.
Thank goodness most of the country is seeing through this farce. Of course, Obama just blames it on Rush, Drudge, and FoxNews. If it wasn't for them, everybody would love him.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
"George Bush’s tenure, he started two very intractable wars. How many GIs died for Bush’s sins?"
Afghanistan: remember 9/11? The Afghan government sheltered those who killed 300+ of our citizens. That's an act of war. Iraq: Did its damndest to convince the world that it had nuclear weapons; not a good thing for a dictatorship that had started two regional wars. BTW; Iraq is looking pretty "tractable" about now. Afghanistan could, too, if president waffles would make up his mind to send the troops that are needed.
"George Bush managed to alienate many countries, including some of our allies." Let's see . . . who alienated Columbia, Honduras, Britain, Israel . . . .hint: starts with "O". Our credibility and world standing have taken a nose dive since January. Guess that's all Bush's fault, too.
"I believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place."
Well *that's* the important thing. Our safety, liberty, and prosperity seem to be secondary, so perhaps we should all shut up and let the president flail around spastically for the next few years. After all, it's the thought that counts.
ahh neocons, your fear makes me laugh. smarter folk than you have said we could double the amount of debt we have and still be ok. DOUBLE
a main reason obama's deficit looks larger than bush's is that he added in HOW MUCH WE WILL PAY FOR THE WARS, which is a welcome change from bush who would always pay for them through emergency expenditures.
and as time goes on a bigger and bigger percentage of americans open their eyes and see that iraq was a war of choice.
hey cons, why don't you try to imagine what position america would be in right now if bush had focused on afghanistan, and either stopped or rolled back his giant tax cuts?
Yes, BigDipper, the Bush years are a complete fabrication.
You're kidding, right? Or were you just napping the entire time?
Excellent letter...but, I will also agree with donna62.
"It was your party!" "No, it was your party!"
As long as we, the people, keep allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by this ridiculous concept of "party" interests, rather than national interests, we get what we deserve. "Government by the people", remember, so as long as we allow these public servants to play their childish games (while pocketing a lot of dough) we really don't have anything to bellyache about.
secprog -- "ahh neocons, your fear makes me laugh. smarter folk than you have said we could double the amount of debt we have and still be ok. DOUBLE"
Yeah, you're a real winner. Is this how you manage your own money? Constantly doubling your debt and still be ok? How very "krugman".
Obama "served" in the Senate for two years and did nothing to stem "Bush's spending". He voted in favor of every spending bill that came across the floor, including funding "Bush's wars".
It is, however, true that Bush alienated our enemies, whereas, Obama has alienated our friends.
The usual suspects arrive and spout the same old nonsense. I've asked for input before on how President Obama has taken our freedoms and I never get a response from the right-wingers.
So, I looked myself came up with this list:
1. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions even if no criminal activity is suspected.
2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
3. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
4. RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
5. FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause.
6. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
7. RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
Oh wait! That's the list of freedoms lost under duhbya.
Here's the list of freedoms lost under President Barack Obama;
1.
2.
3.
Maybe if we give him eight years the list will get longer. I'll wait and see.
And in less than a year Obama has managed take this country into massive debt that has resulted in China telling this country what to do, a new war, a tax payer give away that will result in billions being paid out to CEO and traders in bonuses, 1 in 6 Americans unemployment , poverty at a level higher than ever experiences in this country, giving away millions in cash for clunkers in which foreign auto makers won the giveaway, a atmosphere similar to what the civil war must have been like, most countries laughing at the US, could go on, but you get the idea. Obama has so far proven he is incapable of being a leader. He really should have been an actor, he reads scripts prepared by others well. Leadership is something he knows nothing about. His ratings have fallen so low, since people have realized what they actually got. A lemon for President.
What utter rubbish, with the exception of the fact that Bush did break the bank with a trillion in deficit. But, your messiah Obama has now raised that to 3 trillion....in less then a year. Took Bushy boy 8 years to do it. Guess that makes you proud ay?
And lets see, hes fulfilled...uh...0 of his promises. He lies every day. He puts avowed socialists that quote Mao in as Czars. Im sorry silly rabbit, Czars are for Russians......
Misguided puppets......
Cheney was fined $25 for not having the proper permit or stamp (however they do it in Texas. $25.00!!!(thinking to myself) That's all it costs to hunt Lawyers in Texas???!!!
Where do I sign up? Do Permits for Environmentalist Lawyers cost more or Less? And why hasn't the ADF&G adopted this policy?
so funny, belmontrose1 -- do you feel the same way about others who accidentally shoot their best friend?
As far as most Republicans are concerned, George W. Bush ceased to exist on January 21, 2009. The mere mention of him is blasphemy, his is the name we do not speak of. Bush is the Republicans Voldemort.
However, we can still call the current President a socialist marxist facist pinko commie librul baby and grandma killer nazi stalinist maoist dictator. Did I mention he has a non white person sounding name, is a muslim, and wasn't born in the US?
and the Great O proudly "won" the Nobel Peace Prize....
How is the hopey, changey thing working for YOU!!!
Scott Allen of Ester.....is a great teachable moment. He ended his poor letter saying "I believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place."
This is what I am frequently saying. Liberals think with their heart, conservatives think with their brain. Liberals care more about good intentions than results. Liberals do no know how to "think beyond stage one." The point is that good intentions are in every way worthless. It is harmful to place value on ones' benevolence.
Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote a classic book titled "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles." In it, he goes over two distinct visions that all ideologies derive from. One is the constrained vision where one realizes that man has limits and cannot be perfected. They may best help society by simply pursuing their own interest. et cetera. The other vision is the unconstrained vision where man can be perfected and everything is possible. One can only help others if he sets out with the goal of benevolence. This is it in a tight nutshell.
I strongly encourage all of you to type in the name of the book into a youtube and amazon search. You won't regret it. Be open to expanding your mind.
nothing new here folks. just another stamp and die mainstream san fransisco style liberal. this person has no new ideas or actually any of his own. he's just regirgitating the party line. just move along from this train wreck.
Typical Ester rant. And yep, MOVE THE eF ON!!!
So this nation just went to crap from ONE presidents sitting? How shortsighted and small minded can one be? I for one am concerned about where this nation is headed but to try and pin it on one person, is a bit fanatical. Many many many PEOPLE have contributed to this brink of disaster we live in today. For many years we have been a whiney crying tot with the power to push others around. Now we have let our military crumble, our financial future is in some other country's hands and worst of all, our morals and ethics have decayed to a point of no return (or so it seems). SOMEONE BETTER DO SOMETHING QUICK! ;)
I support health care and the public option and Obama!
NO HEALTH CARE?
THANK A REPUBLICAN!
"George Bush...started two very intractable wars. How many GIs died for Bush’s sins?"
There has been a growing claim on the left that our involvement in Afghanistan is unjustified. Yet as Tom58 pointed out, it was the Afghan government that sheltered the perpetrators of 9/11, and this was an act of war.
Part of the left's opposition to the war in Iraq was predicated on the claim that Bush needed to keep his eye on the Afghanistan war. This was not an unfounded argument. Yet now the left says we never should have gone in there in the first place. (Try as I might, I'm never able to keep pace with the random shifts in leftist logic.)
I will say without reservation that one of the things I believe Obama is doing right is refocusing on Afghanistan. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power there, and even more importantly, they cannot be allowed to strengthen their already far too large foothold on Pakistan.
Those on the left who think we should quit Afghanistan need to provide viable alternative solutions to the very real dangers presented by the instability there. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting, however, because those answers will never be forthcoming from people who believe that the GIs in Afghanistan are dying for Bush's sins. They aren't. Those GIs are dying because of Osama bin Laden's sins. They are giving their lives in hopes of preventing him from sinning again. Something that the author of this letter refuses to acknowledge, much less appreciate.
Anybody remember TARP? Anybody remember how McCain couldn't get back to DC fast enough to help push through that legislation? If anybody thinks the national debt would have been any different had he won the election is delusional. That is not said in order to defend Obama however. Why he took this path to continue TARP type giveaways to the fatcats can only make sense if you understand who is now in complete control of this country. I believe we need campaign finance reform to keep the huge corporations and mega banks from controlling our elected officials. This is the only thing I can think of in the way they are bailing out Wall St. At this point I will look very hard to see where a candidates money is coming from. In the mean time we desperately need campaign finance reform in this country.
Taters, awesome comment--the best I've seen in a while. I notice no one has addressed it. I wonder why...
@nanook1934: "How is the hopey, changey thing working for YOU!!!" Pretty well now that I've gained back a lot of the retirement investments I'd lost under Bush. How about you?
@polarmark: "just another stamp and die mainstream san fransisco style liberal." You obviously don't know Scott Allen. If you did, you'd know why your attempted slam is so laughably wide of the mark.
@Prospector: "Obama has alienated our friends." Yeah, they got so pissed off at us that they give him a Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.
@TBD: "Cronyism is rampant in the Obama administration. Law breakers and 60s style radicals are in charge." Funny. Here's what Fox News (!) had to say about this: "Obama is outpacing George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on appointments, but like his predecessors, he is bogged down in a system that has grown increasingly cumbersome over the years. And his task has been made even more difficult by his own tougher-than-ever background checks and ethics rules." And here's something more recent from a more reliable source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
@TAC: "There has been a growing claim on the left that our involvement in Afghanistan is unjustified. Yet as Tom58 pointed out, it was the Afghan government that sheltered the perpetrators of 9/11, and this was an act of war." All true, but irrelevant. Decisions about our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan have to hinge on future risks and possibilities, not historic ones. And we must acknowledge that our options are few, and of them none are good.
@Americaisgreat123: "This is what I am frequently saying. Liberals think with their heart, conservatives think with their brain." You know this how? So the religious right is our brain trust, having emptied our colleges and universities of scholars? I must have missed that.
Mr. Allen, in the SHORT time Obama has been at the head of this country the debt he plunged us into is FAR greater than any other president accomplished in their whole term.
Get your head back into the sunshine and take a DEEEEEEp breath of fresh air. Clear your head and simply look at the numbers.
We are sunk and it's Obama's doing.
A thought to ponder: How long would it take for full recovery of our nation IF THERE WASN'T A WAR?
Healy_Dem........you forgot Obama is a whining crybaby.
"A thought to ponder: How long would it take for full recovery of our nation IF THERE WASN'T A WAR?"
You are a crazy dreamer Dognabber! When has this country NOT been at war? I seem to remember a couple years there in the Clinton term where we weren't but basically we are more or less permanently at war with somebody. Sometimes we are at war with the same folks we were allied with in prior wars. Sort of Orwellian when you think about it. Sometimes when there isn't a real war going on the government will invent something like the "War on Drugs" just to keep the country on red alert and keep the nation in constant fear and outrage which in turn keeps those politicians who exploit that same fear and outrage to get reelected so the money will keep flowing into the GREAT BIG FAT WAR MACHINE! So just take another swig of your Victory Gin and get over it...
Were going to save the afgahstans from the talibans just like we saved the south vietnams against the north vietnams. Its their country
and they will fight to the very end for it as I would hope we would if
foreign troops were in our country. The sooner we recognize that fact
the less american lives will be lost.
dirtprof -- "Yeah, they got so pissed off at us that they give him a Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure."
Apparently, you are not aware that the majority of the five Oslo Nobel Peace Prize Committee members opposed the selection of Obama for this year's prize. They were bullied by the two socialists who made the announcement prematurely, over the objections of the other three members:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...
It was wrongly assigned and wrongly accepted. Only a narcissist would have done what Obama did.
BTW, the Oslo Nobel Committee is composed of five Norwegians. Hardly representative of the rest of the world, nor of our allies.
dirtprof -- "So the religious right is our brain trust, having emptied our colleges and universities of scholars? I must have missed that."
Yes, you have. You intentionally misdirected his statement by adding the phrase "religious right" in place of "conservative". Why couldn't you address the statement as plainly written rather than as you imagined? Speaks very poorly of your own scholarship.
dognabber -- "A thought to ponder: How long would it take for full recovery of our nation IF THERE WASN'T A WAR?"
The credit-derivative crises (global), the sub-prime mortgage crisis (effectively global), the health-care "crisis" (national) have very little to do with NATO's war in Afghanistan.
As his sycophants seem to have polished Obama's apple a little too hard, the shine is gone. Left-leaning Gallup poll shows the worst decline in approval (not the same as popularity) for 3rd Qtr of a new president since WWII:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/...
I won't write him off, yet. He can still turn things around by acting decisively in war, standing by our friends, standing up to our enemies, ramping up the economy by reducing the cost of commerce, and toning down the White House party atmosphere.
" in George Bush’s tenure, he started two very intractable wars" Really? And the missing World Trade Center buildings? I suppose you feel Bush's actions interfered with Saddam Hussein's chances of getting a Nobel Peace prize too?
"George Bush managed to alienate many countries, including some of our allies". Yup. He sure did honk off those allies of ours that were selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Iraq. And it certainly was a shame he made our allies that were selling arms to Africa feel bad.
Of course the press said Bush was a bad president. It's what the press does to every non-democratic president. The problem is - nobody can agree on just what 'W" was bad at.
I find it chillingly ironic the same 'press' that once became all blue in the face with furror and outrage when Bush would endorse actions that raised our national debt by a few billion - today stand and applaud a president that is spending Trillions.
"Chains we can believe in" is more like it.
@Prospector: "Apparently, you are not aware that the majority of the five Oslo Nobel Peace Prize Committee members opposed the selection of Obama for this year's prize." Oh, you mean this part? "The committee was unanimous"
"You intentionally misdirected his statement by adding the phrase "religious right" in place of "conservative"." No. I thought you had some passing familiarity with science, but let me refresh your memory. For data to support a hypothesis, they must be consistent with every prediction deduced from the hypothesis--that's the heart of the hypothetico-deductive model. The "religious right" is a subset of a broader "conservative" group--they identify themselves as such, and there is no generally held agreement that this isn't the case. For Americaisgreat123's sweeping generalization to hold, it must be true for every subset of each group he was characterizing. I picked a subgroup of each of his identified groups to show his statement was false. If you relax his statement to "most" conservatives/liberals or "some" conservatives/liberals, then the point is more difficult to argue (how do we even decide how to quantify "most" conservatives or liberals, for example?).
President Bush did what needed doing, that's all. He was not evil, bad
or other wise wrong. He assisted the issues & problems and took action
the best he could at the time. History & only history will judge him & his actions. President Trueman decided to drop the A Bomb on Japan, was
he evil or bad? No he did what needed doing at the time. I believe George Bush will also be vindicated when looked back on in history!!
@KevinMcCarthy: "The problem is - nobody can agree on just what 'W" was bad at." That's not true--there's a long list of things (incuriosity, cronyism, forcing intelligence data to fit his objectives, superstition, overconfidence, and so on) that were pretty clearly the case. But with such a large menu to select from, folks don't necessarily pick the same entrees to highlight.
@sisu: "President Bush did what needed doing, that's all." Iraq didn't need invading. FISA laws didn't need violating. The Constitutional separation of powers didn't need undermining.
"President Trueman [sic] decided to drop the A Bomb on Japan, was he evil or bad?" That was an evil act.
Well, at least Bush gave me stimulus money to spend. Obama just gave it to Wall Street.
dirtprof -- "For Americaisgreat123's sweeping generalization to hold, it must be true for every subset of each group he was characterizing."
Ergo, you are perfectly comfortable with the use of the sub-set "red-diaper-doper-baby" to represent every other sub-set within the larger population known generally as "liberals"; unless one were to say "some or most liberals". Yours was a very eggheaded response to being caught misrepresenting an opponent's statement. A debate judge would have penalized you for this.
Besides, I think you know that A-123 was paraphrasing a familiar quote given to Churchill regarding his own growth to intellectual maturity.
dirtprof -- "Oh, you mean this part? "The committee was unanimous""
Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. You left out this part:
""The committee was unanimous," its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections."
Prospector, it is you who is being intellectually dishonest. The bottom line was: "The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision."
In many committees on which I've served, it is the norm for people to initially disagree. That's why there's discussion. Hell, that's why there's a committee instead of a person. But the initial disagreement means nothing if the committee unanimously supports the final decision--which apparently it did.
Gag me with a freakin spoon Scott. Time will tell the story about the current Non Commander in Chief, Some of you lefties never get it right or ever learn when you see it unfold. What a freakin pity...
@Prospector: "Ergo, you are perfectly comfortable with the use of the sub-set "red-diaper-doper-baby" to represent every other sub-set within the larger population known generally as 'liberals'". You're wrong on three counts. First, I do not accept that Marxists are liberals--that's a conflation made by the political right. Second, even if I were to accept your conflation, your argument is a straw man as ridiculous as claiming that the religious right represents libertarians. I made no such claim. Third, all I did was to show that self-identified conservative and liberal sub-groups belied A-123's overbroad statement. I am not countering with any equivalent broad statements about "liberals" and "conservatives" because, frankly, the terms as they are used in these discussions are devoid of any real meaning.
I certainly did not misrepresent anything, unless you are claiming that the religious right is not conservative--in which case, you'd be at odds with Sarah Palin, George Bush, Mike Huckabee, and a host of other members of the religious right who think they are conservative.
For the record, I recognize and respect the intellectual tenets of conservatism, and am persuaded by some (e.g., limiting government, critically evaluating proposals to grow it, granting power to the most local level possible, etc.), even though I doubt you'd hesitate to label me as a "liberal".
Most of Tater's list for Bush also applies to Obama ;by the way, unless you believe it all has ceased.
As far as the wars go, As Alan keyes aptly put it:
There's the option of armed Americans fighting on foreign soil that harbors an enemy opposed to unarmed Americans being attacked within our own borders. The loss of this country is the only alternative to not attacking and killing those who are willing to kill themselves by killing others at home.
This is not verbatim, but the gist of it.
dirtprof -- "The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision."
That's four out of five. Not unanimous.
Further -- "I certainly did not misrepresent anything"
Yes, you most certainly did. You misrepresented what I said -- I never mentioned "Marxists"; and you misrepresented A-123 who never said "religious right". It is you who inserted those words into our mouths.
One who may identify themself as "conservative" may not be part of the "religious right". They could be Jewish or Muslim or agnostic or even consider themself to be an atheist paleo-liberal (such as myself). Your argument fails.
dirtprof -- upon second reading of my own post, I see that I was in error regarding who the "religious right" could be. Of course, a religious, conservative Jew or Muslim could be considered part of the "religious right"; however, would you agree that the term "religious right" in the common lexicon generally refers to Evangelical Christians, a common whipping post? Isn't this who you meant?
dirtproof & twain: I will repeat one sentence of my previous post:
"Those on the left who think we should quit Afghanistan need to provide viable alternative solutions to the very real dangers presented by the instability there."
It's not enough to carp. If you think our current actions are unjustified and/or hopeless, then exactly how do you propose keeping Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal, out of the hands of fanatics? Do you honestly believe that the world will be safer if we up and leave? In what way?
As I said before, there is no question in my mind that Obama's renewed focus on that region is long overdue. It's one of the things he is doing right. That doesn't mean blindly staying the course. We have to be able to adjust as needed. But to simply abandon the region, as twain advocates, is suicide not only for us, but for much of the rest of the world. I'd wager, among other things, that there are about a billion people in India that would not like to see Pakistan fall to the Taliban.
TAC -- you are correct, sir. We cannot look past the regional war that has been on and off for fifty years, claiming more than one million lives, since Gandhi. If Pakistan falls to extremist Islamists, India will necessarily invade. What is a tough insurgency now could easily turn into our first nuclear war. This is why defeating the Taliban and Al Qaida is so important and this is why Obama must urge our true allies to engage and fight with us. He's doing the opposite. His indecision (7 weeks now) and phony campaign rhetoric is exceptionally damaging to NATO's confidence in the United States. He needs to make a move before the run-off election. I believe that much of the election fraud in Afghanistan is directly due to the belief that Obama will capitulate to the Taliban.
dirtprof-
President Obama managed to avoid all that messy confirmation vetting by bypassing the cumbersome Congress and appointing dozens of policy "czars". His czars are a who's who of radicalism. The cabinet appointments that did go through Congress confirmed Secreatry Geithner, Secretary Sebelius, and AG Holder, all with significant legal baggage.
The same people that tore apart Bush appointees have no trouble ignoring legal conflicts in this administration.
Bush was great at getting elected. His father wouldn't have been elected without him and he did it twice.
Going into Afghanistan was right but became distracted by his personal war in Iraq and never finished the job. Now the Taliban has regrouped, become more influential in Pakistan and intensified the need for us to act quickly for the sake of both Afghanistan and nuclear armed Pakistan.
I say Iraq was a personal war because the evidence used to justify the action was manufactured with sketchy and twisted facts. Don’t bother arguing this point; Even our own intelligence agencies did not support the claims his administration used to justify the invasion.
He never met a spending bill he didn’t like (never Vetoed one) . He hid the cost of the war from the budget so the deficit was didn’t look as large. He let the spend-as-you-go rule expire then passed a prescription benefit that is estimated to bring 6 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. He cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and left the rest of us holding the bag.
He chanted the mantra that government should stay out of the way and let the free market work, and then promptly promoted spending 700 billion dollars to bail out the free market that was supposed to regulate itself.
In fairness, he was a friend to many Americans and he did a couple things to help our country while he was in office, that’s why he was reelected, but he didn’t consider the long term. He made his friends richer and tossed some bennies to the American people but he never focused on how to pay for those things. Because of that, our national debt ballooned under his tenure. He was like a kid with daddy’s credit card and the legislative branch went right along for the ride.
He did turn a surplus into a huge increase in our national debt. You can’t cut income and spend more money and expect things to balance out.
Frankly I think he was a little bit dumb and the people around him, many brought back from the Reagan years, took advantage of him to push agendas that were good for their friends but not necessarily the rest of us (Iraq war, bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad foreign policy, bad fiscal policy, poor disaster relief, poor military policy, huge growing trade imbalance, etc.). He was a disaster.
Everyone is crying about the deficit this year but remember much of it was inherited from Bush’s last budget and his 700 billion dollar bank bailout. Obama had to spend some money because that is how government helps get the country through a recession. As things turn around the challenge is getting back on a fiscally responsible track.
Hopefully everyone will take a moment to write to Obama and our representatives and let them know about your concerns. There is no point in blaming Obama for a situation he didn’t create. There will be no change until the people put enough pressure on the government.
How can President Obama concentrate on the war in Afghanistan? He's too busy conducting a war against FoxNews, Rush, American industries, and the previous occupant of the White House. And he has to campaign for Democratic colleagues, play basketball and golf, take Mrs. Obama out on date night, host cocktail night, and go go go. The man has a busy calender. Thank God that his heart's in the right place, though.
Report today is that Secretary Gates can't get a meeting with the president. Too busy???
are you insane?!?!?!? those GIs didn't die for Bush's sins, THEY DIED FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they gave there lives for you so, you can live here and post your opinions on the internet, so you can listen to a free press (as distorted as it may be) so you can vote for your representatives. the people that i saw die in Iraq believed in this country and were willing to defend its citizens with their lives. Don't forget 9/11, when someone came to our country and Murdered thousands of innocent people, how many terrorists have attacked us since then? Bush may not have been right on some things, but at least he produced results. obama and friends have pissed away trillions (and more to come) and it has done nothing. when you go to Starbucks to get an orange mocha frappacino, do you have to worry that someone might walk in and set off a bomb? no, why? because of the people here and abroad fighting for YOU! Why not try to spread that freedom to other people, so they can enjoy some of those freedoms that are often taken for granted. That’s worth it to me.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
-Abraham Lincoln
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Even though this may not be read by anyone, I'm going to put in my opinion.
One: Bush messed up. He spent way too much money, did not do enough to tell the people how long Iraq and Afghanistan would take (the merits of going into either one I'm not going to debate either way). He pushed through a bailout package for failing companies.
Two: Obama is trying to fix it the wrong way. If I was in debt $30,000, would I fix it by borrowing another $12,500? (I made up some numbers) I understand he needs to present his plans to the people, and he can't fix it all (congress has to work on it, heaven help us all), but he should pay more attention to the important issues (i.e. the wars, the economy) and not to those media groups who choose to disagree with him.
To all of you: stop thinking partisan. That is destroying us. We have problems we need to fix, and we all need to listen to each other. Maybe if we do, we can figure this thing out.
"Liberals think with their heart, conservatives think with their brain"
Why is it then that I have never met a conservative scientist? I've met hundreds, and they are all liberals. I think your hypothesis is flawed and you need to fix it to explain existing data or throw it out. That is how logic works.
DrKaren-
What is a liberal scientist? For that matter, what is a conservative scientist? I thought that science followed the facts, and not political philosophy. All of these scientists that have signed on to, oh, let's just say man-made climate change. Are they all liberals? Is that what you are saying? You know, I thought that their conclusions were based on pure science. That's whats being sold anyhow.
I assume that medical doctors are scientists. Like Dr. Bill Frist and Dr. Ron Paul. There was a local doctor, Dr. Thomas, who submitted an arguably conservative LTTE last month. I would bet that there are an incredible amount of scientists conservative in their philosophy. Possibly even reflective of society in general.
Maybe it's just the crowd you hang with.
DrKaren, that is a flat out lie. I suppose all of your "scientists" were working at universities getting govt grants to study the mating habits of worms. Logic? No, try rationalization.
The author of this letter left out a few minor details, but at least he wasn't hiding his emotions.
DrKaren, perhaps you need to widen your circle of acquaintances.
"All" are liberals? You took all that time to sample hundreds of "scientists" regarding their political leanings?
You prove Americaisgreat123's point with your narrow-minded and illogical blather.
@Prospector: "That's four out of five. Not unanimous." Jeebus. I didn't claim it was unanimous; the article you linked did.
"I never mentioned 'Marxists'" You brought up "red-diaper-doper-baby" i.e., "The children of leftist intellectual baby boomers, raised from birth on Marxism and a drug tolerant environment, and now in places of political and intellectual influence."
"One who may identify themself [sic] as "conservative" may not be part of the "religious right". " Are you deliberately being obtuse? Re-read my previous posts in which I clearly indicate that the religious right is a subset of conservatives, not the other way around.
@TAC: "It's not enough to carp. If you think our current actions are unjustified and/or hopeless, then exactly how do you propose keeping Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal, out of the hands of fanatics? Do you honestly believe that the world will be safer if we up and leave? In what way?" All excellent questions. I'm not saying we should leave, but I'm absolutely not taking that option off the table. Same with escalating troop levels. The decision about going in either direction should depend on a very sober and realistic assessment of what will follow either action. How will elevated troop levels impact the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, on whom their own (and our) success or failure ultimately depend? What are the consequences of propping up a fraudulently elected president? Are we effectively shutting down or exacerbating terrorism by being in Afghanistan? The worst terrorism attacks of the past several years (Spain, England) were home-grown; the recent arrests in the US suggest we have averted some similar attacks here (I don't hear much applause, though). As far as I can tell, bin Laden has played us for 8 years as patsies. He has bled us, and it's not clear to me we've hurt him as much.
On Afghanistan, I have a lot of questions, hardly any answers, and a firm belief that most who claims to have more than that are deluding themselves.
@TBD: "All of these scientists that have signed on to, oh, let's just say man-made climate change. Are they all liberals?" That one's easy: NO.
@DrKaren: "Why is it then that I have never met a conservative scientist? I've met hundreds, and they are all liberals." I know some who describe themselves as conservative. And in reference to TheBigDip's question, the 2nd most right wing scientist I know has authored several peer-reviewed articles documenting climate change impacts on boreal forests, was a lead author on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and has featured prominently in several documentaries focused on climate change.
He, like the other scientists I know who call themselves "conservative", is very religious. This baffles me. It's as though their brains are compartmentalized into analytical and faith based components, and they coexist somehow.
@roadtrip: "I suppose all of your "scientists" were working at universities getting govt grants" At least two of my "conservative acquaintances" are UAF professors who have successfully competed for USDA and NSF funding. I'm not sure why successfully competing for "govt grants" is somehow bad--the success rate is very low (~10% for NSF, for example), and the proposal preparation and review procedures are models of transparency and budget hawkishness. Success in that arena implies excellence.
Incidentally, if you think it is such a cushy career, why not pursue it?
@fightsocialism: "are you insane?!?!?!?" No, but I think I can see who is. Connect the dots for me: How have the thousands of military deaths, tens of thousands of military casualties, and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq done anything to protect my freedom? Or are you just concerned about the freedom to liberate our oil, by force if necessary, from under their sand?
@longhornak: "Obama is trying to fix it the wrong way. If I was in debt $30,000, would I fix it by borrowing another $12,500? " That wasn't the problem he was trying to fix; the more pressing problem was the economy in a death spiral. Herbert Hoover was the last president who didn't increase federal spending to deal with a foundering economy. That didn't work out so well, as you may recall.
I think highly of President Obama, but his success on domestic issues will depend on whether he and Congress can successfully transition to budget-cutting deficit hawks once the economy is on its feet. One of the most egregious of Bush's sins was that he deficit-spent when the economy was fairly healthy, ensuring that his successor (Obama or McCain) would face a very unpalatable deficit bomb when (not if) the economy tanked.
DrKaren -- "Why is it then that I have never met a conservative scientist?"
Because you're either a phony or oblivious.
dirtprof -- "@Prospector: "That's four out of five. Not unanimous." Jeebus. I didn't claim it was unanimous; the article you linked did."
Fair enough, we agree that the Nobel Peace committee was compromised in their decision and that the secretary lied.
""I never mentioned 'Marxists'" You brought up "red-diaper-doper-baby" i.e., "The children of leftist intellectual baby boomers, raised from birth on Marxism and a drug tolerant environment, and now in places of political and intellectual influence."
Your statement contradicts your earlier affirmation that "First, I do not accept that Marxists are liberals--that's a conflation made by the political right."
"Are you deliberately being obtuse? Re-read my previous posts in which I clearly indicate that the religious right is a subset of conservatives, not the other way around."
No, I think that you're twisted up in your own argument. I acknowledge that the "religious right" is a sub-set of "conservatives". You cannot acknowledge that you drew one sub-set out of a larger population to define that population. You intentionally misdirected the conversation to a particular sub-set that you especially disdain. This is intellectually dishonest. You'd better grapple with this first. Why did you do this?
TAC......I think your question of what should we do in afganistan
deserves an answer. I have said it before and will again....we should
get out of afganistan and iraq as fast as we can!! We are not going to WIN over there. The people in the street are against us and want
us to leave. Unless you are for a 50-60 year occupation we should leave. And we cannot afford such an occupation if that would be the
decision as we are broke partly because of these two wars.
We blew our chance at osama ben laden at bora-bora. The stated reason
we were attacked on 9/11 was because we were in saudi arabia that
they considered holy land.
So the answer to your question is to bring the troops home and to
mind our own business and concentrate on trying to rebuild our
shattered economy.
Newsflash to twain -- we've won in Iraq. That's why we're drawing down troops.
I think we should win in Afghanistan, too. I wish President Obama wasn't so weak and indecisive. This undermines the NATO mission and indicates to the Afghanis that the U.S. cannot be trusted. Even Code Pink had to admit that the "people on the streets" want us to stay and help them.
BTW, we will be in the middle east for more than 50 years. Not as occupiers, but as partners in freedom and commerce. This is the formula that has withstood the test of time.
So you agree with me then dirt? DrKaren was lying.
@Prospector: "Fair enough, we agree that the Nobel Peace committee was compromised in their decision and that the secretary lied." No, we agree that the article left some open questions.
"Your statement contradicts your earlier affirmation". No. Because I am not a Michael Savage listener, I had to look up what a "red-diaper-doper-baby" is. It is Savage who apparently coined the term, and used the "Marxist" epithet to do so. If Savage is conflating liberalism with Marxism, then he doesn't know what he's talking about.
"You cannot acknowledge that you drew one sub-set out of a larger population to define that population." That's because I didn't. I have said multiple times that I drew one subset out to show that the sweeping generalization made by A-123 was wrong. I have specifically said that the religious right does not represent all conservatives.
So, let me get this straight:
Osama Bin Laden attacking others in the manner he has chosen is in accordance with Islam, therefore it is absolutely religiously justified? Greatly religiously justified? Somewhat religiously justified? Slightly religiously justified ?
What the hell are you talking about?
Prospector - I agree that dirtprof may be saying that the religious right is a subset of conservatives. He just makes the mistake to impress upon us that the religious right is deficient in intellect and has no subset of intellectuals within itself .
I wonder if A-123 and dirtprof is one and the same.
Well said Scott!
@roadtrip: DrKaren said she'd never met a conservative scientist. It's quite possible for her statement and mine (that they exist) to be simultaneously true.
@plainview: "What the hell are you talking about?" Right back at you. I really don't understand your point, unless it is to agree with my view that religion often has provided moral cover for unspeakable atrocities. The big three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) seem particularly prone to that.
Clinton was offered Osama, and refused to take him, and then our country was attacked.
twain: You still haven't addressed the heart of my challenge. How do we prevent the Taliban, or like-minded individuals, from getting a hold on power in Pakistan and thereby getting their hands on nuclear weapons? This truly is a question of international security.
As I said above, I don't believe in blindly staying the course. Bush did that in Iraq for several years, and we paid dearly for his myopia. But to toss up our hands, say we can't win, and walk away is insane. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fate of the world literally hangs on what happens in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. If you think it doesn't you are living in Never-Neverland.
dirtproff: The Hindus have learned well from the monotheists. Look up Shiv Sena on Google if you haven't already heard of them.
@plainview: "He just makes the mistake to impress upon us that the religious right is deficient in intellect and has no subset of intellectuals within itself." I know some very smart people who are members of the religious right--I mentioned a couple of them earlier. But there are a great many who are utterly ignorant of science and the scientific method, for example, and advocate the teaching of some form of creationism alongside evolution by natural selection in science classes. They are clearly either "deficient in intellect" or intellectually dishonest.
The belief in some sort of invisible, omnicient, omnipotent, loving entity that has committed genocide and always hates the same people you do strikes me as a sign of some intellectual inconsistency in the least; in the absence of other evidence, I have little reason to believe that (to paraphrase A-123) they think with their heads rather than their hearts.
@TAC: Yeah, I thought about the Hindus, too, but I wanted to make the point that people living in glass houses shouldn't be tossing all these rocks. Frankly, I think religion in general is a bad idea, so I'm comfortable including them and others in a list of religions capable of atrocities.
dirtproof: Many years ago I read a parable that I've never forgotten. It told about how God and Satan were walking down the street one day when they happened upon a bright shining object. "What is that," asked Satan. God, picking it up, said, "This...this is Truth." "Here, give it to me," replied Satan, "I'll organize it for you."
"DrKaren said she'd never met a conservative scientist. It's quite possible for her statement and mine (that they exist) to be simultaneously true."
I find the very premise of DrKaren's statement to be so utterly ridiculous, that it begs the question of DrKaren's sincerity. Of course, whe was not being sincere, but simply inflammatory.
I believe that there would be some truth to this if her world were limited to academia, where conservative values are considered neo-lithic, or to the ethereal world of social/political science (the melding of statistical science and left-wing policy), where old liberals go to die. BTW, this where guys like "dirtprof" say something so eggheaded like "It is the right-wing that conflates Marxism with liberalism." He knows full well that both are sub-sets of the larger population of the left wing.
If DrKaren were to spend time in the sunlight and accidentally, walk into a conference hosted by geologists, geophysicists, engineers, medical doctors, dentists, wildlife biologists, and others who practice applied science, she would feel very isolated.
Plainview is right and I have expressed my views to my master and he has not responded. I wish he'd ask Congress to rewrite the Patriot act and get tough with the bankers.
Fix Medicare and then Medicare for all!
dirtprof -- "I have little reason to believe that (to paraphrase A-123) they think with their heads rather than their hearts."
That's right. Like so many others, including many liberals, they think with their hearts.
Okay so are you saying that if President Obama was president at the time that they flown airplaines towards us and killed all those people that he would stand by and do nothing that he would have just gone over there and said oh we come in PEACE and please do not kill us..... RIGHT. Those soldiers were BRAVE and those soldiers die fighting a cause to keep us and everyone around FREE>>. That is what we do to stay FREE.
dirtprof - 1) My Osama/religious justification comment was not directed to you, but was general. If it were to be directed to anyone , it would be twain; but since he/she worded it '...the stated reason we were attacked...', I chose not to direct it to anyone in particular.
2)If we agree that are there are those without intellectual ability or honesty among all political/religious affiliation, then why bring up a particular group ? Don't you understand that you are combating a generalization with a generalization?
I hope you rethink the idea that a 'great number' of the said group is so , as that in of itself may be a generalization .
Maybe those in question are the loudest. Maybe your research to reach that conclusion is not extensive enough. Maybe a lot of things...
plainview, the proportion of the American public that believes that some sort of creationism is right and evolution is wrong is, by some polls, a majority. That is a 'great number' by any measure.
TAC..... your observation on pakistan is valid, its a shaky part of
the world. The pakistanis themselves have kept control of their nukes
for years and have no desire for them to get into terrorists hands
and will control their own country. Our presence in the area only gives the terrorists recruiting power, to fight the outsider.Another
part of the equasion is india, who also has nukes. We have to accept
sometime the notion that we cant control the rest of the world and
leave some of these regions to settle their own differences and mind
our own business. If we leave the area theres no reason for them to
attack america again, as that was their stated reason of why they
attack us. We as a nation would get along much better in this world if we quit trying to tell all others how they must do as we say
@Prospector: "Like so many others, including many liberals, they think with their hearts." Of course--I know and am frustrated by the stereotypical bleeding hearts almost as much as I am by the bible-thumpers. And that's a weakness no matter who does it.
Sure, give it a chance, even if all the plans to make record spending will destroy us, why do you think none of the spending starts till 2010? He couldn't make that work for four years and he knew it, the money will last about one year, just enough time for a reelection before we need to start worrying about payments.
Never in the history of America have we ever spent so much, and envoking the name of George W. Bush doesn't make EVERYONE instantly agree with it either.
@Prospector: "He knows full well that both are sub-sets of the larger population of the left wing." Yes, they are both subsets. But that does not make Marxists a flavor of liberalism, or vice versa. The equivalent on the right might be libertarians and the religious right, but not conservatives and the religious right. That is thanks to the conservatives having embraced the religious right under its big tent, in contrast with liberals having largely repudiated Marxism (the only ones conflating the two are, unsurprisingly, on the political right).
Prospector said:
"Newsflash to twain -- we've won in Iraq. That's why we're drawing down troops."
What did we win junior? I've never heard that explained well by the American Exceptionalism crowd. Won what?
dirtprof - Oh, I see. Those who believe that some sort of creationism is right and evolution is wrong are both ,in most part ,the religious right and intellectually deficient. Interesting qualifier there.
plainview, I think both of those are true, if we include "ignorant" and "misinformed" as qualifying as deficient (e.g., it's possible to be quite smart but brainwashed). Can you point to substantial counter-examples, e.g., evolution-deniers on the left and/or non-religious and/or science-literate (for want of a better term, feel free to sub in your own)? I can't.
You rest my case with 'I think'.
@plainview: "You rest my case with 'I think'." How so? Would you have been happier had I said "I know", for example? I simply stated a proposition and left the door open to a counter-argument, and I see none yet.
Daisy -- "Won what?"
Self-determination for 20,000,000 Iraqis and maybe friends for life.
dirtprof -- "in contrast with liberals having largely repudiated Marxism"
I find that assertion quite laughable. How do you explain the liberal love-fest with Marxists like Che, Chavez, Zelaya, and Castro?
Prospector: I'm not sure what you mean by "love fest". Che, Chavez, and Castro are clearly Marxists and are identified as such on their respective Wikipedia pages. Interestingly, nowhere on those pages is the term "liberal" found. In contrast, Zelaya is identified several times as a liberal on his Wikipedia page, but "Marx" is nowhere to be found.
junior said:
"Self-determination for 20,000,000 Iraqis and maybe friends for life."
Suggestion junior - Alaska's winters are long and cold. You might try spending a few of them in some 3rd world country where corruption,tribal factions, etc rule. Where concepts like "self-determination" and "freedom" are meaningless. You'd learn something about how futile and naive the concept of nation building is. Until you do that, you'll remain in everlasting ignorance.
dirtprof - You made, in effect, the supposition that those who believe in evolution are intellectually superior to those who don't. You base this on the claim , true or not, that scientists as a whole believe in evolution.
Are you saying that scientists are intellectually superior because they are scientists? are you saying that scientists are intellectually superior because, as a whole , they believe in evolution ? Both?
If I go on the assumption that since I believe in creation, there's the hazard being a member of the 'religious right' as I am also conservative for the most part, then you; going on the assumption judging by your case for this evolution belief/ intelligence connection, are more intelligent than me. If this is the case, why do I, a less intelligent person, have to point out to you that 'I think' is not equivalent to ' it is real','it is a fact', 'it is true'?
Could it be that you are using circular reasoning? Could it be true that scientists are likely more intelligent in science because they are more apt in that field? Could it also be said that authors of books are more intelligent because they are more apt to write them as opposed to those who don't? Aren't you considering creationism to being science as opposed to science by the way in which you use this circular reasoning in which to measure intelligence with?
Prospector - Yeah, don't you know it's best to leave those in the dark. They are in the dark, therefore that is where they should stay because that is where they are.
dirtprof - ... or are you really saying that they are scholastically superior?
@plainview: "Could it be that you are using circular reasoning?" No.
I've tried to be careful to avoid making statements about innate intelligence. As I pointed out earlier, it is quite possible to be both very smart and profoundly misled. I do view the latter as a deficiency as it clearly impairs what a mind can do.
I have no idea whether you're smarter than me or the other way around. That's irrelevant. What matters in this context is whether rational arguments are being constructed based on evidence and logic; resorting to supernatural belief systems jumps outside of that. That's why Creationism is absolutely not a science and therefore has no business being injected into science curricula.
Perhaps this will help with your "I think" issue: I happen to think that belief in God is both silly and dangerous. However, it is a fact that there is no more evidence for God's existence than there is for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or pink unicorns. It is also a fact that belief in God has provided moral cover for unspeakable atrocities.
Does that help?
Obama is fixing it the same way Reagan fixed thing by spending. Its just he is not spending it on the American Military Industrial Complex. Deficits happen they grow and they shrink this one will shrink also.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Meltdown-1...
I'm sure all the schools and clean water bills in the stimulus will create jobs that will last long after the stimulus money is gone, sure, they'll come out of tax dollars, but we won't have to worry since we'll be getting a whole bunch of extra taxes from those jobs we just created...they'll pay their own salaries with their own tax dollars...that's the plan, and we're supposed to "GIVE IT A TRY!" because we don't know that it won't work?
dirtprof - Now your argument is growing legs.
The argument of creation is no less rational or logical than evolution. the same evidence is used ,but it's treatment is different. I can argue that there is no proof of evolution, just natural selection. It depends on how I treat the evidence , or for that matter , the treatment given for it's existence at all. The argument that what exits in such orderly profundity was born from such random chaos of no evidential source is no more a reflection of the rational than that all things came from one thing that has always existed. To even argue that a segment of this chronology has been revealed through science, whether true or not, doesn't bolster any logic to it's beginning, end, or any other segment for that matter. If it did, there would be no revision in scientific belief. Does this change in the story make science more or less reliable? Does the unwavering belief of creationism more or less logical as compared to it?
To argue that only though science, as science is defined, can the source of existence can be found is also arguably impairing the mind. One can argue that though science we have found so much. Another can argue that through the dogma of science we have only found so much.On the subject of creationism not being considered a science - and?
To say that a belief in God is any more dangerous than a belief in his absence is is both illogical on a philosophical and practical level.
A belief in a plethora of things ( wealth, fame. power, sex, etc.) that can levied against others have led to atrocities. We of course can say the deception that one uses in the name of belief is used for this purpose more often. I can argue that more atrocities have been committed in the name of God's absence, especially in the last hundred years or so. Does that make a case against atheism any more or less than the one against monotheism ?
Once again, your argument is growing legs with this digression and your original statement of 'what is' is a far cry from ' I think'.
To answer your last question: No. The path was already evident.
twain: With all due respect, your response at 10:25 is seriously misinformed. You write that "The Pakistanis themselves have kept control of their nukes for years and have no desire for them to get into terrorists hands and will control their own country."
Have you heard of A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb? He pushed his country into the nuclear age, and then went on to sell the technology on the global market for fun and profit. He's now in prison, but the information he distributed isn't. Here are several articles from the Atlantic that you might spend your evening reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/al...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq...
The second and third links are to parts one and two respectively of a lengthy article.
Furthermore, if you have read any newspapers or watched or listened to any world news reporting in recent weeks, you are surely aware that claiming the Pakistanis will control their own country is wishful thinking. They are in the process of losing control of it as I write this.
As for your claim that they don't want nuclear technology to spread, this is probably true for many. But not all. Now consider the Taliban's history with al-Qaeda. Consider the extent that these people have willingly engaged in suicide terrorism.
These people don't care who they kill, and they don't care if they kill themselves in the process. Remember the embassy bombings in Africa? Very few of the victims were Americans. Most were Africans who happened to be in the vicinity.
What transpires in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the coming weeks and months will quite literally impact global security for decades to come. If we follow your advice and walk away, we are in effect committing suicide. I think Obama at least half-way gets this. God help us if he starts listening to advice like yours.
I would add this as well. If there is ever a nuclear terrorist attack, anywhere really, but especially in this country, the legislation that will slam through congress and on to the president's desk will, no matter what party is in charge, make the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights.
I don't know about you, but while I'm not real fond of the Patriot Act, I don't want the day to come when I look back on it fondly as a relic of the Good Old Days.
We have no choice but to remain involved in that part of the world.
@plainview: "The argument of creation is no less rational or logical than evolution. the same evidence is used ,but it's treatment is different. I can argue that there is no proof of evolution, just natural selection." That's simply not true. The theory of evolution via natural selection is based on the evidence, period. Creationism is predicated on the assumption of a supernatural deity, for which there is no evidence.
"there is no proof of evolution" Nor is there proof of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, or in fact any theory or law in science. Newton's Laws turned out to need revision; it's dead certain that our currently held theories are or will be revised as more evidence accumulates. Evolution is the current best, most parsimonious theory that is consistent with all available evidence. I would reject evolution in a heartbeat if a creator came along and said publicly "Ha, fooled you--I exist and I did it". In the absence of such evidence, there is no need (or justification) to include a creator in the theory.
"To say that a belief in God is any more dangerous than a belief in his absence is is both illogical on a philosophical and practical level." In a sense that's true, because there are many harmful things I can believe in, even if not God. The problem with your statement is that the lack of belief in God tells you nothing about what I actually do believe in, so you cannot make the inverse statement (i.e., the lack of belief in God is silly and dangerous). Without me telling you what I believe in, you can't tell me what's right or wrong with what I believe.
"I can argue that more atrocities have been committed in the name of God's absence" I don't think so. Hitler's troops wore belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns." Stalin encouraged atheism in a sense, but more because he was trying to get people to trade belief in God for belief in the revolution. It's what they believed that was the problem, not what they didn't believe. Same with Pol Pot.
prospector- i am sure someone else already called you out, but that article you keep posting says that they were against, but then came around, not that 2 were able to "bully" 3 into voting with them, or that the 2 decided to tell the press without the other 3 knowing.
i am sure from your lack of understanding you must have got that article from drudge? yeah, he always has great headlines, but they don't usually go along with what the story says.
oh, and about the debt. i am not saying we should go to 22 trillion, just that we could. we have built up about 10 trillion in debt from the last 3 republican presidents, and all without
a better school system
better infrastructure
solving healthcare
stopping the top 1% from having 50% of all of america's wealth (but yet cons cry when the top one has to pay almost 50 percent of the taxes!)
so, you know what, i am ok with obama putting us into more debt as long as it's a good investment!
plainview- also who could say such a thing as there is as much evidence for god as creation? do you dodge any truths that don't mesh with your worldview?
there is two LINES of evidence pointing to evolution:
1. the fossil record, including these intermediate species http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
and please don't ask why we haven't found a bat-dog, or a fish-horse, thats not how natural selection works.
2. the genetic evidence, gasp! whales are more closely related to pigs and horses than to sharks! all mammals are more closely related genetically than any mammal is to a plant, or any mammal is to an insect. this is what evolutionary theory was stating, and when we were able to genetically test organisms, it could have smashed evolution to bits.... but it didn't, it backed it up.
but i guess you have the shroud of turin to back up god right? ... oh wait, DEBUNKED!
and plus, don't you remember Carrot Top? http://themishmash.typepad.com/photos/un...
PROOF THERE IS NO GOD! ;)
Linking to pictures of Carrot Top IS NOT OKAY.
dirtprof and secprog - I could argue that all that surrounds us is the evidence of a creator as one could for evolution. Natural selection and evolution is being confused here. I would like to see a specimen that has mutated from one thing to another thing that is more unlike that original thing than another already existing. Would you like to present that specimen? We are not talking development of conception to birth here, as although you say man in early development resembles a fish, I can say that fish resembles a man in early development. There have been hundreds and hundreds of generations of fruit flies under scrutiny, yet no mutations into what would be considered so un-fruitfly-like as to resemble something already existing . Why is that?
So, if one were to believe that God created evolution, does that make that belief more or less rational?
I could argue there is indeed justification for a creator in theory as the theory of evolution ( or any science) has not presented any beginning or source with any empirical evidence. This could be done as it could to justify theories of aesthetics not attached to survival ( mating, territory ,etc.). This is just one in a list of many pesky things that man holds in a rebellious possession against evolutionary law. A belief in a creator is , of course, the top of that list.
Oh woe how evolution has grown in contempt of itself! It can't even supply evidence in a lack of a creator to boot. Nor can one find evidence of any function for it to do so.
I can make the argument that a lack of belief in God is dangerous both in philosophy and practice: If one understands the mechanics and history of oppression , one would know it is exactly this hopelessness of non-possession of inalienable rights ( i.e., God-given) of the oppressed that make them so. Along with the idea that 'man is master' comes the acceptance that 'that man over there is my master'.
When one admits that it is through his faith in science that he finds truth as one does in his faith in God, then and only then will honest dialogue prevail.
God has filled the hole before evolution came along to leave it empty.
secprog - The Carrot Top thing was very funny, by the way.
You place me in a difficult position : If I support my argument by saying Carrot Top still appears more Carrot Top-like than anything else , then I risk insulting Carrot Top ( Lately,that guy looks like he urinates muscles).
Daisy -- "You might try spending a few of them in some 3rd world country where corruption,tribal factions, etc rule."
I've spent much of my adult life working in southeast asia, central America, southern Africa, and eastern Africa in very remote jungles and bundu. I speak Malay, a little Thai, Nihongo, Swahili and Endebeli. I also served in the middle east and caribbean during that most eventful summer of '83. Satisfied?
Why are all the Republicans in the pockets of the insurance companies? Why are the insurance companies allowed to take our money than deny care or drop policies ? They are scum of the earth.
plainview and dirtprof -- you two are missing the obvious:
God is evolution.
dirtprof -- you overlooked Mao, Jong Il, & Il Jong and their mass exterminations. What was the figure I heard recently? 70,000,000 during the last 6 decades.
secprog -- you speak a language I don't understand. Can you at least try to use proper English? If you could actually comprehend the written word, you would have seen that the article regarding the majority opposing the selection of Obama was published by a French news agency. Drudge is irrelevant because he does not write anything. He only posts leading news stories.
There, you now have a little more knowledge than you had two minutes ago.
jimp -- "Why are all the Republicans in the pockets of the insurance companies?"
You'd better check your figures before making such assertions. You'll find this website very useful:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in...
Donks are outdoing repubs.
If you want to see something really scary, check out who the lawyers own:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in...
This is why Obama immediately squashed any talk of meaningful tort reform. The legal profession outspends the insurance profession by 10 to 1.
Finally, for an overview of who owns who:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/me...
You will see that the Donks are far, far, far deeper in the pockets of lobbyists than their opposition. Obama's tough talk about lobbyists is purely fatuous oral flatus.
And you believed him?
Prospector - Evidently according to some ,Evolution is also God .
Throw in a few African and a Cambodian despot and we can boost these numbers.
Maybe we can shift the argument from atheisism to social darwinisism as the culprit.
Yeah, that ought to get things moving.
Oh wait, this started out about Barack and ended up about God.
Thanks for getting back on track with Obama as the subject.
This Obama/God thing is confusing enough as it is.
Obama is God
Obama is God.
God is Love.
Ergo: Obama is Love.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.