ParanoiA

So 4 would be "I'm not going to say what I believe, but I don't believe what you believe"... Your argument seems to rest on the idea that you are merely rejecting someone else's claim. But the question is, what do YOU believe. Deity? No deity? Or don't know? "Deity" or "No deity" requires faith. "Don't know" requires humility.

You know, that's a better point than I first gave credit for... Because, while we can't prove or disprove a deity, we also can't prove or disprove the spaghetti monster, or unicorns, or flying lions on neptune. That means everything that can't be proven, but can be dreamt up becomes a "belief" in its non-existence or existence. Hmm....

Agnostic describes me perfectly.... 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. Seems to me if you don't have the ultimate knowledge of the ultimate cause then atheism is a matter of faith, just as theism, which has nothing in common with the scientific method at all. We clearly don't have that knowledge so how do you scientists that claim atheism reconcile that?

But that's the issue, when they are biased they quote Rush inaccurately in order to make their "fact" fit. The "fact" they tout in response can be right on the money - but his supposed quote is always in question. I've just seen it so much and get tired of hearing it. They repeatedly misquote him - and if he didn't play back his original broadcasts to these people over the air, I would probably have believed these so-called "fact" sites. Thank goodness I critically think for myself and don't poison my own knowledge potential by excluding Rush based on prejudice and emotion. Now, is CNN biased? Is MSNBC biased? The AP? Of course they are, but I would still listen to them if they referenced factual inaccuracies by Rush, as they are considered fair and balanced, at least in the mainstream sense. The anti-Rush sites I've seen are geared for people who hate him and just need some ventilation. They say whatever they want - unchecked....talk about irony....

It was very clear. What isn't clear is whether or not you understand what an ad-hominem is. It's not an ad hominem when their character has relevance to the argument - not a red herring to stear away from it. An appraisal of his character is relevant to discussions about international political negotiations. Noted. Actually Bush's track record has been pretty consistent - as we've all also been reminded over and over again - stay the course. He seems to have done what he said. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, in no uncertain terms, when speaking to his people, while changing his tune for the american audience. He has a reputation already. He's also quite violent in his rhetoric about Israel and the west. Where Bush stops short of calls for destruction, blood, and infadels, Ahmadinejad charges full speed ahead. I just don't think very many governments over there share any kind of rationale with us. We need to get out of Iraq, and then out of the whole region. I would say both. Nixon at least cared about his country. And the aftermath of the withdrawal should have taught us a lesson. Iraqi security forces, in all of their various forms, need to be prepared for us to go rather than us americans, eternally selfish, pulling out as soon as possible. I think that's the deeper point geoguy was trying to make. We went in for selfish reasons, and now you want to leave for selfish reasons. The adminstration you speak out against so much are guilty for those selfish reasons going in, now you want to emulate them going out? And I believe the answer is unquestionably, no. Well so much for my career in satire... Remember I said "If I was an irrational tryant named Ahmadinejad I would..." So, the media I'm talking about there is the american media. Glad we agree. Sounds like you've just misunderstood my post. Many of us are smart asses by trade, including yourself, I read your posts. It's cool. But sometimes we miss each other. No harm, no foul.

I didn't mean work together. I mean that I don't trust either of their intentions. It's not ad-hom, it's satire. His character is fair game in the political arena, as is Bush's or any other politician. Your character is not. And I didn't attack your character to avoid any argument. Yes, that was a speculative opinion seeing as how it's in reference to a future event. I believe Ahmadinejad is an irrational tyrant. I also believe he will say one thing and do another concerning Iraq. I also believe that it's puzzling that we, americans, don't see the obvious similarities to the pull-out in vietnam, particularly since that's the war we've been told, repeatedly, this is a rehash of... This sentence makes no sense. Are you sure you understand my post? I'm talking about after "having left Iraq, and Iran invades, are the americans coming back"...I'm not sure what a timetable, a previous event, would have to do with it? Are you aware of this thing called an argument? Or do you rely solely on shallow ad-homs? See, that's what an ad-hom is...attacking the character to avoid the argument. Fox news is the only means by which anyone could come to the conclusion that most of the corporate media is romanticized by terrorist plight? No sir. I heard it on Rush Limbaugh during our mind conditioning session and he told me what to think so I wouldn't have to.

And my reply, poorly worded, was that perhaps he would because of the treaty. So, my question again, is why does a candidate's moral position really matter if he's bound to act by treaty anyway? Then when you consider congress declares war and all that... Of course, I don't know any of this is true. I don't know that a treaty is worded in such a way that the president has to send troops before congress does it. It's only served us well if you're an interventionist. I don't know that these things had to happen, and you don't know they still won't have consequences. International history has long, time endured, chain reactions. And I really don't like this, for obvious reasons.

No they're not. That's an obvious give away that you haven't listened to Rush for more than 15 minutes. Anyone who says this doesn't really listen to Rush. They say they do so they can make statements like that because he's such a polarized figure and they hate him. You don't get 20 million listeners and stay on top of the game for years and years and become the radio talk show king by telling facts that are "all lies". That's what a teenager says about anything they dislike, not a critically thinking scientist. Anyway, I was talking about the philosphical side of politics. Validating my suspicion of high taxes, big government, the characteristics of liberalism, incrimentalism, frustration with beaurocracy, affirmative action, and etc. Not little factoids that you find offensive to your ideology. Again, Rush would be insignificant overnight if he lied. That's silly. I can't stand card carrying liberals, but I wouldn't call them liars because of it. Prove your statements please. Show me the lies. And please don't insult my intelligence by posting links to anti-Rush sites - only unbiased sources. Cronkite and company didn't and don't have the balls to take calls live from ordinary people - even after screening - and explain themselves. None of them do. Talk radio is not a free exchange of ideas, and the media you're referring to isn't even an exchange of any ideas at all. It's more controlled and protected than talk radio. That's their corporate business model. And I'm still waiting for a reason to believe science knows it now. Don't you also have a responsibility for your mistakes? Don't you have the sense to consider your mistakes before you run off repeating the sky is falling again? I don't see that it's been considered. Scientists are just as arrogant today as they were a hundred years ago. I'm not attacking science, I'm holding science up to its own standard. Denying what data? No one denies your thermometer readings. No one denies your CO2 gadgets and your measurements. They're denying your interpretation of what the data means. It's the scientists that are doing the interpreting - with their models that can't figure in every single little thing to do with climate change - period. And these are the same people that have cried doom before - for the same reasons. Yes, scientists are being taken to task. That's responsible. You should be immune from credibility? You should be able to say whatever you want and the public should bow before you? No it shouldn't. I'm just describing human nature. Non-scientists don't understand things the way you do. So, with that partition firmly in place, most of what you say becomes a choice whether to believe or not - not a proof one way or the other. So, when they chose to believe you, 3 times before, and nothing happened, it has raised their suspicions. I'm just providing a theory as to why republicans deny your data, as you put it. Clinton enjoyed growth from the Bush tax cuts. Even Greenspan admitted that. JFK also understood that concept, a democrat no less. Tax cuts have proven to stimulate the economy - certain tax cuts that is. That's why people keep voting for it Lucaspa. Or they had the depth to consider it logically and the objectivity to resist the emotional temptation to cry contempt at "tax cuts for the rich". Those who use that argument are patronizing the poor to gain power - the so-called champion party for the working man.

Actually, it would be like scientists saying that computer models of evolution indicate man will receed and die out in a few centuries. We're not talking about whether the earth really warms and cools, no one would deny that. We're talking about the fact that earth's climate history includes massive shifts in temperatures, mini ice ages and warming trends that happened inside of a decade - before industrialized man was even a thought, much less in operation. I'm not convinced you all understand the science well enough to predict, yet another doomsday scenario that man is, yet again, responsible for. Climate science is extremely complicated, and after all of these decades of technology and human advancement, you're only just now getting a real grip on it. The fact you all are still arguing specifics, and not arguing with corporate paid hacks, helps to solidify this view. I've read reports and looked at the graphs and all the pretty colors and pie charts, everyone has a graph or fact sheet to support their claims. Until you can refute the skeptics and the skeptics can refut you, none of us laymen have any business choosing one side or the other. The onus is on you to prove your case and that hasn't happened. No there's not a consensus. And no it's not like saying there isn't a consensus on whether the earth is round or flat. There a but a handful of flat earthers, but there's thousands of skeptics. I'm also not convinced every scientist, signature, that's included in the "consensus" has challenged GW in the slightest, or even looked at it, let alone critically thought it out.

Yeah, I agree. We created the mess and it has to do with Iraq's future, so why should anyone else have a say anyway? Iraq has to take care of Iraq. So their input is the most important. Iran and Syria would love to participate to make it easier to take over Iraq. If I was Iran, and I was an irrational tyrant named Ahmadinejad, I'd just agree to whatever everyone says and then when the americans leave, invade and take over Iraq. What are the americans going to do? Come back? Nah, they're going to run back home with their tails between their legs just like vietnam and shake their heads at themselves when they watch the news of our plundering. Propaganda works both ways and the middle east is much better at it since it's across the ocean and 99% of all americans have no idea what the truth is one way or another and their media is in love with our "noble savage" status.

I didn't imply any other conclusions than the context of the OP. It doesn't sound like much of a mental disorder if it's more popular than science - specifically because science just simply hasn't been around as long. That's all. I don't support religion. On the contrary, I believe religion, or most of them in their present form anyway, is unhealthy and hinders human advancement, restricts free thinking and behavior. I don't support any ideology that does this. As for god, we'll find out when we die, and I'll bet my eternal soul any god that proves to exist will resemble nothing we've ever read by men.

Good point. Who says he's fair, just, or the ultimate morality barometer? For all we know, he's real, he's mean and cruel and loves to torture humans he's tricked into worshiping him?

I have heard it stated, repeatedly, by Rush that precipitation is not factored in these models. Is that true? I'm sure that's twisted logic on some level, but wanted to ask. Also, they were talking about this article yesterday. This is an attack on media, not science. Although, it does expose the tendency of humans to be obsessed with doomsday scenarios with climate change. Why was the science wrong then, but correct now? This is what I was getting at many moons ago when I was told to read this and read that. It doesn't matter what I read, because it's written by scientists doing work that I only partially understand on a very elementary level - so it still comes down to "believing" one side or the other.

Actually I think that plays more on their fear. Religion's secret weapon has always been about punishment for not believing, or lack of grand reward that "everyone else" will enjoy. I know as a teenager that was the center of my struggle to shake spirituality. Sure, I saw all of the logic of science, but it was scary to actually consider that god might not exist and be a fairy tale - I could pay for eternity. Perhaps, many of these people are driven by that fear. How about mental conditioning? That sounds closer to the truth, to me anyway. When religion is passed onto you by persistent pursuasion, using empathetic techniques to thwart the eventual science and logic showdown each individual will face, it doesn't seem so much like a mental disorder, but good ole brain washing. When they romanticize and warn of the devil and his tactics, folding in the "deniers" (scientists) and so forth, it makes it difficult to penetrate their skulls with sense. Well, I suppose that's worse than I'm making it out to be, but I guess I don't understand how that conflict really matters. Ok, say god faked it all - that crazy joker - that doesn't change the fact that things "appear" far older and we have to operate within that. Evolution is still valid in that we can make predictions, explain some things about species and so forth - who cares that Bob thinks god invented the process we call evolution and Billy doesn't - that doesn't seem to do anything any different. Of course, I'm sure you can come up with some examples that are damaging, or at least create a negative consequence to further scientific development, and in that case I'd agree Absolutely. Honestly, I thought the same thing when I first joined this forum. I thought scientists would be on here trying to disprove god. I was pleasantly surprised to find that while scientists tend to be more atheist, they seem to be even more indifferent than anything else. Someone here made the point "science doesn't have anything to say about god". That seems to be true, at least here anyway, no one has attempted to "prove" god doesn't exist, but rather asks for it to be proven. Sounds perfectly responsible to me.

Wouldn't it though? At the very least, I would love for that to be a question for them to answer at the debates..."Uh, Mr Guliani, Mr. 9/11 poster boy fraudster, could you explain to us why you have spent, so far, 11.2 million dollars to get a $400,000 dollar a year job?"

I don't see the sanctity in science, I guess. Couldn't a creationist really just be a skeptic of science? And isn't that useful? Why just accept everything you're told just because of traditional reputation? If we did that, science could incrementally become jaded and sloppy. Seems that you always need a check for balance. Mental disorder? Absolutely not. You can't give anyone the knowledge of where we come from and what started all of this. You get that never ending loop of "what created this in order to create that". And everytime you give me an answer, I ask what came before that. Eventually you can't tell me anything - you speculate or accept the fact that we just don't know. I accept that, but many humans do not and that's well documented. So, either half the world has a mental disorder, or it's fairly natural to fill the "void of the unknown" with stories and lies. Most of the modern creationist stuff I've heard doesn't really conflict too much with science - they just add divinity to the system. That's common for humans to do, so I don't see any mental "disorder" there. Religion and tales of deities are older than science and ultimately, considering the generations of humans that have lived and the hundreds of religions invented, science based belief is outnumbered by creationists. If anything, scientists are the odd balls here.

For me it was Rush. And even though I'm in disagreement with half, if not more, of the conservative ideology and find myself yelling at the radio at him - I still love the guy. He woke me up and taught me to think for myself, not to mention validated so many premature thoughts I had at the time. I don't believe it is a "free exchange of ideas" as he routinely touts, because he controls the ideas being exchanged in a radio format, but that's certianly far more open than the classic closed media that has been the standard for the country for decades. I don't remember hearing anyone call in and even try to take on Dan Rather and company. Something to consider is that we've had 3 other doomsday climate change movements - all blamed on humans - in the past 100 years. We've had global cooling as well as warming. Time magazine, I believe, had an image of the empire state building poking out of the water, surrounded by ice bergs - the great global cooling issue. Not too different from a similar image of Manhattan flooded from the effects of global warming. None of this came to pass. Scientists were convinced and warned of these events - the media blew it up and sensationalized it and it looks pretty much the same today. Sure we have better instruments to measure with, computers to calculate with, but the resemblances are obvious. While I understand the frustration of basically ignoring scientist's conclusions, it's not like they have NO reason to do it. Cry wolf enough times and people stop believing you. They aren't scientists, so when they hear you go into the technical side of data analysis their eyes glaze over and they wonder how much of what you say is empirical and how much is theory. Seriously, if republicans give tax cuts to the rich over and over again, yet the economy NEVER kick starts, you're not going to believe them anymore are you? Even if they have a 15 page report and an army of economists pushing up their glasses and boring us with business models and study - we're still going to doubt them because it never happens as they say.

Yeah. You have to wonder about people who basically spend loads and loads of more money getting the job, than what the job pays.

Which is just as well then. If it's really more of a police action than a war, how do we mobilize combat units within the guidelines of the constitution I wonder? I mean, the president can authorize troops for 60 days, if I remember correctly, but how does a congress authorize use of force on an entity like Al Qaeda? Dr. Paul also mentioned that he did not vote in favor of the resolution concerning Afghanistan, but did vote in favor of going after Bin Laden. His reasoning was that he did not agree with the nation building in Afghanistan. So, now I'm wondering how that fits in the constitution. If he's going to say that congress has to declare war rather than pass resolutions for the president to handle it, then how does he reconcile congress authorizing going after Bin Laden? That suggests that congress can mobilize troops without declaring war either doesn't it? Depending on that answer, it could shed some light on alternatives to passing resolutions for presidential control over warfare. I'm just thinking that by authorizing the president to wage war, you still effectively shift blame and responsibility to the administration - even if you are guilty of granting that responsibility. Which is what we see today from democrats and some republicans. They conveniently passed the buck to Bush and now they can deny responsibility for the aftermath, rather than to have to make these decisions themselves and take the heat for it. Not giving Bush an out here, just not allowing the rest of them to have an out either. Not sure I agree 100% though. If congress can't shift the blame to the administration, then they have to answer for it themselves, which is probably another reason why they do this now. So, maybe in that context they may not have agreed to invade Iraq. Sure, they can still shift responsibility amongst each other and point fingers at each other, but I doubt they'd have the convenience that one central figure gives them.

A defense treaty is a different animal, at least in my mind. I guess I'm assuming a sitting president understands his obligations to treaties and will act per the agreement, not by his political opposition to the act. Otherwise, would this not be criminal? Not sure really. Good answer though. And that's where I'm coming from really. How well has this served us? Our founders warned of this mentallity. That's why it was carefully crafted to indicate a declaration of war to be necessary - to keep this kind of waffling out of international conflict. Isn't that obviously dangerous? And when examining and considering the constitution, doesn't it also indicate a misuse of power? Aren't we missing the signals built into our system? Kind of like how the first act of an oppressive government is to reverse the second amendment? And, can't we declare war on Al Quada? I know it sounds silly, but isn't it actually possible to declare war on this entity, without there being a reference to geographical location or nation destruction? Again, I'm not sure, just asking. Both of your replies are good points though. The nuclear issue certainly complicates things, which is why I prefer the non-interventionist method of trade. Leave war for when it's really necessary, and straight forward.

It's pretty clear he was talking about civilian casualties - more over, american civilian casualties. That's the attitude expected from our military, and I'm proud of them for it. Casualties are acceptable in a military capacity, not in the civilized front. Your appeals to "have a little courage" are appropriate when we're talking about whether to walk the streets or live your life here in fear. But they aren't appropriate when talking about policy. "Have a little courage" is not a policy, it's a dismissive and rather offensive investment in doing nothing. You don't have to tear some country apart on the other side of the world, and you don't have to tread on our civil rights to protect us. (Actually, I'm a little more old fashioned and prefer a CIA that invades our privacy, illegaly - that way the state can't prosecute anyone with the information, but can still "act" on information related to a terrorist act.) There is something to be done, something smart and thoughtful. But the anti-war left and pro-war right are both guilty of lying or at least distorting the truth and misrepresentation, propaganda, grand-standing, you name it, both sides have done it. Lefties see nobility in it, rationalizing any means for their "noble" end. The neo-cons and swindled righties rationalize for the same reasons. The rest of us shake our heads with no idea what to believe at this point. Are marines actually killing innocents and torturing people, or is much of this the result of the terror tactic outlined in the terrorist handbook (to always claim atrocity and torture)? Is the insurgency really made up of Iraqi nationals who will never stop fighting the occupier, or is Al Quada, Iran and Syria successfully inflaming, supporting and fighting in their stead? Is there really no progress being made in stablizing Iraq, or are successes simply undermined by "yellow journalism"? There are just as many stories on either side of those questions, and many, many more. Any position people take in Iraq, at this point it seems, is sheer choice, hope, faith - how could it be factual when facts seem to be absent, contested, changing from day to day or delayed?

I think you're exactly right, although I've always wondered why we have this fascination with someone being like us. I don't want someone like me - I'm not an expert in politics. I want someone smarter and more knowledgable than me. Ideology, to a certain extent, is important to be similar, but shouldn't we consider that we're wrong? That a true professional might have a better idea than us laymen?

Was watching an hour long interview with Dr. Ron Paul on a Google special - I guess they're interviewing candidates in some kind of town hall setting. And the subject of war, of course, came up and Ron made a point that I haven't really considered before. Many of my conservative friends are turned off by Ron because he sees no moral obligation to protect Israel, or come to the defense of Taiwan. But, and this is one of the reasons why I really like Dr. Paul, he spends more time making the point that you shouldn't be looking to your president to wage war in the first place. Only congress can declare war and only congress should declare war. It doesn't matter if the president doesn't want to protect Israel or not, the people and congress can do it themselves - and in fact, is really supposed to under the design of our constitution. I believe the last five major military conflicts have all been various forms of resolutions granting basic war powers to the president. In other words, our presidents have been waging war, not the congress who's actually endowed with that responsibility. While you can argue that passing resolutions is effectively the same thing, it really isn't since you remove accountability. So, two things here... 1) Why worry so much about your presidential candidate supporting or not supporting certain alliances and so forth when they really have no particular power to wield in this arena? It's your congress that keeps empowering our presidents to be war figures. 2) Why have we strayed so far away from the basic principle of declaring war when we...uh...go to war? If we didn't allow our legislators to ignore the constitution - which, by the way, is what they are sworn to protect and uphold - would we even be in Iraq?

Cool! Thanks fellas that's exactly what I was talking about and very well explained. The way the masses cancel out makes sense too. Now when you add friction, that's when I remember really struggling. Angular velocity ruined my confidence in math. I don't know why I could never really "get it".

Well, not really what I'm asking, or maybe it is but you're way over my head. Just trying to remember here... Seems like when calculating the velocity of an object (on earth), say dropping a baseball from 100 feet up, that we would always use that constant for gravity - I'm thinking g, but I don't remember the particular letter used for its designation. That number would come up over and over again when calculating introduction level physics problems. In addition, I thought this value was independent of mass and that all objects on earth fall at this rate when friction ( I'm guessing air friction ) is disregarded. Just wondering if this is right or not, or if I dreamed it....