View Full Version : Another Political Comment
Allow me to preface my comments by saying that I am an AMERICAN, I will follow the lead, and back, the President of the United States, even if I disagree with him...and, in this case, he is wrong, wrong, wrong, as he has been since the first day he took office.
He has lied his way to the presidency and now, now he will put, at risk, hundreds of thousands of American Lives for a campaign of retribution and a vendetta to correct his father's inadequacies.
King George (dubwya) is a buffoon. He is, perhaps, the most ignorant president this country has ever seen.
He didnt even have the intelligence to pick his own advisors, instead he picked a bunch or retreads from his father's administration.
He selected THE THREE STOOGES, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell as his three top adivisors, the same three guys who let Saddam off the hook in 1991. Now the three of them are trying to get back what they couldnt get, then.
And King George himself, he is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans, British, etc. just to carry on his vendetta against Saddam Hussein, to make things right for his daddy.
I am not saying that Hussein is not a viscious murderer and a killer and might be, note i said MIGHT BE, a threat to peace in the middle east, if not the world, but what has King George proven, nothing but inuendo.
George Bush has put this country into economic disaster, just to satisfy the corporations, the HMO's, the insurance industry, etc...while the little people get nothing, they continue to suffer.
Now he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands of our sons and daughters, and for what? For a vendetta to rectify a mistake made by his daddy.
He has alienated us from the rest of the world. He is, slowly, causing the United States to be an island on its own.
Since his presidency, he has alienated, the Canadians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the koreans, many Arab countries, the Palestinians, even the Israelis and MOST of the European continent.
I suggest that if King George wants to wage war, then he, Cheney, Rumsfeld and powell should be right there, onthe front lines, leading our sons, and daughters, into battle.
But, of course, Bush wont be there, just like he wasnt in the National Guard when his daddy got him out of that one, too.
I am an AMERICAN, if he leads us to war, I will be there backing our effort, but, I dont have to agree with King George.
He will destroy what it took this counntry to achieve in the last two hundred and twenty seven years, since the first shot was heard at lexington and Concord...
George Bush will be responsible for the destruction of this country as we now know it.
Sorry, NEM--
Although I ADORED your Patriots memories that you shared with everyone, when you initially signed on here, I have to say that I don't agree with anything that you have stated in your post. Further, I abhor discussing politics with people, as there is no real purpose... You ain't EVER gonna change how I feel and I don't care to change your beliefs, either... We'll just hafta agree to disagree, eh?... So, let's keep the politics to the official politics thread and if there it dies a slow death, then so be it...
So--have ya got any more GREAT Patriot memories/experiences to share with us New England Mike?! Rock on, my die-hard Pats fan! :)
Hawg73
02-11-2003, 08:08 PM
Nem,
Seems to me like you are capable of being a thoughtful, considerate, and intelligent person or at times act like a complete blowhard who likes to ram his radical rantings down peoples throats.
Guess which one I think this post makes you sound like? It is so filled with exaggeration and wild rhetoric that it does not deserve the courtesy of taking it seriously. Just thank god that the internet provides a free forum for lunatic opinions like this one. twenty years ago you'd be out on the street corner having to face people to make your fanatical views heard. Congratulations.
So that people don't misconstrue my distaste for your method here, I am anti-war and hope that this is an attempt to scare the crap out of Hussein and that he will back off. I could argue the right wing point of view here if I wanted but I'm no more thrilled with that than your ridiculousness.
Are you seriously trying to claim that Bush is starting a war to make his Pop happy? Some kind of family warm and fuzzies? Idiot son finally gets paternal approval?
Do you think there is some legitimacy to fears that Hussein has possesion of and the will to use chemical weapons to wipe out huge amounts of people? Or is that some kind of brain-damaged fantasy on his part? Maybe it would be easier if the entire world just sticks its head in the sand and lets him do whatever the hell he feels like.
No wonder the French hate us.
Well, Hawg--
At the risk of putting this thread back up at the top of the page again, I must say that I AGREE with you and now wish that I hadn't been quite so p.c. in my response, (although I should point out that I am the one that happened to get chastised by our moderator, Alice...) I was trying not to offend anyone and was especially trying not to push the buttons of our other liberal moderator, NR...
I am ALL for free speech, Alice & NR, but perhaps you guys should have an additional moderator that is not of your same political persuasion...(Now that this is apparent.) Perhaps a Hawg or Freak type of personality would be a nice "balance." What say ye?...
BTW--I am not disagreeing with any of your "calls" so far, but I am just thinking that at some point, there might be a situation where a counter viewpoint might be judicious... Just a thought to consider...
Regardless as to what King George's motives are, and YES, I believe, in part, that retributions is part of the reason (And, by the way, I have heard that said in many places, on CNN, NBC, media ,etc)......
It really doesn't matter, because George Bush has handled this entire situation inthe wrong way, since the beginning, and I dont believe he, himself, has enough intelligence to fathom it out. In fact, I believe that PRESIDENT CHENEY , PRESIDENT RUMSFELD, and PRESIDENT POWELL are really running the show.
In fact, when he first took office, and decided to keep the US out of the Palestinian/Israeli situation, and isolate ourselves....unlike the previous administration...it was, npart, for that reason, according to the Egyptian Ambassador AND the King of Jordan, that the 9/11 attack took place.
Bush just hasnt got the intelligence to understand foreign affairs....and he continues to alienate every country inthe world, even Great Britain, except for his bed fellow, Tony Blair.
He has used the war to overshadow his lackluster job onthe economy, as this country goes further and further ito debt, but ok King George, keep giving the payoffs to the rich, like the tax break he keeps pushing on dividends...
Think for a minute people, who gains the most from not having to pay peo[ple on dividends....hbow many poor and average people own stock, enough to get dividends, not too many, right?
The his privitization of the prescription plan , which willcost seniors even more, or lose health coverage al together.
The man is a bad man, and is getting bad guidance...of course, he is too stupid to screw up himself so he needs help in screwing up.
And, thousands of Americans will lose their lives because of him. What a shame.
Well-- OWIE, Alice--
I was just about to post something to thank you for all that you have done to not only start this forum, but for doing the tee-shirts and to see how the hockey training is going and all...
I sensed that the whole freakin' political thing had caused a rift and I guess that I was correct in that gut feeling of mine...(That's why I hate discussing politics with people, as it can taint an otherwise perfectly good friendship.)
FYI--NR HAS INDEED told a member that "This thread does not belong here." He told it to me and frankly it quite alienated me for awhile... If you don't think that a moderator's attitudes don't influence a forum, then you are mistaken. I could give you examples as such from my advising at Dartmouth, etc... but won't, at the risk of assuming that you will trust me & believe my assertion here.
I said it before and I'll say it again: I hate the discussion of politics and that is part of what caused things to go so sour over at Patriots.com. Can't we learn from previous mistakes and stop re-inventing the wheel? It would be great to just talk football or whatever other FUN tangents that we can come up with... Politics and religion are no-win discussions... People feel too strongly about them one way or another (and rightly so) and there is no changing anyone's mind, so what is the sense of it?! Really?!
And just to clarify: I am NOT asking for you to censor people here. I was NEVER asking for that. I was only asking that we try to avoid such topics and try to keep some sort of peace here, among our friends, our fellow Pats fans... What say ye?!... :)
pookie
02-11-2003, 09:50 PM
I hate talking about politics.
I am not very knowledgeable about politics....period.
I feel that anybody on this board can say whatever they want about politics, although maybe it ought to be contained in the special thread made just for politics.
But what if pookie was to address this whole stinkin' thread, particularly the beginning piece that is obviously somebody with a personal vendetta against Bush.
My political quote for the board and I may never post on the politics subject again........... If you don't like the way the country is run, if you're so angry with the U.S., then either run for president and fix things yourself or get the F out of the country and go live in a much better country like China, Korea or a lovely Arabic terrorist country!!
Jesus H Christ that comment about Bush having a score to settle for his Daddy is just ludicrous.
Personally, I hope that the backing of the U.S. attack on Iraq grows even further than it has in the past week or so. That f'ing nut in Iraq hates all Americans.....He wants to kill us all......He's training his people, the children to hate us and kill us. They are a terrorist country, period. If I didn't fear the repercussions, I'd have no problem with nuking that bastard. But there's no doubt we have to take him out and soon.
Sorry, I'm just getting tired of all of the anti-America B.S. that's coming from Americans........again!
pookie
02-11-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Peg
Well-- OWIE, Alice--
I was just about to post something to thank you for all that you have done to not only start this forum, but for doing the tee-shirts and to see how the hockey training is going and all...
I sensed that the whole freakin' political thing had caused a rift and I guess that I was correct in that gut feeling of mine...(That's why I hate discussing politics with people, as it can taint an otherwise perfectly good friendship.)
FYI--NR HAS INDEED told a member that "This thread does not belong here." He told it to me and frankly it quite alienated me for awhile... If you don't think that a moderator's attitudes don't influence a forum, then you are mistaken. I could give you examples as such from my advising at Dartmouth, etc... but won't, at the risk of assuming that you will trust me & believe my assertion here.
I said it before and I'll say it again: I hate the discussion of politics and that is part of what caused things to go so sour over at Patriots.com. Can't we learn from previous mistakes and stop re-inventing the wheel? It would be great to just talk football or whatever other FUN tangents that we can come up with... Politics and religion are no-win discussions... People feel too strongly about them one way or another (and rightly so) and there is no changing anyone's mind, so what is the sense of it?! Really?!
And just to clarify: I am NOT asking for you to censor people here. I was NEVER asking for that. I was only asking that we try to avoid such topics and try to keep some sort of peace here, among our friends, our fellow Pats fans... What say ye?!... :)
I think the key is, Peg, not to take it personally. After all look at my little tirade just below here. Everybody has their opinion and that's it, it's just opinion. I fully expect to be bashed about my sorry ass attempt at posting on a political issue, but hey, I threw my opinion out and that's it. If somebody doesn't like my opinion, then they can either not read it or kiss my pookie ass!
Rock on Peg! Argue away, it's fun and good for the soul......
Actually, my post was NOT the first thread that was initiated in here on politics. I merely added a new one...and, I detest those that say, if you dont like it here, go live somewhere else.... So, therefore, I suggest that you are a conservative loon, cause only a conservative loon would say something loike that which is so detrminental to our freedoms ad our way of life, and the freedoms that make this country the great country that it is.
Yes, the man in Iraq is a nut, a fruitcake, but is what Bush is doing worth the risk of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of American and other lives for the sake of proving a point....and as of now, Bush has proven nothing, nothing but inuendo and rhetoric.
And, there is agrowing feeling in this country that Bush DOES have a vendetta.... I am far from alonw in that feeling.
Bush will go down in the history books as the person responsible for destroying the American way of life and for creating the coutries second civil war.
He campaigned on "togetherness" and bi-partisanship and, in my 63 years on earth, i can NEVER remember this country being as divided as it is now.
Good job Mister fake president, you have almost reached your goal, of destroying this country. Frickin buffoon that he is.
Thats what happens when you put a brainless boob into the oval office.
freak
02-11-2003, 10:21 PM
Geez, you'd think that Dubya was Charlie Weiss' uncle, or Ernie Zampese's son, by NEMs reaction.
Funny that NEM equates a conservative opinion as jeopardizing our freedoms. And yet it is the liberal idea that our Constitution is open to interpretation, that puts our very freedoms at risk. For if you can interpret the Constitution, what worth do any of the freedoms contained in it have?
pookie
02-11-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by NEM
Actually, my post was NOT the first thread that was initiated in here on politics. I merely added a new one...and, I detest those that say, if you dont like it here, go live somewhere else.... So, therefore, I suggest that you are a conservative loon, cause only a conservative loon would say something loike that which is so detrminental to our freedoms ad our way of life, and the freedoms that make this country the great country that it is.
Yes, the man in Iraq is a nut, a fruitcake, but is what Bush is doing worth the risk of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of American and other lives for the sake of proving a point....and as of now, Bush has proven nothing, nothing but inuendo and rhetoric.
And, there is agrowing feeling in this country that Bush DOES have a vendetta.... I am far from alonw in that feeling.
Bush will go down in the history books as the person responsible for destroying the American way of life and for creating the coutries second civil war.
He campaigned on "togetherness" and bi-partisanship and, in my 63 years on earth, i can NEVER remember this country being as divided as it is now.
Good job Mister fake president, you have almost reached your goal, of destroying this country. Frickin buffoon that he is.
Thats what happens when you put a brainless boob into the oval office.
I guess it's going to take another couple of skyscrapers coming down or maybe a bio/chemical attack for folks like yourself to realize what's really going on in this world. Maybe that's what's a good thing about not being a political zealot in any direction. You know, almost politically ignorant or a conservative loon, as you put it NEM (whatever that means). I can sit back and realize what might need to be done in the world today to stop the attacks by terrorists on us. And I can also realize just how cukoo you sound in your attacks on Bush. I'm sure there are many folks like you that buy into the Bush/Hussein conspiracy thing like yourself.... that's unfortunate.
And I have to ask about our country's upcoming second civil war that you predict, as it is making me laugh out loud. I sure hope it aint North vs South again sir. I'm from Massachusetts, but I've lived in Memphis, Mississippi and Dallas for the past 7+ years. I'm afraid this means I'll have to hang a union AND confederate flag outside my house then shoot myself... say it aint so NEM, say it aint so.
freak
02-11-2003, 10:30 PM
BTW, NEM.......
There isn't gonna be any civil war in the US. Especially given the way your liberal friends have crusaded to take away our right to bear arms. :D
I never mentioned anything abot the right, or the non right, to bear and carry arms. Someone else in this thread mentioned it.
And yes, there WILL be a civil war...not necessarilly one with guns and shooting, but a war of the classes, as this administration contiues to separate them even further apart.
For example, Bush still insists on the huge tax break for the wealthy, mostly on COEPORATE dividend tax breaks while, at the same time, the Homeland Security that he so highly pushed for, goes totally underfunded because there wont be any money due to the proposed tax break...and local departments have , virtually, no funds to implement the security, just ask any police commissioner or police chief...
Bush, and his croney administration, has dug us so deep of a hole that the only wat to get out of it will be by a CLASS civil war...and, it has already begun.
Bush is nothing short of a buffoon.....
Yes, I will back the administration, and our troops, if we go to war, but I dont have to agree with the way this administration has divided and separated our country.
Bush forgets one most important quotation...UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL..AND, AS OF THE CURTRENT MOMENT, Bush has divided this country..... He is an ignorant, fanatical buffoon....
Undertaker #59
02-12-2003, 08:51 AM
The country has been divided a lot longer that that NEM.
Peg,
I understand what you are saying. Just don't get involved in the political threads.....saves your sanity. I know its hard not to. I try not to, but I still said that line above to NEM.
Reading political threads teaches one one thing - You can't argue with an ignorant person, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
pookie
02-12-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by NEM
I never mentioned anything abot the right, or the non right, to bear and carry arms. Someone else in this thread mentioned it.
And yes, there WILL be a civil war...not necessarilly one with guns and shooting, but a war of the classes, as this administration contiues to separate them even further apart.
For example, Bush still insists on the huge tax break for the wealthy, mostly on COEPORATE dividend tax breaks while, at the same time, the Homeland Security that he so highly pushed for, goes totally underfunded because there wont be any money due to the proposed tax break...and local departments have , virtually, no funds to implement the security, just ask any police commissioner or police chief...
Bush, and his croney administration, has dug us so deep of a hole that the only wat to get out of it will be by a CLASS civil war...and, it has already begun.
Bush is nothing short of a buffoon.....
Yes, I will back the administration, and our troops, if we go to war, but I dont have to agree with the way this administration has divided and separated our country.
Bush forgets one most important quotation...UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL..AND, AS OF THE CURTRENT MOMENT, Bush has divided this country..... He is an ignorant, fanatical buffoon....
God bless you NEM.... it must tear you apart to be so angry.
dropKickMurphy
02-12-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Hawg73
No wonder the French hate us.
Hawg -
As long as the French hate us, we must be doing something right. Here's a great article that I've seen posted on several message boards. I wish I knew who wrote it.
------------------------------------------
Hoist by Their Own Petain
So, after 58 years, the French have decided that they prefer Vichy after all. It's hardly surprising. When the Vichy regime was in power, one could pretty much do what one wanted when it came to those troublesome Jews. Yes, there were shortages and lots of Germans around, but that's not much different from the present. Plus, just like today, the truly intellectual could take pride in the notion that they were part of something larger than a piddling little nation state. And really, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!" is just so passe. Vichy knew that too, which is why they were replaced with Travail (work), Famille (family), and Patrie (fatherland).
Not that those are any better. The modern Vichian motto might as well be ignorez, retarde, apaisez. Ignore, delay and appease describe the French character as well as anything else, excepts perhaps "Unions, Vacations and Occasional Showers!".
You can hardly blame the French. France is example number one when comes to natural selection of a nation's character.
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
Let's face it. When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache. They've been beaten so many times there's no fight left in them. There's no national anthem in the world as ludicrous as France's
To arms, to arms, ye brave!
Th'avenging sword unsheathe!
March on, march on, all hearts resolved
On liberty or death.
Oh liberty can man resign thee,
Once having felt thy gen'rous flame?
Can dungeons, bolts, and bar confine thee?
Or whips thy noble spirit tame?
Can dungeons, bolts, and bar confine thee? Or whips thy noble spirit tame? Yes, demonstrably. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"
You should keep that in mind, Herr Schroeder.
Ottawapatty
02-12-2003, 01:39 PM
Well, at the risk of losing any momentum I gained by being the 100th member I thought I'd sound in! Personally I love talking about politics and it is boards such as these (nancies.org) that have helped change my opinion of your president! When he first got in I thought everything would be about shooting your neighbor and the loss of freedom's to a right-wing blow hard! I was shocked when he didn't jump right in and blow up a few countries following 9/11! In fact he handled it better than I could have imagined! I thought he'd just want to have some fun with some bombs, but he was thoughtful and methodical! I still question his intellegence, but he doesn't make me sick like he used to! Anyways he continues to surprise me (an Oil-bitch from Texas pushing FOR gas-free cars - wow) However, I would keep an eye on Roe Vs. Wade if I were you folks! Let him do what he wants to other countries, but KEEP your women out of the alley's and coat-hangers in the closet! Trust me this is vital to your economy in the long run -- women need to work! But that is just my 2 cents and I am not American so with the exchange rate it is somewhere around .004 cents LOL! However, keep posting political stuff! If it is not your cup of tea then skip it, but if you want to hear other people's opinions then write in and I'll chat! Also, even though I lean (realistically) to the left I admit Bush won't do too much wrong unless he starts tinkering with the NFL -- then we may have to "throw-down" LOL
Peas and Love,
Matt
Originally posted by Peg
FYI--NR HAS INDEED told a member that "This thread does not belong here." He told it to me and frankly it quite alienated me for awhile...
Peg,
I am in favor of keeping political debate if not within one thread than certainly within one forum. Personally, I was not enamored with the idea of a “Politics” thread mostly, selfishly, because I see it becoming a point of friction between members and could make my task become more “moderatorial” than I would like. However, it is not exclusively my decision. There are others who seem to enjoy it and I am not going to object. Your objections to political discussion seem frankly a little bit hypocritical given the nature of your own remarks.
Your comments to me came in a thread dedicated to the astronauts on the shuttle Columbia -- not a forum where I felt that statements regarding my political leanings (or your understanding of them) were germane to the topic. I was expressing outrage at people desecrating the memory of those who died and interfering with the investigation by trading shuttle debris on eBay. I wasn't wishing to engage in political argument.
However, if you open the door to it by using political labels then you shouldn't object to my stating my position on the propriety of the remarks, or engage you in a discussion of the meanings of your remarks. To say something is a "liberal prerogative" is a loaded (and entirely meaningless) remark – but that is a subject for another thread... ;) I didn't politicize it Peg, you did. I am sorry if my reaction seemed inappropriate -- but that's how I would also characterize your remarks in that thread. I was a bit harsh, but I was an emotional day and I was entirely caught of guard by your comments.
On the one hand you object to political discussion on the board at all, and on the other you object to my handling of your own political arguments. Which is it? How do you want me to handle that paradox? :) I will try to accommodate any reasonable requests but that one is out of my reach. You don’t achieve Immortal status until your 10,000th post.
You raise two excellent points. What is the role (if any) of political discussion on this board and what is the role of the moderator. Regarding the latter, I would say that it is not unlike being a caretaker. I think the mistake that you are making – and I made myself when Alice first asked me to be a moderator – is to define it as a person who is responsible for content or shapes discussion as in a political debate. We may do that occasionally if things get slow, or things get out of hand but we are not here to formulate or direct discussions. Mostly we just want to participate as you do and we will try to accommodate the needs of the community. And believe me, the day that being a moderator means that I have to bite my tongue I will have been one a day too long.
freak
02-12-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by FallingAlice
I'm laughing here, NEM, not because you're not right about liberal attempts to limit the ability to carry weapons. (You are.) But because your point implies that they've been at all successful.
1. I'm not NEM. I'm insulted! :cuss: I don't have an unhealthy obsession with equating every Patriot offensive coordinator to cancer.
2. They've been pretty successful. They haven't banned guns, but they've gone to great lengths to make the process as difficult as possible.
Are the people going to have the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government with small caliber pistols, with magazine capacity limits? :D
freak
02-12-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Ottawapatty
However, I would keep an eye on Roe Vs. Wade if I were you folks!
BTW.......the President isn't who you should worry about on that issue, if that is an issue that you believe in.
It is the US CONGRESS that has the important powers here.
The US Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade by simply determining that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the issue, thus making the ruling void.
The Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction on such cases, subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
freak
02-12-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
You don’t achieve Immortal status until your 10,000th post.
And extremely tough to do.
I have only ever seen ONE person on ANY board with more than 10,000 posts.
That being "raider" from MouthOff, and now of KFFL. Too bad the King of the One Liners had to turn into such a crybaby after the SnowBowl last year.
Anyhoo, MouthOff had several categories. Rookie, Veteran, 500 Club, 1000 Club, and 5000 Club. They had to create a special 10000 Club for raider.
Even "EagleWings" of EagleAction, who posts constantly on anything, only has 5000+ to his name.
I'm a 4000+ guy at KFFL, but that is misleading. I had my profile corrupted awhile back, and was 1000+ at the time. And I had 1500+ when MouthOff crashed (KFFL really is an extension of MO, as many of the members were part of that Great Migration).
dropKickMurphy
02-12-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Ottawapatty
Well, at the risk of losing any momentum I gained by being the 100th member I thought I'd sound in! Personally I love talking about politics and it is boards such as these (nancies.org) that have helped change my opinion of your president! When he first got in I thought everything would be about shooting your neighbor and the loss of freedom's to a right-wing blow hard! I was shocked when he didn't jump right in and blow up a few countries following 9/11! In fact he handled it better than I could have imagined! I thought he'd just want to have some fun with some bombs, but he was thoughtful and methodical................
OP -
It's good to see that some Canadians strive to keep an open mind. I spent 4 years in your country (that is, if Montreal is considered part of Canada) in my younger days, and I generally found Canadians to be exceptionally decent and thoughtful people.
These days, the press tends to give the impression that Canadians are as rabidly anti-American as the residents of Berkley, CA and Cambridge, MA.
It was, therefore, very gratifying for me to come upon these words by the venerable Canadian commentator Gordon Sinclair. I feel they are very appropriate to post on a board dedicated to The Patriots
--------------------------------
"The Americans"
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany.
It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon-not once, but several times-and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.
--------------------------------
Thank you, Mr. Sinclair. I'd like to believe that your words represent the feelings of a significant number of your countrymen.
-dKM
pookie
02-12-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
OP -
It's good to see that some Canadians strive to keep an open mind. I spent 4 years in your country (that is, if Montreal is considered part of Canada) in my younger days, and I generally found Canadians to be exceptionally decent and thoughtful people.
These days, the press tends to give the impression that Canadians are as rabidly anti-American as the residents of Berkley, CA and Cambridge, MA.
It was, therefore, very gratifying for me to come upon these words by the venerable Canadian commentator Gordon Sinclair. I feel they are very appropriate to post on a board dedicated to The [b]Patriots
--------------------------------
"The Americans"
DKM. I love that article by Sinclair! It was all over the internet and in everybody's inbox after 9/11. Thanks for putting that up here. I believe he wrote this some time ago...do you know when?
Nothing like good old political debate to stir the blood vessels during this perioid of non-NFL activity.
And, just for the record, for those who used some offensive name calling against me...I was always under the impression that our country was founded upon the right of every citizen to express his, or her, views, without being called some sort of a name by a radical, right wing, ultra conservitive, give it to the rich, screw the poor and oppressed, bring women's rights back to the 1800's, carry a gun to church and blow away your enemy, trickle down economics right back into the pockets of the wealthy, screw the seniors, and who cares if they have health insurance as long as all the CEO's, CFO's and congressmen have it, three cheers for the KKK, Republicans.
dropKickMurphy
02-12-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by pookie
DKM. I love that article by Sinclair! It was all over the internet and in everybody's inbox after 9/11. Thanks for putting that up here. I believe he wrote this some time ago...do you know when?
Pook -
I didn't realize this was was written so long ago. I just looked it up, and found it was originally written in 1973. Gordon Sinclair died in 1984.
Too bad. We could really use people like Gordon Sinclair today.
dropKickMurphy
02-12-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by NEM
........In fact, when he first took office, and decided to keep the US out of the Palestinian/Israeli situation, and isolate ourselves....unlike the previous administration...it was, npart, for that reason, according to the Egyptian Ambassador AND the King of Jordan, that the 9/11 attack took place..........
Gee, I thought the 9/11 attacks were caused by a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists. Let me get this straight....You listen to the Egyptian ambassador and the king of Jordan, and give credence to their bulls**t that 9/11 was somehow OUR fault?
Then YOU question George Bush's intelligence?!?!
Maybe you should have posted in the "irony" thread.
Ottawapatty
02-12-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by freak
BTW.......the President isn't who you should worry about on that issue, if that is an issue that you believe in.
It is the US CONGRESS that has the important powers here.
The US Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade by simply determining that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the issue, thus making the ruling void.
The Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction on such cases, subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
There you have it . . . see this is why I love political conversations on these boards . . . being Canadian I wasn't sure of the Congress power over the President! So now I know who to point the finger at for the loss of this right (not saying abortion is right or wrong just saying I have a penis and shouldn't be deciding what people can and can't do in situations I'll never be in)!!! However, you can't tell me that Bush isn't doing everything he can infront of and behind the scenes on this issue! I am not sure why it just seems fishy the way it has all been going down so far, but that could be just me.
Matt
pookie
02-12-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
Pook -
I didn't realize this was was written so long ago. I just looked it up, and found it was originally written in 1973. Gordon Sinclair died in 1984.
Too bad. We could really use people like Gordon Sinclair today.
Ya, I knew it was written some time ago, but didn't know the date exactly. I think he wrote in response to anti-American schtuff after Vietnam. Folks were peddling this story around the web just after 9/11 stating that it was just written, then looking like idiots when somebody told them that the author was dead.
freak
02-12-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by NEM
I was always under the impression that our country was founded upon the right of every citizen to express his, or her, views, without being called some sort of a name by a radical, right wing, ultra conservitive, give it to the rich, screw the poor and oppressed, bring women's rights back to the 1800's, carry a gun to church and blow away your enemy, trickle down economics right back into the pockets of the wealthy, screw the seniors, and who cares if they have health insurance as long as all the CEO's, CFO's and congressmen have it, three cheers for the KKK, Republicans.
:rolleyes:
Nothing is ever fair, is it NEM? Geez, you can't even get Charlie Weiss fired.
Oh, the irony is suffocating here.
Let's see, in the past two years, on this watch, since King George stole the presidency, and was selected by a radical group of robed fanatics, here's what has happened.
Of course, 9/11, no deed to discuss that.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue developed into full sclae murder, on both sides, and the isolation of Yassar Arafat. It took the Bush administration almost a year to finally figure out that their hands off approach was the WRONG approach, but, too little, too late.
India and Pakistan almost had a nuclear war. And we were kissing ass to the terrorist helping Pakistanis.
Our strongest allies in Europe have all told us to go Fukk ourselves.
Nato is in serious trouble.
Osama Bin laden is still alive and being a pain in the ass even though the Bush administration made finding him their beiggest goal, now you hardly hear them say a word.
North Korea has put a nuclear weapon (Bus, the word is NUCLEAR, not NUCULAR) up our asses.
Our closest neighbor, Canada, is highly offended by the administrations comments about them.
Mexico, of course, gets all kinds of deals. I wonder if it is because the Bush family has a lot of holdings with Mexican companies.
The stock market has nosedived, killing off millions of small investors 401K savings, including mine.
The congress has NEVER been so biasedly split, even though King George ran on a platform of puttin the congress on the same track.
Our economy is at the worst it's been in a dozen years, and king George wants to screw it up even more with his ridiculous tac plan thinking the wealthy will get a break and pass it on to the mases...Wake up King George, the wealthy dont give a rats ass about the masses, they keep it all for themselves. It wont create jobs at all, you freakin moron.
The cost of gas has gone out of sight, of course Cheneys Oil Holdings are making a lot of bucks.
King George said he was "moderate" when he ran, yet his judicial appointees have been to the most radical right ever seen in history.
King George never disclosed his brushes with alcohol, and/or drugs.
He didnt want to discuss his membership in the Skulls and Bones Society, a power hungry organization designed to oppresslittle people while keeping the wealthy and powerful ahead of everyone, no matter what the cost.
China doesnt talk with us anymore.
The Russians dont talk with us anymore.
Prescription drugs cost five times more here, than in Canada, for the same product, yet Bush still cowtows to the pharmaceutical companies, of course they are his wealthy buddies who need more tax breaks.
Saudi Arabia, our one stanchon in the middle east, outside of Israel, is talking about having us withdraw our personnel and closing our bases. (Not that I trust those bastards anyway)
King George has divided the UN in such a way that no US President has ever done.
And, he has lied his way through his first two years as the SELECTED President....
Nice going King George, you have done more to harm this country in twoyears than in the 227 years combined, in US History.
This country will be far better off when yhou are no longer in a position to continue to destroy the American way of life, and the respect we have earned around the world before you took office.
bideau
02-13-2003, 09:08 AM
I'm gonna regret jumping into this, but what the hell.
In general, I agree with NEM's feelings, although not with the same ferocity. Since the day he took the oath of office, I've felt that he's a fraudelent President whole used his brotherly connections in Florida to steal the election. I believe he's nothing more than an incompetent cardboard cutout propped up in front of the cameras while his handlers actually dictate national policy.
I can handle dishonesty in a politician. I long ago gave in to the notion that all politicians are dishonest. What I do expect is competence. Give me a dishonest, competent president over an honest but incompotent one. In spite of their despicable behavior, at least Nixon and Clinton added some intelligence and competence to the office. Even Kennedy, who we've since found out had the same morals as Clinton, is marked as a great president.
I believe we'd still have 9/11 and the Iraqi and North Korean issues if Gore was in office. However, we'd have better world unity over how to handle it. We'd probably still have to go to war to resolve it, but at least we wouldn't be leading the charge, only to turn around and see our allies standing on the sidelines.
I'll sleep alot better when Bush is finally out of office.
freak
02-13-2003, 09:24 AM
Al Gore lost. Period.
Anybody who calls Bush a 'fraud' President, or similar, is just a sore loser.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/natlasstart.asp?AppCmd=ELCTYMAP
These are the POPULAR VOTE counts by COUNTY.
Blue shaded counties are for Bush. Red shaded counties are for Gore.
bideau
02-13-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by freak
Al Gore lost. Period.
Anybody who calls Bush a 'fraud' President, or similar, is just a sore loser.
No, I'm not a sore loser.
I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. Party ideoligies don't mean much to me. I vote for the candidate who I feel is the most qualified. I have voted for more candidates that have lost than have won (sort of like my tendency to pick the wrong checkout line at the supermarket). I usually just shrug my shoulders and get on with my life. When Bush was finally declared the winner, I figured I'd give him a chance and see how he performed. In my opinion, he's been a miserable failure.
We can rehash the vote counting irregularities forever. But they've been well documented and people have formed their opinions. To paraphrase what I said above, I can live with a fraudelent, but COMPETENT, president. Its the incompetence that I'm sore about.
King George is NOT incompetent, he is too stupid to be incompetent. He is an ignorant buffoon.
In fact, he is not in charge of this country. In fact, it is President CHENEY, President Rumsfeld and President Powell who are truly running this country, along with the ultra radical Karl Rove.
Bush is merely a figurehead for these arrogant people who are out to reclaim their failures from the past Bush administration.
And, just like his daddy, when all is said and done, his bumbled manner of handling this countries economy will be his downfall.
He will only be able to use the iraqui situation as a cover up for his mishandling of the coutry's financial state for just so long.
Face it guys, and girls, George Bush and his radical cronies don't care about you and I, that is of course unless you are a CEO, CFO, company exeutive or some sort of a FREAK.
The difference is that their lies are so powerful that many, uneducated and ignorant voters, are easily swayed.
And, no matter how people like the FREAK want to cover it up, if not for the dirty dealing of one Katherine Harris and Brother Bush in Florida, he would be back in Texas milking his cows.
Not only did Al Gore win the popular vote by a half MILLION votes, he won the Florida vote, had it been legally counted and had not many underprivileged people been restricted from voting by Bush's Gestapo Forces.
King George's people went through the facade of the Florida recounts because, in the end, they knew all along that it would go to the U S Supreme Court, a court in which they had total control of.
This is the dirtiest, most corrupt and illegal administration this country has ever seen, including that of Richard Nixon.
And, in time, they will all get what is coming to them.
People inthis country, the greatest country on the face of the earth, will only be fooled for so long. Then, when time is right, the truth always comes forth.
King George and his royal family of cut throats will be **** down, one by one, till the end is upon us and normalcy canonce again return to the United States, Where it will truly be a Government of the People, FBy the People, and For the People.... when the Kingdom Of Bush will be overthrown.
And, the time will be here soon. Have no fear.
Undertaker #59
02-13-2003, 02:31 PM
And here I thought NEM's rants on Weiss on the other board were over the top. Shame on me.
:shake:
Originally posted by bideau
No, I'm not a sore loser.
We can rehash the vote counting irregularities forever. But they've been well documented and people have formed their opinions. To paraphrase what I said above, I can live with a fraudelent, but COMPETENT, president. Its the incompetence that I'm sore about.
George W. Bush :Homer: is the LEAST INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED individual ever to hold the highest elected position in this country in our history.
freak
02-13-2003, 02:48 PM
Hey NEM,
You've always had the answers for everything Zampese or Weiss did wrong, but your letter writing campaign to Kraft clearly wasn't enough.
You've got to take it up a notch.
I think you should take a little vacation to DC. Climb the fence at the South lawn of the White House, and make a mad dash for the place. Hand deliver your solutions to the Buffoon in Chief.
THATS a way to get your message across.
The Secret Service is actually pretty tame, save for the individual protective detail members. Especially the uniformed division guys.
;)
freak
02-13-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
George W. Bush :Homer: is the LEAST INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED individual ever to hold the highest elected position in this country in our history.
Supposing that is true......
He's at least smart enough to know that he doesn't have all the answers, and gets competent people around him to facilitate his decision making process.
Unlike Clinton, who makes his buddy Sandy Berger the National Security Advisor. I've met Berger. Nice enough guy, but hardly qualified for the position.
Undertaker #59
02-13-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
George W. Bush :Homer: is the LEAST INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED individual ever to hold the highest elected position in this country in our history.
How can you make a statement like that? Are there IQ scores for all of our presidents in history on file?
Originally posted by Undertaker #59
How can you make a statement like that? Are there IQ scores for all of our presidents in history on file?
He takes an IQ test every time I listen to the man speak and he hasn't "passed" one yet.
Undertaker #59
02-13-2003, 03:56 PM
I can understand that statement, but how do you compare with all previous presidents?
Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I can understand that statement, but how do you compare with all previous presidents?
First of all, there has never been a US President that I have been thoroughly embarrassed to have representing our nation -- Republican or Democrat -- until George W. Certainly there have been some I have liked more and some less but never once did I find myself questioning their mental acuity. Disagree with them -- many. Distrust them -- all but one (in my lifetime.) But never once did I question whether they had enough going on to be President.
As for historical precedent, I have listen to the speeches of many a US president and read many more (many from the days when they still drafted their own.) I have studied history and I am aware of their intellectual accomplishments. Check out the Federalist Papers some time (Madison and Hamilton) -- like everything else they are online. Woodrow Wilson was an eloquent speaker. Lincoln was amazing. FDR. Jefferson. Monroe. Even Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar -- the man could not fake sincerity to save his life but he was a very intelligent man. Carter might be one of the more profoundly decent individuals ever to be a not-so-great president. He was also a very wise man -- a throwback to the day when presidents were first and foremost thinkers and statesmen.
Some of those that I have mentioned are at different points along the intellectual scale for a variety of reasons. Some like Reagan, were great speakers. Others great thinkers and others were just good leaders. I don't think there really has been a US president of the last half of the 20th century that is on par with most of the ones who came before them. Something has happened and good people don't wish to hold public office. That being said -- then there is George W. Even given the demise of the office, he still doesn't make the cut.
dropKickMurphy
02-13-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
George W. Bush :Homer: is the LEAST INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED individual ever to hold the highest elected position in this country in our history.
Whether or not that statement is true, it is irrelevant. There are plenty of MENSA members driving cabs and flipping burgers.
What you have to realize is that the overwhelming majority of Americans trust the man. It may be fashionable in the circles of the "intellectuals" to write this off as the stupidity of the common American citizen. After all, don't they just LOVE to impress each other with their superiority? They couldn't be more wrong. Most people are pretty damned adept at recognizing leadership qualities. The simple fact is, they see, and recognize, these qulities in President Bush....not because they are stupid, but because the American people are inherently intelligent. Far more intelligent than the short-sighted "intellectual" who believes that the one true measure of a man is his IQ.
We had an "intellectual" in the White House for eight years, a man with zero integrity. We saw the shame he brought to the presidency, as he boldly lied under oath and directly to the American people. A man who spent the final days of his presidency issuing pardons to anyone willing to pony up the cash.
Give me George Bush any day. His IQ may be only half that of Clinton, but he is twice as smart in the ways that really matter.
Hawg73
02-13-2003, 05:56 PM
Since much of the discussion on this thread involves views on the looming war with Iraq I decided to include this link for those interested in the topic.
It is a kind of animated board game illustrating a somewhat left leaning view of what could happen and though fatalistic in nature is nonetheless interesting and worth checking out.
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
Whether or not that statement is true, it is irrelevant.
I would consider his intelligence vital to the executive branch and the office of President. "Leadership" can't wipe it's own *** without first making the decision to do so. That is not something I consider irrelevant.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein.
George W. Bush has unlimited potential, I will grant you that.
freak
02-13-2003, 08:16 PM
But that view of stupidity can be applied to ANYONE, regardless of their IQ.
dropKickMurphy
02-14-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by FallingAlice
Were it Jeb Bush in the White House, I would not be nearly as concerned about our Ship of State.
Alice, how concerned were you about our Ship when your boy was occupying the office for 8 years? Think about what he did in his first term. Up until that point, the State Dept had responsibility for decisions regarding the export of missile technology. As Clinton's reelection campaign was gearing up, the Commerce Seceratary, Ron Brown (who coincidentally had been in charge of Clinton's campaign) approached Clinton with a brilliant idea. If the responsibility were transferred to the Commerce Dept, he could approve the transfer of critical missile guidance technology to China. The State Dept had been blocking this transfer under the quaint notion that it was not in the best interests of our national security.
Clinton, of course, signed the executive order. Ron Brown okayed the export of the missile technology to China. The company that made the money from this returned a nice piece of the profits to Clinton's campaign.
To devise and carry out a plan such as this no doubt requires a keen intellect. Furthermore, only a brilliant mind would be capable of performing the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the twisted conclusion that the security of the nation was an acceptable price to pay for his reelection. William Jefferson Clinton, raised on a steady diet of cultural relativism and deconstructive thinking...a man who was a genius at parsing strings of words to make them mean anything he wanted them to mean....who could argue about the meaning of the word 'is'....was certainly an "intellectual". What he lacked was any kind of moral framework. He was not only incapable of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, he refused to believe that right and wrong were even valid concepts.
I suspect that that's the main reason that the "intellectuals" despise President Bush. When he speaks in plain terms about things like "good" and "evil"...about things like courage and patriotism...the "intellectuals" cringe at the thought that the President of the United States is simplistic enough to think in these outmoded terms.
I've already rambled too much on this subject, so I'll leave it at that. Alice and NR....you are both intelligent and thoughtful people with whom I happen to disagree on this subject. I feel very strongly that you are making a big mistake in underestimating the capabilities of GWB. Go ahead and take your shots. I'll let you get the last word.
See you in the other threads....
pookie
02-14-2003, 09:58 AM
Off the Dubya bashing subject a little, but where the hell else would I post this?
You guys see old man Hans Blix' new report? He's becoming the master of the obvious.
No evidence of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq..... but, gee, many items are unaccounted for! Hmmm. Let's see. Perhaps, just maybe..... THEY'RE FREAKIN' HIDING THEM FOR CHRISSAKES!! This whole process is really a joke, you know that? As if Hussein is going to say to inspectors, "well over here is my plutonium and right here you'll see my anthrax and nerve gas......"
WTF! Time for some murder, death, kill over there!
Can any of you ex or current military guys detail what it would take to send Special Ops/snipers into Iraq and just waste Hussein? Why can't this happen, or can it? Is it "politics" that prevents the killing of leaders that are really just mass murderers?
Hawg73
02-14-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by pookie
Can any of you ex or current military guys detail what it would take to send Special Ops/snipers into Iraq and just waste Hussein? Why can't this happen, or can it? Is it "politics" that prevents the killing of leaders that are really just mass murderers?
I've never been in the military but like to do a little educational reading on the topic of international intelligence and the reason that Hussein is still breathing is because he is so terrified of getting offed that he has 26 or so different presidential mansions on 24X7 alert for his presence.
He never stays in the same one two nights running and not even the people who run the places know when he will show up. His food is routinely tested for poison and radiation using human guinea pigs and he spends approximately 59 minutes out of every hour just trying to figure out how to stay alive. Even his sons are routinely searched for weapons. He trusts no one.
I'll try to find a link for you on this -it makes for some interesting reading.
The fact that he has lasted this long is a tribute to his intense paranoia and some measure of craftiness. He might be crazy but he isn't stupid.
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
I've already rambled too much on this subject, so I'll leave it at that. Alice and NR....you are both intelligent and thoughtful people with whom I happen to disagree on this subject. I feel very strongly that you are making a big mistake in underestimating the capabilities of GWB. Go ahead and take your shots. I'll let you get the last word.
See you in the other threads....
drop Kick:
Last word, really? I'm disappointed.
The fact that people disagree about politics is largely what defines the concept. In an ideal world I suppose we would all be capable of seeing things in black and white (while actually having them BE black and white at the same time.) The reality is nothing is absolute and yet most people insist that THEIR viewpoint somehow cuts through all of the BS and ends up at the absolute truth. Isn't that nice for them? Are these the same people who can't balance their checkbook, once failed a home economics test or voted Republican in Florida -- by accident?
Intellect really isn't the evil empire that you are describing. Frankly I'm a little surprised by your treatment of "intellectual" as a bad word. An intellectual is simply put someone who enjoys the pursuit of reason for it's own sake. A discussion such as this is an intellectual pursuit. In the simplest sense, an intellectual is anyone capable of exercising their own intellect. Do you really wish to NOT be included in that category? Any other definitions, meanings and connotations that you attach to it are entirely your own or a product of social values. Like it or not, I've read your posts and you are one -- although in this instance, one I choose to disagree with. "Intellect" put a man on the moon, cured polio, wrote Hamlet, painted the Mona Lisa, designed the Chrysler Building and achieved most of the things that we take pride in as a civilization. Without "geeks" frankly we would all be f*cked.
intellect: The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.
(Pardon me Austin if I am being "pedantic." The world needs people who can teach the geeks.)
I hear your argument regarding Clinton (by the way he's only his Momma's "boy") and to that I would say that it is entirely possible to use one’s intellect for the wrong reasons. However, that is the exception which proves the rule. It proves the value of intellect. Bill Clinton had very poor judgment. However, he was not a bad man any more than George Bush is a saint. For George, the absence of reason is not what makes him trustworthy, although some people are inherently mistrustful of someone who might be smarter than they are. My alma mater's motto is (in Latin) "Laws without morals are in vain."
All you need to appreciate the transience of thought and reality is a rudimentary understanding of Einstein's theories. Energy is the product of mass times the speed of light squared. It sounds complicated but really in our daily lives it just means that nothing is as it seems. Time is relative. Mass is relative. Form is relative. Perception of everything we define as "real" including the ground we walk on is itself relative. What do we know?
I see it as an enlightened argument for an open mind. :)
My signature quote? You guessed it. :thumb:
dropKickMurphy
02-14-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
.All you need to appreciate the transience of thought and reality is a rudimentary understanding of Einstein's theories. Energy is the product of mass times the speed of light squared. It sounds complicated but really in our daily lives it just means that nothing is as it seems. Time is relative. Mass is relative. Form is relative. Perception of everything we define as "real" including the ground we walk on is itself relative. What do we know?
I'm finished with the political portion of this discussion, but I'll take your bait on the larger topic. You chose your words carefully. Time, mass, and form are relative. Yes. Perception of the ground we walk on is, indeed, relative. The ground itself, however does exist. Einstein (and you) did not say that EVERYTHING is relative, simply because it would be an untrue statement (in the absolute sense).
Our perception of reality is defined, in large part, by our frame of reference. If you are travelling in a bus at 60 MPH, and were passed by a bus travelling at 70 MPH in the same direction, you would measure the speed of the other bus as 10 MPH, relative to your frame of reference. An observer standing on the ground would measure the speed of that same bus as 70 MPH, based on his frame of reference.
When you start talking about the speed of light, however, it gets real interesting. Say you are standing on the moon. A person on earth shines a flashlight into the sky. You measure the speed of the beam as it passes you, and find it to be 186,000 miles per second.
A second observer is travelling away from the earth in a spaceship at 1/2 the speed of light. As the beam of light travelling from earth catches and passes him, he measures its speed relative to his frame of reference. Lo and behold, he observes it to be passing him at the same 186,000 mps that the observer on the moon measured. Why? Any instrument that he could use to measure the speed of light would depend on a measurement of time and distance, neither of which is absolute.....clocks slow down, rulers shrink. However, the speed of light is a constant. Regardless of your frame of reference, its measured value will always be c.
What is the significance of this? It is proof that absolute truths do exist in the universe; that not everything is relative to our frame of reference. The tricky part, of course, is being able to distinguish between that which is relative and that which is absolute.
Here's where I have a problem. We have a bunch of professors in our institutions of learning leading their students to believe that everything is relative. They teach that all value judgements are valid only in the mind, or frame of reference, of the person measuring that value. I say, for example, that the music of Billie Holliday is superior to the music of Brittany Spears. Sure, much of this statement is based on subjective personal preference. But not 100%. The music of Billie Holliday IS better than that of Brittany Spears. Ted Williams WAS a better baseball player Mike Greenwell. Just because that is my perception does not mean that it isn't true. Perception and reality, while often at odds, are not mutually exclusive.
That's where I have a problem with "intellectuals" (with quotation marks). Those people who are smart enough to recognize the limits of their perception, but unwilling to realize that there ARE absolute truths that are constant in all frames of reference. The speed of light; Brady being better than Bledsoe; right and wrong. How can a person be trusted to do the right thing when he is unable to acknowledge that the right thing even exists outside of his own mind? The refusal to believe in absolute truths is NOT a step forward in human evolutution.
Then again that's only my opinion.
freak
02-14-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
The reality is nothing is absolute and yet most people insist that THEIR viewpoint somehow cuts through all of the BS and ends up at the absolute truth.
It isn't?
So you're saying the "Father of the Consitution" isn't qualified to say "absolutely" what was intended by the Constitution?
:Wildcats: Go 'Cats, beat Maine.
freak
02-14-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
Ted Williams WAS a better baseball player Mike Greenwell.
Greenwell was no Teddy Ballgame, but he was a worthy successor to the left field tradition of the Sox. Nagging injuries and a personal choice for average over power, kept him from becoming what he could have been.
The Gator rules.
dropKickMurphy
02-14-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
Perception of everything we define as "real" including the ground we walk on is itself relative.
That could be the explanation to the most interesting phenomenon of the cartoon universe: The Cliff Effect. A character who goes over the edge of a cliff will not fall until he realizes (perceives) that the ground is no longer under his feet.
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
….However, the speed of light is a constant. Regardless of your frame of reference, its measured value will always be c.
What is the significance of this? What is the significance of this? It is proof that absolute truths do exist in the universe; that not everything is relative to our frame of reference. The tricky part, of course, is being able to distinguish between that which is relative and that which is absolute.
Here's where I have a problem. We have a bunch of professors in our institutions of learning leading their students to believe that everything is relative. They teach that all value judgements are valid only in the mind, or frame of reference, of the person measuring that value. I say, for example, that the music of Billie Holliday is superior to the music of Brittany Spears. Sure, much of this statement is based on subjective personal preference. But not 100%. The music of Billie Holliday IS better than that of Brittany Spears. Ted Williams WAS a better baseball player Mike Greenwell. Just because that is my perception does not mean that it isn't true. Perception and reality, while often at odds, are not mutually exclusive.
That's where I have a problem with "intellectuals" (with quotation marks). Those people who are smart enough to recognize the limits of their perception, but unwilling to realize that there ARE absolute truths that are constant in all frames of reference. The speed of light; Brady being better than Bledsoe; right and wrong. How can a person be trusted to do the right thing when he is unable to acknowledge that the right thing even exists outside of his own mind? The refusal to believe in absolute truths is NOT a step forward in human evolutution. Then again that's only my opinion.
I will agree that with respect to General Relativity and our discussion that the speed of light is a constant -- in a vacuum. Light is not a constant outside the vacuum of space. Light in a glass of water or through a lens will travel more slowly. In other words, it is the measurement of a phenomenon – light traveling through space that is accepted as a constant, not the properties of light itself. This fact does not invalidate the theory of Relativity; it is just a poor example. However, I really don’t want to get into a debate about whether there are accepted, provable physical truths because I am more than willing to concede that point. A better example is the rate of gravitational acceleration. However, the existence of physical laws does not prove anything with respect to non-empirical arguments and really is to use your word “irrelevant” to the discussion.
I stated “perception” of the ground, and by that I referred to the variety of ways that perception can influence both real or imagined events or objects. The perception of the color of an object can change with the time of day, or the lens with which it is viewed. I was not speaking in entirely Relativistic terms when I mentioned perception because it is inherently a function of the mind and therefore resides with the observer. In Relativistic terms, the concept of “ground” is relative because gravity is a function of mass. Earth is not the only ground.
I used Relativity to discuss the concept of a paradigm but also to introduce the idea of how powerful a frame of reference can be. Einstein’s ideas transcend physics. Special Relativity says that space and time are not constant but a function of the frame of reference of the viewer. General Relativity (the much more interesting of the two) goes on to say that if acceleration feels like gravity and affects the measurement of space and time relative to the observer, then gravity like acceleration affects the measurement of space and time. GR predicts that light can be bent by mass. It predicts the existence of black holes from which light cannot escape. My point in discussing relativity was really to illustrate the “weight” of what we do not understand in physical terms, and to use that to gain perspective on some things which people think are absolute.
I personally find it humbling to think that there are so many things beyond my comprehension but I do not feel the need to force a meaning on events just to have it solved. I do not confuse intelligence with knowledge and therefore I don’t feel less intelligent simply because I can’t explain something.
The absolute truths you are professing are that Billie Holiday is better than Britney Spears??? You picked this only because you wanted to put me in the position of having to take the opposite position. :p The real issue here is that the “truths” you are referring to are not based on fact but are entirely subjective -- to which a lot of people agree. It is a matter of collective opinion. And on matters such as this there is relevance to that weight of opinion. But it still isn’t a universal truth so to don’t expect it to be beyond debate.
A logic professor of mine once said “never argue about something that can be proven – prove it.” He also said “Never debate facts unless the facts themselves are in question.”
However, what you describe as “truths” are entirely the forum for debate. I am fairly certain that I only have to go to a middle school near you to find a number of proponents of Britney Spears with a slightly different frame of reference than your own. And a quick trip to www.buffalobills.com will find a dissenting opinion regarding Bledsoe. And while I may agree with you that Brady is better than Bledsoe, I could turn around in a heartbeat and argue the opposite to no end – with no fear of being disproved.
The only things that merit debate are matters of opinion -- beliefs. I understand -- I think -- what you are saying regarding the need to accept some things without proof. They call it faith. Not every person feels the need for faith. A good movie on that very discussion is Contact with Jodie Foster.
Originally posted by freak
It isn't?
So you're saying the "Father of the Consitution" isn't qualified to say "absolutely" what was intended by the Constitution?
:Wildcats: Go 'Cats, beat Maine.
The framers of the Constitution put a mechanism in place to interprete the Constitution called the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Constitution should exist in absolute terms is wrong because it was never the intent. As for the question did they have an absolute understanding of their own goals, ideals and intentions: I'm sure that all who contributed to it did to the extent that they could and to the extent that they could agree. There was plenty of dissent even then.
You wouldn't be trying to draw me into a debate on constitutional law would you? Ever think of going to law school?
Nice smilie. I like it.
freak
02-14-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by NoRespect
The framers of the Constitution put a mechanism in place to interprete the Constitution called the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is NOT given ANY power to interpret the Constitution.
If you claim otherwise......prove it.
I've already brought this topic up many times. The Supreme Court is simply assigned either original, or appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases. And in the case of the latter, which can be limited as simply as Congress deciding that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
To suggest that the Constitution should exist in absolute terms is wrong because it was never the intent.
Absolutely untrue. If the written word of the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, what worth does any of it have? What does the "freedom of speech" mean if it can be interpreted? What does the the clause about not making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion mean, if the meaning of "free exercise" can be interpreted?
The Founders were very clear, particularly in documents such as the Federalist papers. They were very clear that the Consitution was to taken by the plain meaning of the words, not what may be deduced from it.
As for the question did they have an absolute understanding of their own goals, ideals and intentions: I'm sure that all who contributed to it did to the extent that they could and to the extent that they could agree. There was plenty of dissent even then.
Disagreements during debates at the Convention, does not equal a divided interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, I would think you would be hard pressed to find any such quotes proving such.
You wouldn't be trying to draw me into a debate on constitutional law would you? Ever think of going to law school?
Do you want to? No, I haven't thought of going to law school. I don't think I'd enjoy it, although I love debating. I want to go into teaching.
Nice smilie. I like it.
Me too. 'Specially after a UNH victory tonite. :Wildcats: :D Tango Yankee.
dropKickMurphy
02-17-2003, 01:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NoRespect
I will agree that with respect to General Relativity and our discussion that the speed of light is a constant -- in a vacuum. Light is not a constant outside the vacuum of space. Light in a glass of water or through a lens will travel more slowly. In other words, it is the measurement of a phenomenon – light traveling through space that is accepted as a constant, not the properties of light itself.
My perception differs from yours on several points.
First, the argument that the speed of light being dependent on the medium through which it travels. Obviously, when light is not passing through a vacuum, the photons are unable to travel in a direct path. Think of it this way: I stand 2 feet a from a ruby. I point a flashlight towards a mirror that is positioned 1 lightyear from earth. I start my timer and wait for 2 years for the beam to travel to the mirror and return to illuminate the ruby. If I came to the conclusion that light travelled 2 feet per year, would my reasoning be valid? No, because I did not take into consideration the actual path that the light beam travelled.
Likewise, a beam of light travelling through a medium...say for example, a glass of water. The packets of energy, or photons, can be expected to travel for a particular distance through space before encountering a water molecule. The molecule eagerly absorbs the photon's energy. During a brief slice of time the molecule, in seeking its most stable state, decides that the best thing it can do is puke that energy back out into space (more or less like Hawg73 deleting his girlie jpegs to maintain his stable bond with Mrs. 73) resulting in a photon travelling in a different direction. Of course, this scenario is repeated gazillions of times before any photons emerge from the opposite side glass. The fact is, any time a photon is travelling between molecules, it is travelling at c.
More important is your assertion that it is the measurement, and not the actual property, of the speed of light that is the constant. I hope you are not overlooking the essential truth in what Einstein was telling us. It is, in fact, our measurements that are relative (clocks slow down, rulers shrink as we approach the speed of light)....not the actual speed of light, which is a constant.
I have always been intrigued by this notion that the speed of light remained constant regardless of the frame of reference. For a long time, I had trouble reconciling what could be mathematically proven with the way my senses told me the universe operates. It didn't make sense to me until I acknowledged the limits of my own frame of reference. In my frame of reference, clocks and yardsticks remain essentially constant. The speed of busses is the variable. But think about it. The only way that we can measure distance is with a comparative unit of distance, a ruler. Our assumption that a mile is a mile is based on the assumption that the length of things is constant. Absent a measure of length that is not dependent on the length of an object, we're lost. Likewise, how do we measure time? With an instrument, a clock, that is purpurted to change at a constant rate over time. It seems we have no objective way to measure the properties of distance and time.
Yet, we do know these properties exist, because they have an affect on us and the universe. (At least we percieve that they do. I will grant you that we are dependent on the interpretation that our minds draw from the information provided via our senses to draw this conclusion. I look at a flagpole that is 50 feet away. How do I KNOW that there is a flagpole 50 feet away? How do I KNOW that that flagpole was there 1 second ago? (In other words, if reality is an illusion how do I even know that it is actually persistent?) Only through my senses and my memory. Is the drawing of that conclusion an act of faith? If so, does that mean that faith is a vital component of my existence?)
If we accept the existence of time and distance......properties that can have no beginning and no end....therefore, as real as they have to be are nevertheless beyond the ability of the human mind to fully comprehend them....must there not be an absolute truth that binds then to the real universe? The speed of light.
The absolute truths you are professing are that Billie Holiday is better than Britney Spears??? You picked this only because you wanted to put me in the position of having to take the opposite position. :p
Guilty as charged. I didn't really expect to get that pitch by you, I was more interested in seeing which part of the park you'd drive it to. Deep into the bleachers, as expected.
The real issue here is that the “truths” you are referring to are not based on fact but are entirely subjective -- to which a lot of people agree. It is a matter of collective opinion. And on matters such as this there is relevance to that weight of opinion. But it still isn’t a universal truth so to don’t expect it to be beyond debate. However, what you describe as “truths” are entirely the forum for debate. I am fairly certain that I only have to go to a middle school near you to find a number of proponents of Britney Spears with a slightly different frame of reference than your own.
Beyond debate? Wouldn't you agree that the properties you describe enhance the debate worthiness of those issues?
As I attempted to point out, the existence of truth is independent of our individual or collective perceptions. For example: Most African Americans believe that OJ did not murder his wife Nicole. Most white Americans believe he did. These conclusions are drawn, in large degree, through our collective experiences.
And yes, these perceptions do not give us an absolute truth. African Americans, as a group, have experiences which lead them to distrust the evidence presented by the police. Whites, as a group, tend to believe in the integrity of our criminal justice system over the word of a former football star with a dead wife and blood all over his gloves and shoes.
Surely, you wouldn't argue that these differences in perceptions precludes the existance of an absolute truth. Either he did it, or he didn't. Our interpretation of events does not alter the reality of the truth. And our limitations in identifying the absolute truth do no alter the fact that an absolute truth exists.
I understand -- I think -- what you are saying regarding the need to accept some things without proof. They call it faith. Not every person feels the need for faith.
I'm not sure if I would define faith that way. As I mentioned above, a certain degree of faith is necessary for any human to continue to live. The faith that our perception is a dependable reflection of reality. Without this modicum of faith, we have insanity.
But still, doesn't it go beyond this? Even without trusting in our senses and our memory, isn't the fact that we are able to think about these things proof of something higher than us at work? Science can explain just about everything in terms of the properties of energy and matter. Just about. Except the really hard stuff, such as your conciousness. There, science and mathematics don't even really try, because they just weren't designed to handle concepts like this. That's where we depend on things like philosophy and faith to take over.
Does every person have a need for faith? Maybe not, but perhaps as a species we do. Why is it that pretty much every culture in history has felt the need to worship a higher power? The very origins of art and music spring from this desire to connect to this higher power. Doesn't evolution tend to rid the species of unneccessary baggage along the way? Why, then do humans still have faith (and appendices)?
I have no idea where we fit into the bigger picture, hence I long ago stopped finding any personal benefit in organized religions that try to tell me what to believe. Nevertheless, I cannot quite disassociate myself from believing that we are a part of a larger purpose.
Think of salmon. Without having any idea why, they always return to the stream of their origin to breed and die. Suddenly, an "intellectual" salmon decides his schoolmates have have it all wrong. He decides that there is no rational reason to waste his body in swimming up that stream. He stays in the ocean, fat and happy, and outlives his less intelligent pals. Yes, he beat the system....but that doesn't mean that there isn't still a vital need for salmon to swim upstream, reproduce, and die....a need that is built into the nature of salmon.
Or, maybe faith isn't simply a need to accept without proof. Maybe it's just the ability to keep your mind open to the possibilities. And, to be consistent in my reasoning, I'll have to keep my mind open to the possibility that it's all an illusion....persistent or not.
First let me restate my argument as simply as I can. This really isn’t an argument about the speed of light. I used Relativity to introduce the concept of a paradigm shift, and how the very definition of having an open mind (such as enabled Einstein to develop his theories) depends on an reluctance to make absolute assumptions. The other argument I made was about what should and should not be debated. I suggested that there are two conditions worthy of debate: arguments based on opinion (a person’s belief system) or theory (a hypothesis based on theoretical assumptions.) I am re-stating these arguments because there are a number of times where you have misinterpreted what I am saying, and challenged arguments that I did not make.
Regarding one misconception, you used the argument that Billie Holiday is better than Britney and that Brady is better than Bledsoe. I challenged this on the basis that it is these are not “absolute truths” but really just collective opinion – unprovable. It really doesn’t matter how many people believe it to be true it still remains a matter of opinion. Entirely subjective and entirely subject to the frame of reference of the observer (in this case a collective frame of reference.) On this basis I also stated that these kinds of issues were ripe for debate by their very nature. I did not state that they were “beyond debate” but NOT beyond debate. They are eminently debatable because they are a matter of opinion
Be careful not to put theoretical objections in my mouth. You used the OJ Simpson trial as an example and stated that regardless of opposing opinion on either side of the OJ Simpson trial, “surely I wouldn’t suggest” that the question of who killed OJ is not an absolute truth. I would NOT argue that and I did not. It was your example. Certainly there is a factual basis for the events leading to Nicole Simpson’s death. I made no arguments one way or the other regarding it.
However, since you bring it up I would argue that it doesn’t prove your assertion that there are absolute truths in matters of opinion but that it helps to illustrate the difference between opinion and fact. Determining the facts (in this case who killed her) is frequently nothing MORE than a matter of opinion. Assuming that the “mystery” killer doesn’t confess all we are left with is the sometimes futile attempt to establish fact. Fact reduced to opinion – not the other way around. If you reread my previous comments you will note that I suggest that a professor of mine once said “do not debate fact UNLESS the facts themselves are in question.” The legal arena is frequently one where the facts are in question. The facts of the case are what has to be proven. It still does not make Britney’s singing ability a matter of factual record. Whether we like her music or not we can’t hope to get a conviction.
So much for the difference between fact and opinion. The real reason to have that discussion is that I am challenging the frequency with which people make “hard assumptions.” Regardless of a person’s politics it happens all the time. Sometimes what people take for “fact” is their own opinion. It is comforting to assume that we are all so smart that our own viewpoint is correct but really it’s not logical. I am by profession, trained to think laterally. I am a creative problem solver. If you set out to find an answer to a question, first determine that you are asking the right question. Second, establish fact. Third, challenge assumptions. Fourth, work your way back from the solution to where you are – and vice versa. In other words, defy convention. Albert Einstein once said: “You can’t solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” (I don’t mean to be either pretentious or ironic by continually quoting him. I suppose that in some way he “speaks” to me – S L O W L Y and in a very loud voice so that I can keep up.)
Keep in mind challenging the assertion that the earth was flat was once considered heretical. People want to put information into a palatable format. They dislike the discomfort of not having an answer to the most fundamental questions of all – why we are here. Being wrong is part of the mechanism for proving a theory. Postulate an idea – challenge the idea. It is logical to assume that the assumptions must be wrong at some point as they are all speculative at some point. If they Einstein speculated that light is a constant – why is that speculation immutable? To him it was a theory -- is it logical for us to assume it is fact any more than the “Britney Postulate” is fact? Every theory must be based on a foundation of accepted knowledge; “universal truths” – the GIVEN in the equation. In order to move forward you must make assumptions. Sometimes in order to move forward you have to step back and look at the assumptions again. At come point this “knowledge” becomes codified and accepted. This does not change the theoretical nature of the knowledge – subjective opinion does.
Challenging Einstein is anathema to not only your views but most of modern thought. It is painful to think that the man considered “THE” mind of all time by many could not at least be infallible. Surely, he is correct, right? No discussion about the paradigm would be complete unless we challenged the very paradigm on which it is based.
Regarding the speed of light as a measured phenomenon vs. an “absolute” constant on this matter you are simply mistaken. Einstein was aware of this. The constant “c” is always referenced in a vacuum.
“Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass. The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one*. This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850. When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context they usually mean "the speed of light in a vacuum". This quantity is also referred to as c.” -- source: “The Physics and Relativity FAQ, © 1992--2002 by Scott Chase, Michael Weiss, Philip Gibbs, Chris Hillman, and Nathan Urban.”
Einstein acknowledges both that light is a relative constant and goes on to explain the very necessity that it be relative in order to explain the curvature of light. You will also note that he references it as “the velocity of light in vacuo” – not only does the term “in vacuo” mean he acknowledges that light is a relative constant – he even suggest that it has velocity. Velocity is defined as a rate of change in speed, i.e. not constant.
“…according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity . . . cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. (Source: Albert Einstein: "Relativity: the special and general theory.” 1920.)
Want a real challenge to the paradigm? How about something he didn’t know – how about a study that suggest that over time light slows down?
This is an article about a discovery that light from quasars billions of years old slows down (http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html).
“Energy, Einstein discovered, was equal to mass times the speed of light squared, with the speed of light as a constant in a vacuum such as space. News that the speed of light may not be constant after all does not mean the old theory falls apart altogether, Davies says. The theory of relativity remains good for most situations, just as Newton's laws remained more or less correct after Einstein, except at high speeds or under intense gravity.”
Not surprisingly theoretical physicist are not ALL willing to embrace the study because it invalidates the premise that most modern theoretical physics is based – that nothing can go faster than light. In other words it isn’t so much the validity that is in question, but that it changes the assumptions that they have come to regard as fact… It makes them uncomfortable. It requires a paradigm shift.
"For now, Murphy and Webb's observations of quasars will continue to be scrutinized and be regarded with skepticism. "If they're right, this makes theoretical physicists very uncomfortable," Davies says. "These are cherished laws and they don't really want to have to ditch them, because all of the favored frontier stuff these days, with people working on string theory, M-theory and all these other sexy topics, would have to down tools and start with a completely different conceptual scheme."
"On the other hand, science is made out of iconoclasm. If old theories never got overthrown, we'd all be out of work. So it's always nice to have something that challenges the basic paradigm and this does so with a vengeance."
freak
02-17-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by FallingAlice
Where science is concerned, the devil is in the details and on the details we are still quite spotty.
You mean, like.............global warming? ;)
dropKickMurphy
02-18-2003, 12:16 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NoRespect
You will also note that he references it as “the velocity of light in vacuo” – not only does the term “in vacuo” mean he acknowledges that light is a relative constant – he even suggest that it has velocity. Velocity is defined as a rate of change in speed,i.e. not constant.
I'll admit, it's been over 25 year since I last took a university physics course. I am sure that a lot thas changed in the field since then. Velocity used to be defined as the rate of change of position over time in a particular direction. The absolute value of velocity (ie, without the directional component) was called speed. The rate of change of speed was known as acceleration.
But, like I said, that was a long time ago. Perhaps I am putting too much trust in my own memory, which I seem to remember used to be much better than it is now.
By the way, NR, here's a little piece on the topic of memory that I thought you might find interesting:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=379382
Originally posted by dropKickMurphy: Velocity used to be defined as the rate of change of position over time in a particular direction. The absolute value of velocity (ie, without the directional component) was called speed. The rate of change of speed was known as acceleration. But, like I said, that was a long time ago. Perhaps I am putting too much trust in my own memory, which I seem to remember used to be much better than it is now. By the way, NR, here's a little piece on the topic of memory that I thought you might find interesting:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=379382 [/B]
It still is -- with or without the sarcasm.
You're absolutely right about velocity. I was confusing velocity with acceleration. It is a vector -- the rate and direction of travel. The problem I was having was trying to interpret this statement (with my own emphasis added):
“…according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity . . . cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. "
He does say velocity -- which would imply a change in direction -- and yet he is saying it in order to draw the conclusion that the constancy of the speed of light is not universal. That is ambiguous. I assume now -- looking at it in hindsight -- that by velocity he is saying it takes light longer to travel around black holes, etc. due to the effect of gravity: "time" being the variable. However, that still doesn't explain why he draws a conclusion about speed? Is Einstein also defining velocity incorrectly???
"Velocity of propagation" -- not "ANGLE" of propagation. It would make perfect sense if he said the angle of propagation changes. Can you see where my confusion came from?
You read enough mind-bending analysis of General Relativity and you start to have trouble figuring out which way is up and where you parked the car (in a vacuum of course.) However, my mistake doesn't change the fact that light is still a relative constant, and still may not even be constant in a given medium over time. :p
So just what are you implying with the article on memory? Are you saying that I'm NOT Bugs Bunny? And you ARE? If you are Bugs Bunny how come I'm the one wearing the suit?
For another perspective -- Click here to see this entire thread spoken from the perspective of a Swedish Chef.....hilarious (http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=bork&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patriotsplanet.com%2FBB%2Fsho wthread.php%3Fs%3D%26threadid%3D3300)
Then click on "Dialectize!"
Click here to see this entire thread spoken with a cockney accent (http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=cockney&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patriotsplanet.com%2FBB%2Fsho wthread.php%3Fs%3D%26threadid%3D3300)
Originally posted by FallingAllice
I'm not gonna say too much. Evry geezer knows me political leanings.
All I will say is that these are dark days. Dark days indeed.
And they don't feel as if they'll lift any time soon.
__________________
"Ralph Wiggum lost 'is shinguard! Right! 'ack the bone! Oi! 'ack the chuffin' bone! Oi!" -- Lisa Simpson
Evry geezer!
'ack the chuffin bone....This is too funny. ROFL
Hawg73
02-19-2003, 07:11 PM
I have been reading all these metaphysical dissertations by NR and DKM and my head is spinning a little. I think I'll have to try clicking on that "Dialectization" website and read it redneck style to see if it makes more sense. Now I'm starting to sound like Pookie.
With all due respect to Einstein and all the other major brainiacs who have speculated on physics and existence, I once read a book by Michael Murphy called Golf in the Kingdom in which a golf pro/guru named Shivas Irons speculated that maybe the protagonist wasn't really swinging his golf club. Maybe the golf club was swinging him . I didn't have any idea what that particular piece of psychobabble was alluding to and the next time I was playing golf it hit me.
What if the golf club was actually the only stable point in the universe and the golfer attached to it and the earth itself rotated around the club. What if.........I only really understood it for one brief moment.
It was kind of like when Carl Sagan was explaining how gravity and time all fit together when I was smoking a bone while watching Cosmos one night back in my sordid past. It made sense to me for about a minute and a half and then I started wondering if there were any cheese curls left.
Point of the story is that the whole golf club theory got me so wound up that my next swing missed the ball by about a foot. I was worried that if I lost my grip on the club that the Earth might spin right off it's axis. I eventually settled down and returned to mediocre with occasional flashes of brilliance.
Thanks for the brain food folks, but I need to find those cheese curls.
pookie
02-19-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Hawg73
I have been reading all these metaphysical dissertations by NR and DKM and my head is spinning a little. I think I'll have to try clicking on that "Dialectization" website and read it redneck style to see if it makes more sense. Now I'm starting to sound like Pookie.
With all due respect to Einstein and all the other major brainiacs who have speculated on physics and existence, I once read a book by Michael Murphy called Golf in the Kingdom in which a golf pro/guru named Shivas Irons speculated that maybe the protagonist wasn't really swinging his golf club. Maybe the golf club was swinging him . I didn't have any idea what that particular piece of psychobabble was alluding to and the next time I was playing golf it hit me.
What if the golf club was actually the only stable point in the universe and the golfer attached to it and the earth itself rotated around the club. What if.........I only really understood it for one brief moment.
It was kind of like when Carl Sagan was explaining how gravity and time all fit together when I was smoking a bone while watching Cosmos one night back in my sordid past. It made sense to me for about a minute and a half and then I started wondering if there were any cheese curls left.
Point of the story is that the whole golf club theory got me so wound up that my next swing missed the ball by about a foot. I was worried that if I lost my grip on the club that the Earth might spin right off it's axis. I eventually settled down and returned to mediocre with occasional flashes of brilliance.
Thanks for the brain food folks, but I need to find those cheese curls.
This was a breath of fresh air Hawg. Very funny golf club bit. I enjoyed it and may try it myself, even if it does cause the earth to wobble off it's orbit a hair. I made one sad stab at the political thread, but I won't go there again, as I became one of the "idiots" that invited NEM to go live in the so-called better countries that we had allegedly alienated.
Author unknown
"I won't make one of those idiotic America, love it or leave it comments"
So I'll leave the political and physics stuff to our resident Rhodes Scholars. Every board needs a village idiot I suppose......
dropKickMurphy
02-19-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Hawg73
IThanks for the brain food folks, but I need to find those cheese curls.
In the words of Mike Tyson, it's time for this topic to fade into Bolivian.
By the way, I tried to dialectize some Tyson quotes and ended up frying my motherboard.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.