Religions > Atheism > Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD \h.c" |
| Date: |
11 May 2004 12:48:51 AM |
| Object: |
Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
"The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously
enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but
that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it
out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was
wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad,
but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war
occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely
vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies
(like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of
control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't expect
perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions. The
job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the administration's defense
in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to have
allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military so
poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib
was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful combination of
the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have
done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have
risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who
trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right."
-Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_archive.html#108415840160364769
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -771 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
11 May 2004 03:13:58 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:atudnWFlgY7e9D3dRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously
enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but
that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry
it
out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I
was
wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of
Baghdad,
but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war
occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely
vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies
(like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of
control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't
expect
perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions. The
job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the administration's
defense
in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to
have
allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military
so
poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib
was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful combination
of
the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have
done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have
risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who
trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right."
-Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_archive.html#108415840160364769
well put. i've given sullivan props innumerable times, and many of the
leftist just slag him mercilessly.
that's rubbish. sullivan is very right. and he's spot on here
whit
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -771 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
11 May 2004 11:35:51 PM |
|
|
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:2gbg9oFr66hU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:atudnWFlgY7e9D3dRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously
enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible
but
that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to
carry it
out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I
was
wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of
Baghdad,
but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war
occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an
absolutely
vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies
(like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out
of
control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't
expect
perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions.
The
job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the
administration'sdefense
in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to
have
allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military
so
poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu
Ghraib
was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful
combination of
the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have
done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have
risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who
trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right."
-Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_archive.html#108415840160364769
well put. i've given sullivan props innumerable times, and many of the
leftist just slag him mercilessly.
that's rubbish. sullivan is very right. and he's spot on here
He's spot on by saying that he was not spot on before. But then again I'm no
Stephen Moore fundamentalist, I'll take all the rank and file pundits who
realized they've been duped by Bush I can get.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 04:13:53 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:HYWdnQrG0_c6NDzdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:2gbg9oFr66hU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:atudnWFlgY7e9D3dRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take
seriously
enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible
but
that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to
carry it
out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time.
I
was
wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of
Baghdad,
but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war
occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an
absolutely
vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their
allies
(like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span
out
of
control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't
expect
perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions.
The
job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the
administration'sdefense
in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to
have
allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a
military
so
poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu
Ghraib
was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful
combination of
the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who
have
done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who
have
risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who
trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right."
-Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_ar
chive.html#108415840160364769
well put. i've given sullivan props innumerable times, and many of the
leftist just slag him mercilessly.
that's rubbish. sullivan is very right. and he's spot on here
He's spot on by saying that he was not spot on before. But then again I'm
no
Stephen Moore fundamentalist, I'll take all the rank and file pundits who
realized they've been duped by Bush I can get.
Yang
will you "take" the ones who support the invasion?
like sullivan
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 11:07:10 AM |
|
|
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:lVloc.17165$V97.15771@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
will you "take" the ones who support the invasion?
like sullivan
I agree with Sullivan about 45% of the time, which means I'll probably agree
with you 45% of the time. But this is how the world work, I am with you on
things we agree with, and I am against you on things we don't agree with.
Here's the rub. I was against the invasion before, I'm against the invasion.
If the Bushies had actually done their homework and we're not in this mess,
I'll still be againt this invasion. But then no one would have cared what I
say. At some point competence is as important as ideology.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 06:41:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:07:10 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)"
<eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote:
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:lVloc.17165$V97.15771@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
will you "take" the ones who support the invasion?
like sullivan
I agree with Sullivan about 45% of the time, which means I'll probably agree
with you 45% of the time. But this is how the world work, I am with you on
things we agree with, and I am against you on things we don't agree with.
Here's the rub. I was against the invasion before, I'm against the invasion.
If the Bushies had actually done their homework and we're not in this mess,
I'll still be againt this invasion. But then no one would have cared what I
say. At some point competence is as important as ideology.
I agree with Nader probably more than Kerry, but I think Kerry is
vastly more competant than Nader who seems to have a real ego problem.
First qualification to be a leader is to have a lot of maturity.
Unfortunately, immature people have problems perceiving maturity and
the republican party has recently made it their policy to cater to
those people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 03:50:50 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:H5GdnaUm1IMw1j_dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:lVloc.17165$V97.15771@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
will you "take" the ones who support the invasion?
like sullivan
I agree with Sullivan about 45% of the time, which means I'll probably
agree
with you 45% of the time
hmmm...
i don't always agree with sullivan (not even close), so i wouldn't be so
sure.
.. But this is how the world work, I am with you on
things we agree with, and I am against you on things we don't agree with.
Here's the rub. I was against the invasion before, I'm against the
invasion.
If the Bushies had actually done their homework and we're not in this
mess,
I'll still be againt this invasion. But then no one would have cared what
I
say. At some point competence is as important as ideology.
yes. if you are going to do it, do it right (despite what chrissie hynds
says).
it is one thing to be against the invasion, it is another to be against the
invasion AND want us to lose.
the point is that sullivan was FOR the invasion, but has serious problems
with our execution, especially of the occupation.
what i find disingenuous (and not from you) is that when i posted linx to
sullivan's blog etc. sullivan was (among other things):
a shill, a puppet, and all sorts of other bad stuff, merely because he had a
different POV. that's retarded.
now, that he's saying things that some of these people like, all of a sudden
he's smart, etc.
the point is that sullivan has always been smart, well informed, and makes
good arguments, whether one agrees with him or not.
but for some people, being smart, well informed, and making good arguments
is only possible if that person agrees with you.
THAT is stupid, and arrogant.
and that is what i deride
for example, i disagree with nearly everything :) david corn, or eric
alterman believe in. however, i think they are both very smart, pretty fair
minded, and make good arguments.
because they do.
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
whit
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 06:39:56 PM |
|
|
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times. It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb, but I do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 06:59:54 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:NLOdnchSNpBXKD_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times. It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb, but I
do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
well props to you, then.
you are in the honorable, honest few - in usenet
whit
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
13 May 2004 11:31:54 PM |
|
|
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:_Tyoc.18134$Hs1.13004@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:NLOdnchSNpBXKD_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times.
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb, but
I
do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
well props to you, then.
you are in the honorable, honest few - in usenet
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I am not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again". Many
scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken claim and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the wrong-in his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have destroyed his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question "what was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why I
think I should walk what I talk.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
14 May 2004 01:10:52 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:KJudnVgTTqEl1jndRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:_Tyoc.18134$Hs1.13004@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:NLOdnchSNpBXKD_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit
that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and
at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times.
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb,
but
I
do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one
of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
well props to you, then.
you are in the honorable, honest few - in usenet
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I am
not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again".
but in many cases, not without years of bald denial, ridicule of
innovation/innovator, etc.
don't get me wrong, i believe in the scientific method (part of which is
skeptical scientists) but igf you don't think the SM is severely tainted by
Scientists with an Agenda (tm) you are seriously way too naive.
Politics plays an immense part, as does cognitive dissonance (once
scientists get wedded to an idea, they become just as dogmatic as many
religious people in accepting the possibility of contrary theory)
religion is certainly self-correcting too. just as science has gone through
paradigm shifts (copernican revolution) etc, so has religion (reformation,
etc.)
Many
scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken claim and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the wrong-in
his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have destroyed
his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
and many religious people have done the same. it's called CONVERSION, for
example.
thje difference is that religion is ultimately based on faith, and science
is not
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question "what
was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why I
think I should walk what I talk.
it was political. he's apolitician. and he knew damn well he has made
mistakes, and he also knew that whatever he admitted would become campaign
ad fodder for the opposition.
kerry, nader, etc. would probably do the same. politics is politics. it
sux
whit
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
15 May 2004 06:11:27 AM |
|
|
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:MpZoc.19714$Hs1.9492@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I am
not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again".
but in many cases, not without years of bald denial, ridicule of
innovation/innovator, etc.
don't get me wrong, i believe in the scientific method (part of which is
skeptical scientists) but igf you don't think the SM is severely tainted
by
Scientists with an Agenda (tm) you are seriously way too naive.
Politics plays an immense part, as does cognitive dissonance (once
scientists get wedded to an idea, they become just as dogmatic as many
religious people in accepting the possibility of contrary theory)
religion is certainly self-correcting too. just as science has gone
through
paradigm shifts (copernican revolution) etc, so has religion (reformation,
etc.)
I don't dispute that scientists may have their own agendas and that it could
be imperfect but it is in my opinion the best we have. As for religion being
self-correcting, I would argue that religion does not self-correct as it
does fragment. To use the example above, if science were to be
"self-correcting" the way Latin Christianity was during the Reformation,
then half the scientists today would still believe that the Sun revolves
around the earth (and insist that their children should not correspond nor
marry those believe otherwise). A paradigm shift in science typically causes
everyone to acknowlege the new paradigm, you simply do not see that in
religion.
And yes, you do have dogmatic scientsts, Fred Hoyle is still reportedly
sticking to his steady state theory of the universe while everyone else has
gone on to accept the Big Bang theory, but that underscores my point- once
the paradigm shift happens, the process is pretty rapid in science.
Many scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken
claim and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the wrong-in
his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have destroyed
his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
and many religious people have done the same. it's called CONVERSION, for
example.
Fair enough, I acknowledge this point.
thje difference is that religion is ultimately based on faith, and science
is not
It is my opinion that faith is not sufficient. Bush is incompetent not
because he lacks faith but because he is incompetent. Faith does not move
mountains, proper planning and engineering competence do.
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question "what
was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why I
think I should walk what I talk.
it was political. he's apolitician. and he knew damn well he has made
mistakes, and he also knew that whatever he admitted would become campaign
ad fodder for the opposition.
kerry, nader, etc. would probably do the same. politics is politics. it
sux
What about Bush Sr? Remember how he apologized about going back on his "no
new tax" pledge? I think his pledge was stupid to began with, but at least
he took his words seriously. Or Janet Reno, who at 911 simply said that they
were not paying a lot of attention on Al Qaeda for the simple fact that they
were more concerned with domestic terrorism (remmeber Oklahoma City?). No
finger pointing, no deflection of responsibilities. I will argue that some
politicians have more integrity than others.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "teamCaldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
15 May 2004 04:32:06 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:XaCdnf2146dDZzjdRVn-hA@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:MpZoc.19714$Hs1.9492@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I
am
not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again".
but in many cases, not without years of bald denial, ridicule of
innovation/innovator, etc.
don't get me wrong, i believe in the scientific method (part of which is
skeptical scientists) but igf you don't think the SM is severely tainted
by
Scientists with an Agenda (tm) you are seriously way too naive.
Politics plays an immense part, as does cognitive dissonance (once
scientists get wedded to an idea, they become just as dogmatic as many
religious people in accepting the possibility of contrary theory)
religion is certainly self-correcting too. just as science has gone
through
paradigm shifts (copernican revolution) etc, so has religion
(reformation,
etc.)
I don't dispute that scientists may have their own agendas
see: PCRM (not that many real scientist would consider MD's to be doctors
but i digress)
and that it could
be imperfect but it is in my opinion the best we have.
sure it is. but my point is, the problem isn't with the method, it's with
those USING the method - human beings. with all our warts and foibles
As for religion being
self-correcting, I would argue that religion does not self-correct as it
does fragment. To use the example above, if science were to be
"self-correcting" the way Latin Christianity was during the Reformation,
then half the scientists today would still believe that the Sun revolves
around the earth (and insist that their children should not correspond nor
marry those believe otherwise). A paradigm shift in science typically
causes
everyone to acknowlege the new paradigm, you simply do not see that in
religion.
but the modifications in behaviors relating to religion are pretty
universal.
an example is that we don't see any more inquisitions among christians, and
we won't.
And yes, you do have dogmatic scientsts, Fred Hoyle is still reportedly
sticking to his steady state theory of the universe while everyone else
has
gone on to accept the Big Bang theory, but that underscores my point- once
the paradigm shift happens, the process is pretty rapid in science.
i don't disagree.
the problem is MAKING the PS happen.
Many scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken
claim and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the
wrong-in
his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts
an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically
conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have
destroyed
his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
and many religious people have done the same. it's called CONVERSION,
for
example.
Fair enough, I acknowledge this point.
thje difference is that religion is ultimately based on faith, and
science
is not
It is my opinion that faith is not sufficient. Bush is incompetent not
because he lacks faith but because he is incompetent. Faith does not move
mountains, proper planning and engineering competence do.
i am not going to get into a "does faith move mountains" or not thang.
but i am showing the fundamental difference between religion and science.
religion is ultimately based on faith. science is not
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question
"what
was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked
point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why
I
think I should walk what I talk.
it was political. he's apolitician. and he knew damn well he has made
mistakes, and he also knew that whatever he admitted would become
campaign
ad fodder for the opposition.
kerry, nader, etc. would probably do the same. politics is politics.
it
sux
What about Bush Sr? Remember how he apologized about going back on his "no
new tax" pledge?
yes. and i also remember how it was used against him. and i think bush jr.
remembers this as well
I think his pledge was stupid to began with, but at least
he took his words seriously. Or Janet Reno, who at 911 simply said that
they
were not paying a lot of attention on Al Qaeda for the simple fact that
they
were more concerned with domestic terrorism (remmeber Oklahoma City?).
reno is an appointee, and not running for the highest office in the land.
much easier for her to fall on her sword.
No
finger pointing, no deflection of responsibilities. I will argue that some
politicians have more integrity than others.
of course they do. i also acknowledge that imo kerry (and most other
politicians) would have similarly hedged when asked the same question, given
the political circ's.
look at kerry. he claims to be against gay marriage (which is an obvious
political lie), and won't admit to being a liberal (because he thinks it
will hurt his chances. kennedy, otoh, wouldn't have the same problem,
because he knows his constituency, just like kerry does)
it's politics.
whit
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
18 May 2004 03:26:12 AM |
|
|
"teamCaldwell" <TeamCaldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:q%vpc.1702$SZ4.1410@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
but the modifications in behaviors relating to religion are pretty
universal.
an example is that we don't see any more inquisitions among christians,
and
we won't.
I like to think so.
It is my opinion that faith is not sufficient. Bush is incompetent not
because he lacks faith but because he is incompetent. Faith does not
move
mountains, proper planning and engineering competence do.
i am not going to get into a "does faith move mountains" or not thang.
but i am showing the fundamental difference between religion and science.
religion is ultimately based on faith. science is not
Fair enough.
What about Bush Sr? Remember how he apologized about going back on his
"no
new tax" pledge?
yes. and i also remember how it was used against him. and i think bush
jr.
remembers this as well
I think his pledge was stupid to began with, but at least
he took his words seriously. Or Janet Reno, who at 911 simply said that
they
were not paying a lot of attention on Al Qaeda for the simple fact that
they
were more concerned with domestic terrorism (remmeber Oklahoma City?).
reno is an appointee, and not running for the highest office in the land.
much easier for her to fall on her sword.
But she didn't have to, and she has political aspiration of her own.
of course they do. i also acknowledge that imo kerry (and most other
politicians) would have similarly hedged when asked the same question,
given
the political circ's.
look at kerry. he claims to be against gay marriage (which is an obvious
political lie), and won't admit to being a liberal (because he thinks it
will hurt his chances. kennedy, otoh, wouldn't have the same problem,
because he knows his constituency, just like kerry does)
Fair enough.
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "teamCaldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
18 May 2004 04:26:55 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:U4CdnSEBlfk4VTTdRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"teamCaldwell" <TeamCaldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:q%vpc.1702$SZ4.1410@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
but the modifications in behaviors relating to religion are pretty
universal.
an example is that we don't see any more inquisitions among christians,
and
we won't.
I like to think so.
"nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
It is my opinion that faith is not sufficient. Bush is incompetent not
because he lacks faith but because he is incompetent. Faith does not
move
mountains, proper planning and engineering competence do.
i am not going to get into a "does faith move mountains" or not thang.
but i am showing the fundamental difference between religion and
science.
religion is ultimately based on faith. science is not
Fair enough.
although some philosophers of science will wank on about how even science is
ULTiMATELY faith based and talk about the experimental process requiring a
priori faith in certain concepts and methods, etc. but you get my point
What about Bush Sr? Remember how he apologized about going back on his
"no
new tax" pledge?
yes. and i also remember how it was used against him. and i think bush
jr.
remembers this as well
I think his pledge was stupid to began with, but at least
he took his words seriously. Or Janet Reno, who at 911 simply said
that
they
were not paying a lot of attention on Al Qaeda for the simple fact
that
they
were more concerned with domestic terrorism (remmeber Oklahoma City?).
reno is an appointee, and not running for the highest office in the
land.
much easier for her to fall on her sword.
But she didn't have to, and she has political aspiration of her own.
let me just say that i am suspecting she was given some sort of political
IOU type thing for taking some blame.
rub my back and all. that's just politics
of course they do. i also acknowledge that imo kerry (and most other
politicians) would have similarly hedged when asked the same question,
given
the political circ's.
look at kerry. he claims to be against gay marriage (which is an
obvious
political lie), and won't admit to being a liberal (because he thinks it
will hurt his chances. kennedy, otoh, wouldn't have the same problem,
because he knows his constituency, just like kerry does)
Fair enough.
Yang
i can live with that.
one thing i like to stress in my belief is that politicians (regarldes of
ideology - left, right, whatever) are first and foremost POLITICIANS, second
of all HUMANS, and thirdly representative of their belief systems.
which is why i don't take the atrocious behavior of so many repub
politicians as indictments of their ideology, any more than i would for
dems.
for example, i believe in 'family values" as trite as it sounds. it would
be NICE if the politicians who espoused same all 'practiced what they
preached". but that is a pipe dream.
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
14 May 2004 08:42:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:10:52 GMT, "Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net>
wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:KJudnVgTTqEl1jndRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:_Tyoc.18134$Hs1.13004@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:NLOdnchSNpBXKD_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit
that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and
at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times.
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb,
but
I
do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one
of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
well props to you, then.
you are in the honorable, honest few - in usenet
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I am
not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again".
but in many cases, not without years of bald denial, ridicule of
innovation/innovator, etc.
don't get me wrong, i believe in the scientific method (part of which is
skeptical scientists) but igf you don't think the SM is severely tainted by
Scientists with an Agenda (tm) you are seriously way too naive.
Politics plays an immense part, as does cognitive dissonance (once
scientists get wedded to an idea, they become just as dogmatic as many
religious people in accepting the possibility of contrary theory)
religion is certainly self-correcting too. just as science has gone through
paradigm shifts (copernican revolution) etc, so has religion (reformation,
etc.)
How does rewriting your own religion to align with popular paradigm
correct it? Sometimes this made it more bloody or more senseless.
Religion is not supposed to be what you want to believe but what God
has commanded. Kind of self defeating to change it to something you
like better.
Scientific findings on the other hand must conform to the basic creed
of scientific method (whether or not agendas temporarily divert it)
which has not changed since it was first discovered.
Many
scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken claim and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the wrong-in
his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have destroyed
his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
and many religious people have done the same. it's called CONVERSION, for
example.
thje difference is that religion is ultimately based on faith, and science
is not
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question "what
was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why I
think I should walk what I talk.
it was political. he's apolitician. and he knew damn well he has made
mistakes, and he also knew that whatever he admitted would become campaign
ad fodder for the opposition.
kerry, nader, etc. would probably do the same. politics is politics. it
sux
A real leader admits his mistakes and tries to mitigate the damage. A
fake leader apologizes that something happened and does nothing.
Kerry certainly has admitted to making mistakes - like claims he made
when young about Vietnam. Clinton admitted to making mistakes, I'm
sure the list goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "teamCaldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
14 May 2004 04:03:30 PM |
|
|
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40d0ca11.775571312@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:10:52 GMT, "Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net>
wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:KJudnVgTTqEl1jndRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:_Tyoc.18134$Hs1.13004@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:NLOdnchSNpBXKD_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit
that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a
partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet,
and
at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few
times.
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb,
but
I
do
it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not
one
of
those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
well props to you, then.
you are in the honorable, honest few - in usenet
I probably can stand to be more "honorable". This is the reason why I
am
not
religious- The power of modern science comes from its self-correcting
mechanism, for every one of its flawed pradigms- phrenology, alchemy,
geocentrism, the practitioners of science have enough intelligence and
integrity to say: "Gee, that doesn't sound right, lets try again".
but in many cases, not without years of bald denial, ridicule of
innovation/innovator, etc.
don't get me wrong, i believe in the scientific method (part of which is
skeptical scientists) but igf you don't think the SM is severely tainted
by
Scientists with an Agenda (tm) you are seriously way too naive.
Politics plays an immense part, as does cognitive dissonance (once
scientists get wedded to an idea, they become just as dogmatic as many
religious people in accepting the possibility of contrary theory)
religion is certainly self-correcting too. just as science has gone
through
paradigm shifts (copernican revolution) etc, so has religion
(reformation,
etc.)
How does rewriting your own religion to align with popular paradigm
correct it? Sometimes this made it more bloody or more senseless.
Religion is not supposed to be what you want to believe but what God
has commanded. Kind of self defeating to change it to something you
like better.
it is not a matter of what somebody likes better. it is a matter of what
works.
and for fundamentalists, who think every word of the bible was written BY
GOD, this is an impossibility. for others, it is not
Scientific findings on the other hand must conform to the basic creed
of scientific method (whether or not agendas temporarily divert it)
which has not changed since it was first discovered.
as i said. that does not discount the fact that scientists have often been
just as small-minded, dismissive of evidence, and agenda driven as anybody
else.
nobody is deriding the scientific method. heck, i eat it for breakfast
every day. it is a hyoooge part of my life. but scientists are human, and
the scientific method does not exist without human's USING it. and they are
fallible, prejudiced, stupid, close minded, agenda driven, dishonest (even
fabricating data) etc.
Many
scientists have staked their professional careers on a mistaken claim
and
have enough personal integrity to accept that they were in the wrong-in
his
book "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip Thorne of Cal Tech recounts an
instance of his fellow Soviet theortical physicist publically conceding
defeat to him even though such a public concession could have destroyed
his
life in authoritarian Russia. That is the kind of people I look up to.
and many religious people have done the same. it's called CONVERSION,
for
example.
thje difference is that religion is ultimately based on faith, and
science
is not
This is also why when Bush could not honestly answer the question "what
was
the biggest foreign policy mistake he had made" when he was asked point
blank about it he has earned my further contempt. And this is also why
I
think I should walk what I talk.
it was political. he's apolitician. and he knew damn well he has made
mistakes, and he also knew that whatever he admitted would become
campaign
ad fodder for the opposition.
kerry, nader, etc. would probably do the same. politics is politics. it
sux
A real leader admits his mistakes and tries to mitigate the damage.
that's a nice sentiment, but i live in the real world (tm) and i hardly see
it probable that kerry (for example) wouldn't have done the same.
it's politics. much like kerry claiming ot be against gay marriage. it's a
political lie. and exceptionally common, among politicians
A
fake leader apologizes that something happened and does nothing.
Kerry certainly has admitted to making mistakes - like claims he made
when young about Vietnam. Clinton admitted to making mistakes, I'm
sure the list goes on.
sure it does.
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
12 May 2004 09:52:16 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times.
Done that a few times arguing with far right clowns myself.
Now, I have learned. I get my facts straight before I post.
Thank "Bob" for google. And after arguing for a few years, you learn the
facts, at least well enough to know one is getting in over one's head.
Oops! Time to go do some googling before hitting "send".
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb, but I
do it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one
of those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Caldwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Jumping Off Bush's Sinking Ship, Part V (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?) |
13 May 2004 04:39:43 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:40a2f8c2$0$17091$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
"Caldwell" <Caldwell@home.net> wrote in message
news:K6woc.17595$V97.16929@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you will have a hard time getting a partisan ninny to ever admit that
the
other side is worthy of respect, in the way i am talking about.
that is one of the best signs that you are dealing with a partisan
ideologue
who has entrenched double standards.
That's something I learned. I'm pretty confrontational on usenet, and at
time I realize I'm flat out wrong and I had to eat crow a few times.
Done that a few times arguing with far right clowns myself.
i've seen it in far left and far right clowns.
Now, I have learned. I get my facts straight before I post.
Thank "Bob" for google. And after arguing for a few years, you learn the
facts, at least well enough to know one is getting in over one's head.
Oops! Time to go do some googling before hitting "send".
i'm not interested in arguing. i'm interested in discussion
whit
It's
not a pleasant experience given how you put yourself out on a limb, but
I
do it just so I can say to myself at the end of the day that I'm not one
of those peple who can't acknowledge their own mistakes.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
