Triumphant! Bush got it right.

[Hack&Lube]

The point is that the lefties are all preachy but never take any action.

Righties, while reckless and violent, practice what they preach and in the end, are really the ones who change the world, for better or for worse.

"But personally I hope if ever I find myself one of the unfortunate subjects of a totalitarian dictatorship, that it’s Bush and the Republicans who take up my cause rather than the Left."

[sbailey924]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 8 2005, 10:11 PM

I hate to be picky, but this is a pet peeve of mine. You, like many people, have got it all backwards once again. . .

A "theory" is just a premise of a possible result or conclusion that has yet to be proven to be fact. You have to prove a theory to be a fact of life. It's impossible to prove a theory to be false because there are no facts to back up a theory. When a theory has been proven to be true, then it becomes a law (the law of relativity) or a fact. If a theory is proved wrong, it becomes a false assumption.

As it says in the dictionary: A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle, or body of principles, offered to explain a phenomena, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproven assumption (conjecture).

Unfortunately, today we've accepted far too many theories to be fact while fact and reality are largely being ignored. For example, evolution is still a theory because it has yet to be scientifically proven yet in schools we're teaching it like it's a fact. Global warming is a theory yet Kyoto proponents would have us believe it's a fact, and so on, and so on. . .

So, let me repeat it once again: You cannot prove a theory to be false!!!

Actually, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that is understood as fact through research. The theory of evolution has all the scientific research pointing in its direction. One of the requirements for hypothesis to be considered a theory is that it is proven through repeated testing and that the only scientific way to debunk a theory is to experimentally prove it wrong. I encounter a lot of people who disagree with the theory of evolution. Essentially, people who say "evolution is just a theory anyway" typically show they don't know all about the subject with that statement.

A scientific law is something observed with regularity. Gravity and physics are observed constantly, that is why they are laws.

Sorry, I'm a science major...I had to.

[Agamemnon]

The point is that the lefties are all preachy but never take any action.

Its simple, one-sentence phrases like this that make the whole debate not worth arguing. If there's no respect given, then what's the point of replying? Its not discussion, its just statements.

'Righties believe there's a time to think and a time to act, and this is no time to think'. Just because I said it doesn't make it true, and it really detracts from any meaningful exchange of ideas.

Righties, while reckless and violent, practice what they preach and in the end, are really the ones who change the world, for better or for worse.

Uh huh. Lenin and Mao were 'Lefties', and I think the world probably remembers who they are. Kennedy was a Democrat, as was Lyndon Johnson. Hitler was a 'Rightie', and he really changed the world, so I suppose in that sense you're (accidentally) right.

"But personally I hope if ever I find myself one of the unfortunate subjects of a totalitarian dictatorship, that it’s Bush and the Republicans who take up my cause rather than the Left."[/

Another unmanageable, inconsequential, wishful statement meant to propagandize, with seemingly no point or reason.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Mar 9 2005, 10:46 AM
The point is that the lefties are all preachy but never take any action.

Righties, while reckless and violent, practice what they preach and in the end, are really the ones who change the world, for better or for worse.

"But personally I hope if ever I find myself one of the unfortunate subjects of a totalitarian dictatorship, that it’s Bush and the Republicans who take up my cause rather than the Left."

I don't when the last time was that I heard anything so blatantly ignorant.

Europe was essential run by conservatives during the dark ages and they went hundreds of years without change. If not for the advent and gradual acceptance of liberal ideas, there would have been no scientific advancement in western culture, no age of discovery, and no democracy. Conservatives in those days were fighting for maintaining divine monarchies for years until liberal thought prevailed.

In fact, one of the major aspects of conservative ideology is to maintain a societal status quo and avoid change. To conserve. Maybe you should research political ideology before you pick a side.

[Hack&Lube]

I never said that was my personal philosophy. That was the point of the article summed up, the author was saying: "Bush had the wrong reasons but thank God he acted on his gumption and did something, therefore validating a few sentences I wrote here and there so I didn't have to retract all those articles I wrote" + some stuff about coalitions of competing political factions vs centralized and concentrated power turning the tide in the Middle East.

The "righties" referred to the in the article are actually neo-conservatives...or as one of its principals remarked were "liberals who were mugged by reality". Lefties that are faced with the understanding of the human capacity for evil and that leads to Manichaeism (world in a perpetual struggle between good and evil). This is where the affirmative strike, preemptive action come in and the struggle against the new liberalism of isolationism, appeasment, pacifism, etc. They believe that peace, secruity, stability, etc. cannot come from a process. IE: "new liberalism" and "leftist" policies can be faulted by looking at events like the failure of the U.N. to do anything in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 90s.

Maybe you should read the article before you make conclusions about what the right and left mean in context of the discussion. I am however sorry that I was blunt and ambiguous when I first posted it.

Another unmanageable, inconsequential, wishful statement meant to propagandize, with seemingly no point or reason.

In the context of the article. The author is saying that if he gets caught under a totalitarian regime. He'd rather have the Washington neocon political and military complex on his side than the Free Tibet people protesting outside the Chinese Embassy.

Uh huh. Lenin and Mao were 'Lefties', and I think the world probably remembers who they are. Kennedy was a Democrat, as was Lyndon Johnson. Hitler was a 'Rightie', and he really changed the world, so I suppose in that sense you're (accidentally) right.

Again, it's my fault I wasn't clear. I was speaking more in the international relations and foreign policy sense. I would never try to detract from the Civil Rights movement or Johnson's incredible efforts in bringing about this reform. And yes definetely Kennedy was integral to the origins of detente. But in context of the article, lefties doesn't correspond to the social left of the political spectrum, but are more the "new liberals" or constructionists. In fact, many neoconservatives were originally and still associate themselves with the social left.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Mar 9 2005, 06:26 PM
Maybe you should read the article before you make conclusions about what the right and left mean in context of the discussion. I am however sorry that I was blunt and ambiguous when I first posted it.

My fault. :boh:

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Mar 9 2005, 12:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Mar 9 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hack&Lube@Mar 9 2005, 06:26 PM
Maybe you should read the article before you make conclusions about what the right and left mean in context of the discussion. I am however sorry that I was blunt and ambiguous when I first posted it.

My fault. :boh: [/b][/quote]
Mine too
All nighter

I actually wrote a paper about all this about 2 years ago. I have to admit, I really agree with this stream of thought. The U.S. has to make a statement. The 90's were the decade of appeasement, but it also proved that largely, the peace process doesn't work...see Eastern Europe, Isreal/Palestine, etc. Intervention is neccessary and while bloodshed may result, the net gain is better than having nothing done at all.

The entire reason that Al Quada had the time, resources, capacity, and daring to pull of 9/11 was a whole decade of terrorist actions with no severe reprocussions from the US. Sure, Clinton would fire a few cruise missiles into a few tents and huts here and there, the US would try to get centralized goverment leaders to reign in their populations and extremist factions but it didn't work. The author makes a point that "You don’t invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don’t have to invade everywhere else" and that Saddam's continued existence proved America's lack of will to accomplish anything.

These extremists see inaction as a weakness and they will use that weakness to inflict as much pain as possible. Look at all the countries that fell in line after Afghanistan and Iraq. Even Libya went out of it's way to right their relations with the U.S. Then you can make the case that Bush's policies are just creating even more threats, just like Reagan's arms race in that both North Korea and Iran really accelerated their nuclear weapons programs - but these were both in response to American affirmative and preemptive actions. These are desperation moves to protect themselves against American military intervention in their states by blackmailing the world for finances and aid (primarily through the leftist EU). This does however show that the U.S. has shown their force of will. The U.S. knows that even Russia wasn't able to step up to the Nuclear plate, and it bargains that neither Iran nor North Korea will. The nuke cards are just bargaining chips for these states to buy themselves more time because they have nothing left to play with while the Americans could up the ante every time and still win.

As far as the new liberal or leftist policies being feeble, the neocons and their large Jewish base (and yes Wolfowitz) argue that following them is what led to the death of millions in the holocaust. European appeasement of the Nazi regime and the recognization of Hitler let them feel good about themselves "maintaining peace" while turning a blind eye to the slaughter of millions...such like what happened in the Baltic States in the 1990s with a pathetically paralyzed and ineffective U.N. and is happening today in the Sudan. Now this is where I find fault with Washington's policies, they should practice what they preach and intervene in Africa but history shows that action is almost always politically motivated and there is no political impetus for the U.S., already stretched thin to intervene in the Sudan. Times were different when Clinton intervened (too late) in the Bosnia.

Yes, almost everything about Iraq was done badly with poor preplanning and a heavy helping of hubris, but what's done is done and if you look at the brighter side, maybe there is a chance in decades for real change and reform in the middle east. 8 million voters at the price of 2 million deaths is a bloody ghastly price to pay, but the neocons believe that's a decent tradeoff, if it benefits hundreds of millions in the region for decades to come. A change of the guard is happening, take a look at Palastine after Arafat, the reformist factions in Iran, etc. Democracy is about majority rule with minority rights, in opposition to the Arab model of regimes which often favors a minority with rights granted arbitrarily to other groups. Sure the Shia are going to be the majority rules due to the Iraqi election, but minority groups are also represented and that's what makes a political democracy. The author argues that this is what will eventually change the middle east and is already happening as evidenced by Jordan adopting some forms of this model and by the acquiescence of the more dangerous regimes to an American demonstration of force and the continued will to support it despite heavy casualties -> as compared to Rwanda where American pullout was quick after a handful of deaths. Al Quaeda believed they would triumph because of what they saw of Soviet withdrawls in the face of opposition in the 80s and American hesitiation to commitment in the 90s. Bin Laden himself pointed to how much a coward America was, recoiling and retreating like a snake after a few strikes. American, and preferably a coalition force has to bite back or the ghosts of the 20th century will haunt them again. As Lincoln said, "you don't change horses in midstream".

[Sammie]

Originally posted by sbailey924+Mar 9 2005, 09:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sbailey924 @ Mar 9 2005, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Mar 8 2005, 10:11 PM

I hate to be picky, but this is a pet peeve of mine. You, like many people, have got it all backwards once again. . .

A "theory" is just a premise of a possible result or conclusion that has yet to be proven to be fact. You have to prove a theory to be a fact of life. It's impossible to prove a theory to be false because there are no facts to back up a theory. When a theory has been proven to be true, then it becomes a law (the law of relativity) or a fact. If a theory is proved wrong, it becomes a false assumption.

As it says in the dictionary: A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle, or body of principles, offered to explain a phenomena, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproven assumption (conjecture).

Unfortunately, today we've accepted far too many theories to be fact while fact and reality are largely being ignored. For example, evolution is still a theory because it has yet to be scientifically proven yet in schools we're teaching it like it's a fact. Global warming is a theory yet Kyoto proponents would have us believe it's a fact, and so on, and so on. . .

So, let me repeat it once again: You cannot prove a theory to be false!!!

Actually, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that is understood as fact through research. The theory of evolution has all the scientific research pointing in its direction. One of the requirements for hypothesis to be considered a theory is that it is proven through repeated testing and that the only scientific way to debunk a theory is to experimentally prove it wrong. I encounter a lot of people who disagree with the theory of evolution. Essentially, people who say "evolution is just a theory anyway" typically show they don't know all about the subject with that statement.

A scientific law is something observed with regularity. Gravity and physics are observed constantly, that is why they are laws.

Sorry, I'm a science major...I had to. [/b][/quote]
If you changed the word "understood" to "assumed" I might agree with you. Evolution hasn't yet been proven through repeated testing and that is why it remains a theory and is not a fact.

The dictionary says a hypothesis is "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences; an assumption or concession made for the sake of an argument." Being a science major you would know all scientific studies start as a hypothetical theory that must then be proven through a logical process of elimination. If this, then that. . .

Until the 1400s it was believed that the earth was flat. There was no proof to back this belief so it was just a theory that was abandoned as soon as it became obvious the earth was round. It was a theory that the sun rotated around the earth until this too was abandoned once it was learned the earth revolved around the sun. As these two examples show, scientists often get a little too full themselves and proclaim their theories to be fact looooong before all the data has been processed and eliminated.

And please tell me what those people don't know about evolution who say "Evolution is just a theory anyway". Inform the half-wits of the errors of their ways.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 9 2005, 06:52 PM
If you changed the word "understood" to "assumed" I might agree with you. Evolution hasn't yet been proven through repeated testing and that is why it remains a theory and is not a fact.

And please tell me what those people don't know about evolution who say "Evolution is just a theory anyway". Inform the half-wits of the errors of their ways.

"Evolution" is change over time. There are a number of outstanding issues with respect to current theories on some of the specific processes that have driven the evolution of all things on the Earth, but the basic theory of Evolution, I.e. that innumerable small changes carried out over and over again for millions of years have lead to massive changes in the living things that inhabit Earth, has in fact been definitively proven. There are countless studys done where populations of creatures in labs all over the world have undergone changes in response to some external pressures.

The notion that all life on Earth was created as-is a couple thousand years ago has been thoroughly disproven.

What most people don't know about Evolution (particularly with respect to people) is that all Evolution refers to what used in the context of humans is a change in the frequency of a gene in apopulation over time. If, over the course of five generations, the gene for blonde hair goes from 10% to 11% than that population has evolved. The only question left is what drove the evolution -- e.g. natural selection, drift (just random chance) etc.

In order for people to say that human beings have never evolved, they would have to make the argument that there has never been a change in the frequency of any genes in any human population ever, for any reason.

Evolution has been scientifically proven beyond doubt.

Natural selection, the process that gives rise to complexity, has been proven beyond doubt.

As I said earlier, there are still a number of outstanding issues with respect to evolution that science does not yet have answers to, however that doesn't mean science can't find the answers to them.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F@Mar 9 2005, 10:57 PM
"Evolution" is change over time. There are a number of outstanding issues with respect to current theories on some of the specific processes that have driven the evolution of all things on the Earth, but the basic theory of Evolution, I.e. that innumerable small changes carried out over and over again for millions of years have lead to massive changes in the living things that inhabit Earth, has in fact been definitively proven. There are countless studys done where populations of creatures in labs all over the world have undergone changes in response to some external pressures.

The very fact "evolution" is change over time is the reason it's still a theory. There isn't enough recorded history to record, backup, and prove the speculations and assumptions on which the theory of evolution is based.

As far as I'm concerned, it's still a belief and not a fact and chances are good it will never be totally proven in our lifetime, or anyone's lifetime, because the changes occur over such long periods of time.

I'd be more open to speculating on a mixture or combination of the creation and evolution theories.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Sammie+Mar 10 2005, 05:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Mar 10 2005, 05:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Mar 9 2005, 10:57 PM
"Evolution" is change over time. There are a number of outstanding issues with respect to current theories on some of the specific processes that have driven the evolution of all things on the Earth, but the basic theory of Evolution, I.e. that innumerable small changes carried out over and over again for millions of years have lead to massive changes in the living things that inhabit Earth, has in fact been definitively proven. There are countless studys done where populations of creatures in labs all over the world have undergone changes in response to some external pressures.

The very fact "evolution" is change over time is the reason it's still a theory. There isn't enough recorded history to record, backup, and prove the speculations and assumptions on which the theory of evolution is based.

[/b][/quote]
Actually, that is not true. We can observe the principles of evolution in our life time through organisms that have high population generation rates; including bacteria, plants, insects, and even some mammals. When we selectively breed animals for certain traits, we are effectively displaying evolutionary principles by using artifical selection instead of natural selection.