Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

What You Expected, What You Got

What You Expected:

Whopper

What You Got…


Ultdblwhop

What you Expected:

Starwars

What you Got:

Jarjar

What you Expected:

Apple

What you Got:

Windows


What you Expected:

Algore

What you Got:

Bush

The next: What You Expected, What You Got.

What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • roz

    “But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”

    Actually, you did start it, at least with me:

    ““They say Fiscal Responsibility but they run up huge budget deficits and create all kinds of give-away earmarks. ”

    You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.””

  • roz

    “I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.

    The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.”

    Yes, I understood that, but from the perspective of an Iraqi what difference does it make? People thought that the invasion itself would have these affects, well in fact, because the conditions over the time since the invasion have been so unstable, that affect, refugees and displacement did take place.

    Were some people too gloomy about the direct reaction to the invasion, yes.

    Were the overall affects of the war the same, pretty much.

    That is why I think the time after the invasion was so critical to get stability. For that we’d have needed more troops and cooperation of the Iraqi forces, which from what I have seen was available in some form.

    “Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. ”

    I’d think you really need to show some evidence for this assumption. All reports that I have seen refer to people leaving based on fear of a direct and immediate bodily treat to staying. Not anything to do with Pelosi or Reid.

    “Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.”

    Wait thats the low number. The high number is 650K. But 85 -100K is not at all controversial or absurd.

  • UrbanBard

    thebob said:
    “”UrbanBard wrote
    ““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”

    Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”

    But, what if those expatations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’

    “Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”

    You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.

    “It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.”

    We aren’t talking about things that give bad results. Manic compulsive behavior gives bad results.

    “UrbanBard wrote
    Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.”

    Read the above carefully.”

    What you do not accept and Popper did is that there is a huge amounts of our lives where no proof is yet possible. What we must do instead is to propose a theory and then look for examples where people experimented on themselves in this way. If they got bad results, then we should consider caution. Socialism after a few decades, for instance, has only given bad results.

    “I agree that some things are not falsifiable.
    But falsification, by definition denies the things reality.”

    That is idiotic. What falsification does is to imagine the conditions whereby we could reasonably see if things were untrue. If we experimented and then did not get the right results, then something wrong with our theory. People, even scientists, have believed in things that turned out to be untrue.

    “So it would not be in the set of “real” things if it were falsified.”

    You are using this in a false way.

    http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

    “Or perhaps you can falsify it’s “thingyness”.
    If its not a thing, it can’t be a real “thing”.”

    It doesn’t have to be a thing. It can be a concept, a method or a precept that can be falsified.

    “UrbanBard wrote
    “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?

    Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”

    The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.

    You clearly know nothing about politics.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    ““But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”

    Actually, you did start it, at least with me:”

    Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.
    It’s no excuse, but maybe I confused you with another poster?

    I’m too tired to verify that. I’m rather certain that I could find someplace where you were ill mannered. Your attitude was always presumptuous. No poster here was ever been neutral, let alone courteous, except for jdoc. I would have remembered.

    I said, in that one instance, I was wrong, that what I had meant was the deficit. I had a mental lapse. It happens when you are tired.

    The games that the government plays with the national Debt is mystifying. The unfunded liabilities of the Federal government are enormous. The Democrats are opposed to any solutions; they just want to spend more money.

    Where are your apologies for the may time you were wrong?

  • UrbanBard

    “”I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.

    The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.”

    Yes, I understood that, but from the perspective of an Iraqi what difference does it make? ”

    Quite a bit. We are fighting the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq. This has ramifications on the refugee situation.

    We could have easily used other means in Iraq than trying to set up representative government. We could have broken Iraq up. We could have turned Iraq over to a strongman who would have been on our side. The results of each would be a different number and constituent of the refugees.

    The refugee situation is because we have tried to keep the Shia, Sunni’s and Kurds from each other throats. But, the Sunni’s have no reason to believe us.

    “People thought that the invasion itself would have these affects, well in fact, because the conditions over the time since the invasion have been so unstable, that affect, refugees and displacement did take place.”

    I remember that, after Baghdad fell, people were amazed that the Iraqi population did not flee. Can you explain that?

    “Were some people too gloomy about the direct reaction to the invasion, yes.”

    You can be wrong either way. The question is if you know what you are talking about and why.

    “Were the overall affects of the war the same, pretty much.”

    No. They can have the same result, but for different reasons.

    “That is why I think the time after the invasion was so critical to get stability. For that we’d have needed more troops and cooperation of the Iraqi forces, which from what I have seen was available in some form.”

    We disagree. You are imagining falsely that there were Iraqi forces that we could work with. We had to be very careful with the Ex- Ba’athists. If the bulk of the population saw us favor them– simply because they were the educated class, then the population would have turned on us. The Ex-Ba’athist had to prove that they did not want a return to Saddam’s regime. That takes time.

    “”Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. ”

    I’d think you really need to show some evidence for this assumption.”

    Are you saying that you didn’t hear the Democrats saying in the 2006 election that they wanted an immediate withdrawal of American Forces or that Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost?

    Have you been in some cave somewhere?

    “All reports that I have seen refer to people leaving based on fear of a direct and immediate bodily treat to staying. ”

    Yes, but from whom? Not from the US forces. They were afraid of the Shia majority, with good reason. Iran was trying, last year, to provoke a civil war between the Sunni’s and the Shia.

    “Not anything to do with Pelosi or Reid.”

    You don’t really believe that the Mainstream Media would draw this conclusion or report statements from Iraqis who did? You can’t read between the lines, can you?

    “”Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.”

    Wait thats the low number. The high number is 650K. But 85 -100K is not at all controversial or absurd.”

    There is nothing I can say that would convince you. It doesn’t matter that the burden of proof is on the people reporting the statistics.

    It doesn’t matter anyway. Wars kill people. But, Saddam was killing more people than what you are citing. Between 20 to 30 thousand people “disappeared” every year. 300 thousand “Marsh Arabs” displaced or killed. Iraq was filled with unmarked graves in the desert. But, that was okay, wasn’t it? Saddam can do no wrong.

  • thebob

    UrbanBard said
    “But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”
    ros said
    Actually, you did start it, at least with me:

    I agree ros. UrbanBard should review his posts, but I wouldn’t hold your breath for an apology in here.

  • thebob

    UrbanBard said
    Roz said:
    ““But I did not start the derogatory remarks here.”

    Actually, you did start it, at least with me:”

    Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.
    It’s no excuse, but maybe I confused you with another poster?

    I stand corrected, my previous post was posted, before I read UrbanBard ‘s apology.
    Sorry to UrbanBard.

  • UrbanBard

    Look, thebob,

    I don’t know who is right and don’t care. I said that if it were so, that I apologize.

    There are just some things not worth arguing over. When who offended whom is one of them. There were enough insults going around. I would prefer to be polite. I started out being that way and found that it didn’t work.

    What is an insult is highly subjective. I asked for Roz to stop the insults, because he was calling me a neocon and I am not one. He turned me down. That was before I started calling him an idiot and an ignoramus.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).”

    OOh very mature comment!

    I can just imagine the happy house.

    jdoc “Now go to bed and say your prayers”

    jdocs kid “But daddy I’m an athiest”

    jdoc “None of that you are a Christian child, you will go to school where we will teach you everything that is in the old book, otherwise you will go to hell”

    jdocs kid “but daddy Jesus was a Jew, they dont go to heaven because they aren’t Christians”

    jdoc “Of course he wasn’t, just go to bed and let me worry about what you believe in, and by the time you are old enough, you will have had enough indoctrination so you wont be able to make up your own mind.

    jdocs kid “ But daddy…(insert any obvious contradiction from the Bible)”

    jdoc “Thats enough of that, go to bed now do 10 Hail Marys and drink the blood of christ.”

  • thebob

    jdoc
    ““No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Again, completely lacking the ability to understand the subject at hand, and again completely unwilling to learn anything about it.”

    We have given more than enough info, to let anyone look it up themselves, and realise the depth of your convolutions.

    jdoc
    ““Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.” Again, you lack understanding. You cannot convince someone to have faith- that comes from within. You can present, in this case, the teachings of Christianity to someone. Whether or not they will have faith is up to them. Like I said before, my Christian duty is to present the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m not out to say ‘believe in his teachings or you will die’. That’s clearly what you think- fanatical Christians, militant Islamists- they’re all the same to you.”

    Theists are all the same to me, they all believe in an imaginary diety.

    As to their ardor, I expect they cover the whole range from, a bit deluded, to “You must set all your women in blocks of concrete, and if you dont all your extremities will be burnt off with acid except for your middle fingers which will be boiled in asses milk.

    jdoc said
    “I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said that you’re basically an expert in the books listed above. I wholeheartedly doubt that, so it gave me no reason to review the teachings of the Bible with you, when you are apparently so resistent and closed minded. You were the one who launched an attack on my faith- I was merely attempting to teach you, not convert you.”

    Go and reread your “benefit of the doubt”.

    I’m very openminded, but I dont believe things for no reason, and I cannot accept the authority of an old book.

    You said you are tolerant of all religions, but you have no tolerence of people with no religion. You label them closed minded.

  • thebob

    jdoc
    “I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour”- pot, meet kettle. A bit hypocritical, no?

    I have been very vocal in my disagreement of your beliefs, the way you have argued, and the spurious links you gave to try and support some of your arguments, but attacking your person?

    Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,

    You even pulled me up about my spelling!

    You have constantly in this thread, claimed authority instead of using logic and cold hard facts. First you are a doctor, then your field, even the hospital is named for a homeopath all the way to justifying a slur, because you have a child. If I am immature, I leave it for others to judge.

    This is an anonymous forum on the Internet, the only thing that has any sway in here is your intellect.

  • jdoc

    thebob: jdoc wrote
    ““thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).””

    OOh very mature comment!

    I can just imagine the happy house.

    jdoc “Now go to bed and say your prayers”

    jdocs kid “But daddy I’m an athiest”

    jdoc “None of that you are a Christian child, you will go to school where we will teach you everything that is in the old book, otherwise you will go to hell”

    jdocs kid “but daddy Jesus was a Jew, they dont go to heaven because they aren’t Christians”

    jdoc “Of course he wasn’t, just go to bed and let me worry about what you believe in, and by the time you are old enough, you will have had enough indoctrination so you wont be able to make up your own mind.

    jdocs kid “ But daddy…(insert any obvious contradiction from the Bible)”

    jdoc “Thats enough of that, go to bed now do 10 Hail Marys and drink the blood of christ.”” You are correct, it was a very immature comment, and I apologize. But clearly I was right. Your comments are actually very offensive to me and my family, and of course my religion. Very poor debate skills, and it also clearly shows that your ignorance has gotten the best of your conscience.

    thebob: “You said you are tolerant of all religions, but you have no tolerence of people with no religion. You label them closed minded.” Wrong again. I labeled YOU close minded. I am tolerant of atheists as well. You claimed to be an expert on, among other books, the Bible, but clearly you aren’t. I suggested you reread the Bible, but your comments suggested that you had no need to. That’s closed minded.

    “Theists are all the same to me, they all believe in an imaginary diety.” We believe that our diety is real. Who’s the intolerant one?

    “Go and reread your “benefit of the doubt”.” Ok. Any questions?

    “I’m very openminded”. You certainly have not proven that thus far.

    “but I dont believe things for no reason, and I cannot accept the authority of an old book.” In short, you have no idea what faith means, nor are you willing to consider a faith driven life as acceptable or reasonable. Closed minded and ignorant (I think there’s a pattern developing here.)

    Since you have become downright offensive with your comments, I’ve lost the interest in debating with you. Clearly you are hopeless to this point in even considering the other side of things, so I’m wasting my time. I will pray for you though.

  • jdoc

    thebob: I’ve read your comments via email- it hasn’t shown up here yet.

    “Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,

    You even pulled me up about my spelling!

    You have constantly in this thread, claimed authority instead of using logic and cold hard facts. First you are a doctor, then your field, even the hospital is named for a homeopath all the way to justifying a slur, because you have a child. If I am immature, I leave it for others to judge.”

    So lets see here. I’ve given you a loose explanation of ESC uses in modern medicine, tried to explain that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, and tried to define the relative ‘potency’ of stem cells, and the best you can come up with is “If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Of course ESC’s are pluripotent- anyone can look that up on Wikipedia and see. You lack the understanding of the subject- the use of ESC in modern medicine, and you lack the knowledge to understand how the ‘potencies’ can change. The problem is, you refuse to admit that- that’s called arrogance, hence the statement by me, “your arrogance precedes you”.

    Anyone can search the internet for ‘useful’ or ‘true’ medical concepts, treatments, etc. But if it were that easy to learn medicine, everyone would do it.

    I then make a statement (opinion) which claims that stem cells may not be the wave of the future. You attack that as well, with no apparent basis of understanding. Again, ignorance.

    “I have been very vocal in my disagreement of your beliefs, the way you have argued, and the spurious links you gave to try and support some of your arguments, but attacking your person?”. I think the above comment will take care of that one. I gave you a link to the accredited site of Chiropractic medicine (yes, you need a license to practice Chiropractic medicine in the US), and to a CAM website. I gave you detailed info on CAM and their uses in GYN. Yet to you, they’re spurious.

    “Lets look at what you called me in the first sentence of your last post. If that is my mental level, you don’t seem to be able to, point out flaws in my logic, so where does that leave you? You even attempted to claim authority to say it. Even though no one can check if you have a child or not. Anyone can reread this thread,”. Again I apologize for that comment. Your logic IS flawed, simply based on your ignorance and arrogance- I’ve proven that over and over.

    My info: http://homepage.mac.com/jdougherty/johnswork/Resume26.html

    My family: http://web.mac.com/jdougherty/Emma/Welcome.html

    Sorry for the confusion.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    ” will pray for you though.”

    If you want to waste time on me I’d prefer if you donate that time to a needy cause.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “Interestingly enough, morning lecture today was about Alternative Medicine (God must be watching!).
    I’ll give you some info, and if you’re interested, you can look things up at your leisure.
    Speaker: Jackie Gutmann, MD, from Northern Fertility and Reproductive Associates, Phila, Pa. Yale grad.
    Title: “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in GYN- a Look at the Evidence”
    Stats: Since 1998, there has been a 47% increase in Americans seeking alternative therapies
    -accounted for 629 million office visits since 2005
    -most common alternative remedy in US- traditional Chinese medicine, of which acupuncture is the most common (www.nccaom.com)
    -Homeopathy- 204 remediesf for infertility, 166 for miscarriage, many of which are not used any longer.
    -former “alternative remedies”: digoxin, Taxol, botox, ephedra (respiratory use), penicillin, vitamin B6 (used for hyperemesis in pregnancy), ginger, vitamin C, Ginseng, Echinacea, Omega-3 FA, fish oil, black cohash, hyperbaric O2 chambers, TENS units, dietary remedies, osteopathic medicine, many others.
    The people who kept an open mind about alternative remedies gave us some of the most widely used and effective therapies today. Most current alternative remedies have not been studied by my colleagues, but acceptance of alternative remedies in this country is still in its infancy. I would expect much more to come in the future, as long as we keep an open mind!”

    This is a Mac advocacy forum and you are saying because it’s very popular it works better than real medicine? Go and buy Vista, it must be better, more people use it. (Now that was rude)

    I will sell you a bottle of distilled water, it must be the most powerful medicine in the world, because there is absolutely no active ingredient in it at all. Want to buy some leeches?

    You realize this is illegal in some countries that actually have functional health systems. In others it must be labeled “No proven medical benefit”.

    Billions of dollars are spent each year to develop, proven, tested and safe, medicines, vaccines and techniques. More money is spent on education and the construction of hospitals with all of their intricate infrastructure. People who are in dire need have access to technologies, that their grandparents couldn’t have dreamed of.

    Some diseases have been totally eradicated from this planet, and the agonizing suffering that others produce, has been reduced or abolished.

    Life spans have soared in almost every country in the world. Infant mortality and mothers survival rates have increased, along with the hygiene and car. Procedures are less invasive, and accident and casualty prognosis have benefitted.

    But there are charlatans, using belief based, non scientific, or mystical “snake oil”, syphoning off customers desperate for relief.

    Often, conditions are left longer before seeking, competent medical advice, leading to physical and financial deficit. People are offered potions, readings, to have there chackeras aligned, needles stuck in them, or any one of a multitude of “ritual customs” that have ‘not’ been proven to work.

    Often the “evidence” for these is bald belief, the writings in an old book, or some other nonsensical theory.

    The “former “alternative remedies”” list is very misleading, these so called alternative medicines encompass just about every single element, compound, animal or plant part including their shelter and excrement.

    It is no wonder that some of these items contained something of medical value, but the incidence is no higher than chance would dictate.

    These dubious compounds, are often peddled to the gullible or less educated, and endorsed by celebrities and the gliterati. Faddy, boutique cures and age old useless remedies, are sold alongside proven scientific medicines.

    Plying these wares, knowing little more than anecdotes, or suppositions about them strikes me as one of the most deeply immoral endeavors.

    An atheist, has a special perspective on this immorality, because it preys on blind belief, and submission to an unreviewed authority that is at the core of theist education and society.

    That this is suggested to couples attempting to reproduce is especially aborant, contemplating the very act that allowed life on this planet, to evolve to sentience, they are deceived by the very conditioning that an atheist is free of.

    I need no God to hold in wonder, reality and the truth are wonderful beyond my wildest dreams.

    Primum non nocere

  • thebob

    UrbanBard wrote
    “hebob said:
    “”UrbanBard wrote
    ““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”
    Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”
    But, what if those expatations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’

    Obviously they are part of our instinct, but is not a productive instinct. These behavior ours can have no use to the success of a species, spirituality and religion are the embodiment of these instincts. They are parasitic, in the case of the bird, they prevent him from receiving as much food, but the behavior is enforced because the bird believes in it.

    Of course now we have identified that we have a propensity for this kind of behavior, it should be modified.

    UrbanBard
    “Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”
    You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.”

    Now what are you talking about?

    This is a rigorous, peer reviewed scientific study, conducted by one of the most revered behavioral scientists the planet has seen, his attention to methodology and laboratory procedure is well documented and his experiments have been independently duplicated on several occasions and locations.

    You suggest his objectivity is questionable because of his politics?

    How did he do it? Did he use Socialist birds? He somehow falsified his findings forward across time and space?

    You can replicate this yourself. That is the power of the scientific method, it is reproducible and independently verifiable. It is the system that has given us every, tangible advance we have ever made.

    Lets get all those commie science books in a heap and burn them, we can only have good clean (insert favorite bias) here.

    (Stomp, stomp, stomp the sound of jackboots recede into the distance)

  • thebob

    UrbanBard
    ““It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.”
    We aren’t talking about things that give bad results. Manic compulsive behavior gives bad results.”

    Your example…

    “UrbanBard
    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….””

    wasn’t intended to convey a bad result, but it did. I was giving you scientific evidence to prove that you ‘must’ examine things, it is the faith that paralyzes you, not rigorous examination.

    But you want to discredit this phenomena because of the politics of the scientist.

  • thebob

    “UrbanBard wrote
    “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
    Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”
    The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.
    You clearly know nothing about politics.”

    I think you are misquoting

    Ronald Reagan
    January 20, 1981
    In his inaugural address

    “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

  • UrbanBard

    “theBob said:
    “”UrbanBard wrote
    ““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. ….”
    Yes, very good example. B.F. Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed. ”
    But, what if those expectations worked well for thousands of years? So, that they were part of our survival pattern? Would you change your ways until you had proof that something else worked better? ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke.’

    Obviously they are part of our instinct, but is not a productive instinct. ”

    Can you not read the English language? I said they were productive– they gave good results. Their absence gave bad results.

    Do Human Beings have instincts. Yes, but very few. The most prominent is to slavishly follow what your chosen group believes in rather than thinking for yourself.

    “These behavior ours can have no use to the success of a species, spirituality and religion are the embodiment of these instincts.”

    Yes, those behaviors can have a use. Most times, there is no reason to change a historical pattern if it is giving us good results.

    Innovation is a good thing, but innovations are experiments that often fail. We just remember the successes. We rely on a framework that gives us most of our success while we tinker around the edges.

    “They are parasitic, in the case of the bird, they prevent him from receiving as much food, but the behavior is enforced because the bird believes in it.”

    Have you heard of Pavlov? New habit patterns can changed when conditions require it. Humans can be just as slavish or conditioned as animals. It takes effort to defy group pressure and think for yourself. You must have a society that rewards individual thinking. Western culture is one of the very few that does.

    “Of course now we have identified that we have a propensity for this kind of behavior, it should be modified.”

    Overturning tradition nilly-willy has gotten over 100 million people killed in the twentieth Century. They were trying to create “the New Socialist Man” in the Soviet Union. Or the “Nazi Superman” in Germany. Radical changes in society, economic and political systems are deadly.

    “UrbanBard
    “Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. ”
    You do know that Skinner was a Socialist, don’t you? So he cannot be objective in this.”

    Now what are you talking about?”

    Can a person’s politics lead to bad or incorrect science? Yes. Take Margaret Mead, for instance, she was studying the natives of Tahiti. She was part of the “free love” socialist movement in the early Twentieth Century that wanted to attack Western martial patterns. She wanted to believe that primitive tribes practiced Free Love.

    The teenaged girls she was studying lied to her. They told her what she wanted to hear: that there was free sexual expression when the tribe’s sexual patterns were rather repressive and ritualistic. Later, anthropologists verified that she was wrong. But, the fact that her science was totally wrong didn’t keep her from being honored by Socialists.

    I was remarking that Skinner could have gotten the birds behavior correct, but he chose a name to describe it that was prejudicial. Socialists often do that. It is propagandistic.

    Take the phrase “anti-social behavior.” What is it? It is a made up name for standoffish, harmful, sinful or criminal actions. The Socialists who coined it had two objectives in choosing the phrase: to project that we are part of a group, not individuals and to strew confusion in the English language.

    They were in favor of Socialism, so they could say that anyone who was an Anti-Socialist (that is, one who opposed their political agenda) was also Anti-Social (one who favored harmful or criminal actions.) It wasn’t so, but it had good propaganda value.

    “This is a rigorous, peer reviewed scientific study, conducted by one of the most revered behavioral scientists the planet has seen, his attention to methodology and laboratory procedure is well documented and his experiments have been independently duplicated on several occasions and locations. You suggest his objectivity is questionable because of his politics?

    Obviously, you have never read any of his later works where he lays his Socialism bear. “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” is one of his books; what is that?

    He wanted to project the deterministic idea that mankind is nothing but an animal who’s actions are controlled by unconscious impulses. That we have no intellect. Perhaps, he and his fellow Socialists did not. But, he could not speak for all of humanity and he tried.

    “How did he do it? Did he use Socialist birds? ”

    No, he used his findings to project his political opinions. He projected the behavior of animals falsely onto humans. We do have an Animal nature, but we are not wholly governed by it.

    “It is the system that has given us every, tangible advance we have ever made.”

    I like science, but I don’t give it that much credit. There are intelligent people finding new things all the time. They don’t use the scientific method to do it.

    “Lets get all those commie science books in a heap and burn them, we can only have good clean (insert favorite bias) here.”

    No, I’m not interested in Communist and Fascist book burnings or the suppression of inquiry, nor in Liberal Political Correctness that refuses to accept good research when it denies a Liberal dogma.

    An example is that we know that the Northern European Jew has an IQ about 10 points higher than average and the African Black is about 10 points lower than average. This has been substantiated by almost a hundred years of research.

    The Left tried to blame nutrition or a bigoted society without success. IQ points have risen for American Blacks during the twentieth Century, but so have the IQ’s of the whites. The IQ gap remains. But, the Left can pretend that it doesn’t exist.

    Professor Watson, of the DNA team of Crick and Watson, recently got caught in a controversy by the Left because he brought up this research.

    “(Stomp, stomp, stomp the sound of jackboots recede into the distance)”

    The only Group Think here is from the Left. I am an individualist. I almost never go along with the crowd. I think for myself. That is why I am so good at refuting your arguments; I think about things.

  • UrbanBard

    the Bob said:
    ““UrbanBard wrote
    “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?
    Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.”
    The statement was about a temporary condition in America where the Leftists had lead to governmental excess and usurpation of the people’s rights. The Socialists in the Democratic Party had erected organizations, expectations and governmental entities that the bulk of Americans no longer believed it. There was a Cognitive Dissonance between current practices and the Founder’s proclamations, practices and organizations.
    You clearly know nothing about politics.”

    I think you are misquoting

    Ronald Reagan
    January 20, 1981
    In his inaugural address

    “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

    I was paraphrasing, not quoting. How is my comment any different from Reagan’s? I even got right that it was a temporary condition in my later discussion.

    Thank you, for proving my point.

  • jdoc

    thebob: “This is a Mac advocacy forum and you are saying because it’s very popular it works better than real medicine?”

    where did I say that it works better? It’s an alternative to ‘traditional medicine’- some people actually want a choice….

    “In others it must be labeled “No proven medical benefit”.” Pray tell- which in that list that I provided has no proven medical benefit? Penicillin?

    “Some diseases have been totally eradicated from this planet”. Like what? (please say small pox).

    “Billions of dollars are spent each year to develop, proven, tested and safe, medicines, vaccines and techniques. More money is spent on education and the construction of hospitals with all of their intricate infrastructure. People who are in dire need have access to technologies, that their grandparents couldn’t have dreamed of.”

    And tons of money is lost every year withdrawing “proven therapies” off of the market (have you seen the current recommendations for cold remedies and children? Have you read the WHI study? Have you heard of Ortho-Evra? the list goes on…).

    “Often, conditions are left longer before seeking, competent medical advice, leading to physical and financial deficit. People are offered potions, readings, to have there chackeras aligned, needles stuck in them, or any one of a multitude of “ritual customs” that have ‘not’ been proven to work” You have absolutely no proof of this other than what your friends may have told you (anecdotal) or what your ignorance has taught you.

    “The “former “alternative remedies”” list is very misleading, these so called alternative medicines encompass just about every single element, compound, animal or plant part including their shelter and excrement.” How exactly is it misleading? You’ve actually mentioned ‘osteopathy’ as an accepted ‘remedy’ in one of your prior posts.

    “but the incidence is no higher than chance would dictate.” You’ve obviously not read any studies on the above listed. So much for your evidence-based life.

    “An atheist, has a special perspective on this immorality, because it preys on blind belief, and submission to an unreviewed authority that is at the core of theist education and society.” Clearly atheists are above everyone else, because they ‘prey’ on those that are clueless. Do they eat thier young? So in order to understand the true meaning of life and the universe, I must become an atheist?

    “That this is suggested to couples attempting to reproduce is especially aborant, contemplating the very act that allowed life on this planet, to evolve to sentience, they are deceived by the very conditioning that an atheist is free of.” Maybe you should read a bit more about it before spewing off an utterly arrogant and malinformed statement.

    So basically your entire post was more of the same- except that you selfishly placed yourself above the majority of the world, continuously misinterpreted or misunderstood the FACTS presented to you, and arrogantly think that you know what you are talking about. And once again, you fail to review what’s presented to you before releasing the mission statement for atheists all over the world. Talk about a cult…

    “jdoc wrote
    ” will pray for you though.”

    If you want to waste time on me I’d prefer if you donate that time to a needy cause.”

    It is a needy cause.

  • thebob
  • roz

    “Perhaps, I did, I don’t know; If so, I’m sorry.”

    I appreciate the sentiment here, thank you.

    “Your attitude was always presumptuous.”

    I really don’t think this is the case, certainly not always.

    I really don’t think I was wrong many times, but I am sure there are cases, was there something specific you had in mind?

    I will acknowledge that I do now recall that the US did have a better legal case for ending the cease fire than my previous comments suggested. This was a pre-existing condition from the early 90’s as you said. But I did find quotes fron Annan and Blitz saying that they thought it was illegal. I am not sure that I agree with them.

    “What is an insult is highly subjective. I asked for Roz to stop the insults, because he was calling me a neocon and I am not one. He turned me down. That was before I started calling him an idiot and an ignoramus.”

    For the record: ignoramus posting #46, neo-con posting #72. And I did not really call you one, I said you were parroting their thinking.

    I am happy to set it aside though.

  • roz

    “You are imagining falsely that there were Iraqi forces that we could work with.”

    Sorry can you explain on what basis you say that that is false? These are not my imaginations, as I have said before, these were the claims of those directly involved with rebuilding Iraq as shown in the documentary No End in Sight.

    Here is a quote from a interview of someone shown in that film:

    “(Ret.) Army Col. Paul Hughes is a senior program officer at the U.S. Institute of Peace. While on active duty, he was responsible for U.S. efforts to reorganize the Iraqi Army and is one of the subjects of the documentary, No End in Sight. Before serving in Iraq, he was a senior military fellow at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. He holds two Master of Military Arts & Sciences degrees and was a visiting professor at the Elliot School of International Affairs…..

    “Hughes: Well, certainly that’s what you get from the documentary. I can only speak to the one that revolved around the disbanding of the Iraqi military. In our time in Washington, D.C. with Jay Garner before we departed for the theater, we had talked about what we would do with the Iraqi military. We understood that they were large. We understood that these men knew how to use weapons. We understood that there were a lot of weapons and ammo dumps across the country.
    So the intent for us was to get in there, make contact with the Ministry of Defense and then organized a process where we could pay these men twenty dollars each. That was the equivalent of about six months of pay so that they could take care of their families and hopefully stay off the streets long enough for us to sort out what the military was going to be doing.

    We had two processes that we were putting into play. One was to reform these units as work battalions to help clean up rubble and things of that nature. The second one was to establish what we called DDR, which is Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration. It’s a process by which you take former combatants and reintegrate them into society so that they become productive members of the economy.
    This all had been briefed to the president. The president approved it before we left Washington. But then when we got out there and when Bremer showed up, suddenly there was this snap decision made by these four men in the Pentagon, as the movie portrays, and you know the history. The Iraqi Army was disbanded.

    Tavis: And the result of that that you obviously are chagrined by, for lack of a better word, is what essentially?
    Hughes: Well, five days after the decision was announced, we took our first attack on the highway between what most people call the Green Zone and Baghdad International Airport. Two soldiers were killed and two Humvees were destroyed. It was the night before Jay Garner was to depart Iraq forever. This came about, without a doubt, as a result of the disbanding of the Iraqi military.”

    “Are you saying that you didn’t hear the Democrats saying in the 2006 election that they wanted an immediate withdrawal of American Forces or that Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost?”

    You missed my point. I was questioning what to me is an unreasonable link you made when you said it was these statements that led to the refugee situation as opposed to what I would think the much more likely cause, the cause that I have seen by refugees interviewed from many many sources that conditions on the ground were unsafe, they received threats and/or feared for their lives and left. I was asking you to substantiate that leap, that refugees fled as a result of the comment of any democrat or war critic.

  • roz

    UrbanBard:

    You keep asking me my perspective. Here it is:

    In the past:
    I would have stabilized Afghanistan more and focused on OBL more before taking on Iraq.
    I supported confronting Saddam, based on cease fire violations, not the war on terror and some idea of preemption. I fully recognize that military force was needed for that, I just think we should have done in on a pace that would have allowed more troops and better international cooperation. I didn’t see the rush, and still don’t, I think the cost in the end is much higher this way.
    I did not anticipate the problems with occupation, but I think the people in charge should have. Again we should have used the Iraqi military to help.

    In terms of what to do now:
    I don’t think we should pull out of Iraq immediately. I just think thats a recipe for failed state.
    I supported the surge, because I thought something needed to be done to beef up our troops there.
    I don’t see Iran and Syria as much as an immediate threat .
    It is very problematic that Iran would get nukes, that should be avoided, but attacking Iran especially now, does not see the way to do it at this point to me.

  • UrbanBard

    Maybe, I confused you with someone else. I don’t know. I’m sorry if I did. I don’t like being nasty, but I will do it if I feel pushed or get tired.

    I like discussing current events and enjoy a discussion with a knowledgeable opponent.

    There may be many things on which we can agree. But, if all we ever do is hurl accusations at each other, then no real conversation takes place.

    “I really don’t think I was wrong many times, but I am sure there are cases, was there something specific you had in mind?

    I will acknowledge that I do now recall that the US did have a better legal case for ending the cease fire than my previous comments suggested. This was a pre-existing condition from the early 90’s as you said. But I did find quotes from Annan and Blitz saying that they thought it was illegal. I am not sure that I agree with them.”

    I’m sure that Annon and Blix did say it was illegal, but are they the arbiters here?

    The US is a sovereign nation. It needs no one’s permission to go to war if it’s leadership considers it in our national interest.

    In no way are we subordinate to the UN. There are political groups at the UN and the EU that want to make us subordinate and to start taxing America.

    Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration went along with that. That was why the Bush administration did not ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. That treaty would have ended the US Constitution being the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court would be forced to bow to Brussels. John Kerry seemed to favor that.

    Once the UN had resolved to go to war in Resolution 678, then it unleashed its member states to do that. Resolution 687 made a temporary halt to the war, but the war was not over until almost a year after Saddam’s regime fell.

    All of Saddam’s abuses in the 12 years after the Gulf war hardened the hearts of many people, me included. I saw no evidence that Saddam would ever keep his treaties. Once you determine that, there is no point to diplomacy. It’s put up or shut up time. If the only way to make Saddam keep his promises is war, then sobeit.

    Answer me this. What evidence in Saddam’s regime did you see that was hopeful?

    “For the record: ignoramus posting #46, neo-con posting #72. And I did not really call you one, I said you were parroting their thinking.

    I am happy to set it aside though.”

    Thank you for being gracious.

  • roz

    “The most notable dissension about Iraq was between the Defense and State Departments. The Defense department disagreed with keeping Saddam’s army intact.”

    This is not at all my understanding of what took place, in fact its the opposite. Military people wanted the Iraqi army recalled, civilian policy makers at the Pentagon decided otherwise:

    “Mr. Bremer’s decision to disband the army caused an early clash with General Garner, the man he replaced in May.

    ”It was our view that we needed to pay the army and get them back to work as quickly as we could,” said Jared Bates, a retired three-star Army general who was General Garner’s operations deputy. ”You didn’t want them on the other side of the fight.”

    But General Bates said the view of some ***civilian policy makers at the Pentagon*** was, ”Why in the world would we pay an army we just spent blood and treasure to defeat?”

    Walter B. Slocombe, the civilian in charge of rebuilding Iraqi security institutions, defended Mr. Bremer’s decision on grounds of principle and practicality. He said planting democratic roots in Iraq required disbanding an institution that was hated by the population as an instrument of Mr. Hussein’s control.”

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501EEDE1030F931A35752C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    Watching No End in Sight, you get the impression that even Bush was surprised to see the Iraqi army disbanded, it simply was not the plan.

    I really would encourage everyone to see “No End in Sight” it is not a leftist movie, it does not advocate withdrawl, its not anti war. It looks at post invasion management of the occupation, made up principally of interviews of those who ran things in Bagdad.

  • roz

    “My position is that we stood the risk of a stalemate if we waited too long.”

    Ok, but lets be clear that these are political calculations, not necessarily a basis rooted in an immediate terrorist or other threat. I will grant you that the momentum of the drive to push for the unseat Saddam might have been lost, but if we had a very good outcome in Afghanistan, there might have been a potential for a larger involvement of other parties.

    My view is that part of the motivation to move when we did was that we would have a bigger share of the benefits of the new Iraq. I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. A broader coalition force would have necessarily meant less US control. influence on the new state. And if you have a new theory of a transformed military which is capable and nimble, just demonstrated in Afghanistan, which so they thought could do the job without help from others, why bother sharing whatever benefit the US might get from reformulating Iraq? This I suspect was the thinking in the leadership, I call them neo-cons, but I don’t mean that necessarily in a derogatory way in this area, but Rumsfeld, Wolf, Cheney et al. So they going with a coalition of the US and UK plus a lot of weaker secondary actors, gave the semblance of an international coalition without losing US control of the outcome.

    ““I did not anticipate the problems with occupation, ”

    I did. but then I read history. Wars always have insurrections after them.””

    I meant our bad management. I knew that we would be generally unwelcome and had a short window of opportunity there. My sense, and it still persists to this day is that given the circumstances of the occupation and the legacy of the conditions pre-war the Iraqi’s have been comparably patient, forgiving and cooperative with what has happened. It took a long time for the insurgency to take form and there have been moderating forces that have provided some ballast to extremists.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said”
    ““The most notable dissension about Iraq was between the Defense and State Departments. The Defense department disagreed with keeping Saddam’s army intact.”

    This is not at all my understanding of what took place, in fact its the opposite. Military people wanted the Iraqi army recalled, civilian policy makers at the Pentagon decided otherwise:

    “Mr. Bremer’s decision to disband the army caused an early clash with General Garner, the man he replaced in May.”

    You are assuming that Garner was the DoD man because he was an ex-general. Garner had been assigned to plan the aftermath for the State department. Bremer was State Department, too, but there can be disagreements inside the State department on how best to handle this. I’m sure that Rumsfeld wanted the Iraqi Army disbanded. but, there was disagreement about this all over.

    “Watching No End in Sight, you get the impression that even Bush was surprised to see the Iraqi army disbanded, it simply was not the plan.”

    The Iraqi Army had fallen apart. the Conscripts when home. The officers could not be trusted to be neutrals. It lloks like a pipe dream to me.

    “I really would encourage everyone to see “No End in Sight” it is not a leftist movie, it does not advocate withdrawal, its not anti war. It looks at post invasion management of the occupation, made up principally of interviews of those who ran things in Baghdad.”

    The best propaganda looks very real. It just doesn’t allow the opposition a chance to speak. What was Rumsfeld or General Pace’s rebuttal? Was there a rebuttal? It doesn’t seem likely.

  • roz

    “You are assuming that Garner was the DoD man because he was an ex-general. Garner had been assigned to plan the aftermath for the State department.”

    No, that was not my assumption at all. There were other military people in favor of it.

    “I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. ”

    Nothing in itself, just at what cost? $600B and counting, we are not done yet.

    “Let the historians figure this out. No one on the Left is going to believe that insurrections are always hard and surprising. Our Media consistently painted a false picture.”

    Yes, I will be up to historians. But I don’t see why you keeping pinning this on the left? Can you name anyone or quote anyone on the left who thought occupation would be easy? Again, it was Wolfowitz who propagated that, not the left. The idea on the left was that we were stirring up a bees nest.

    “Al Qaeda flooded into the country to try to make us fail there”

    There certainly was an extra-Iraqi factor and Al Qauda in Iraq too, but you keep referencing these large number of Al Qaeda entering and being killed, for example:

    “Also, we have been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We have killed or captured 80 thousand of them in Iraq from all over the world.”

    From where are you getting these numbers? Can you document them?

  • roz

    “““I am not saying stealing the oil. I’m mean in terms of influence. ”

    Nothing in itself, just at what cost? $600B and counting, we are not done yet.”

    I think the cost is lower than that. Your figures probably include foreign aid to the Iraqis– rebuilding their infrastructure etc.””

    My point is that we went the small force route, the country was torn to shreds, so then we pay for its rebuilding. In the end it would have potentially been better just to have the large force that would have secured the country in the first place and then we don’t have the infrastructure bill to pay.

    “How expensive is it to lose a war, Roz? Remember, we are not fighting in Iraq to safeguard today, but to solve the problems twenty years down the road.”

    I don’t see why you think it is the duty of the American people to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq if not for the destruction that was caused there under our occupation. If not for our role there, we certainly would not be spending money on schools there. We could make it a paradise in that one country, what good would that do to our overall global security in 20 years?

    Now if we took that 300 billion and spent it to on technology to severe our dependence on fossil fuel that would dramatically improve our strategic position.

    “The Democrats are not farsighted people; instant gratification is what they want. There is none to be had.”

    I can’t understand why you make gross generalizations with no substantiation, it only undermines your credibility.

    The conservatives got us into a war with out consideration or planning for the next year of action. Troops without needed armour, not enough of them in to run effectively operate. I don’t think Republicans have any authority to point a finger at Democrats as failing to plan effectively.

  • roz

    “I read it in the official reports from the military in Iraq. But, that was ten months ago, so it is old data.”

    So you can’t substantiate it? Seems hard to accept then.

  • roz

    “Were there many ex-generals who disagreed with the administration’s plans after the war? Yes. ”

    Wait you said that military said that using the Iraqi army was not favorable. Please substantiate that claim.

  • roz

    “I suspect that the Democrats are desperate. It is usually not good politics to be Antiwar. It can too easily backfire on you. The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed. They always are.”

    The issue is really that the public is solidly against the war.

  • roz

    “The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”

    And what are these lies again?

  • roz

    “The Press blows up unfortunate incidents as though they were official government policy, such as Abu Ghraib.”

    This is not a lie of the left, it is a fact that rule governing prisoner treatment were relaxed, controls were removed that allowed events like Abu Ghraib to happen:

    “How did the “permissive environment” that encouraged rampant criminality
    and cruelty arise at Abu Ghraib? According to the JAG senior officers who
    spoke with Horton, Pentagon civilian officials removed safeguards that were
    designed to prevent such abuses. At a detention facility like Abu Ghraib,
    those safeguards would include the routine observation of interrogations
    from behind a two-way mirror by a JAG officer, who would be empowered to
    stop any misconduct.

    The JAG officers told Horton that those protective policies were
    discontinued in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said that interrogations were
    routinely conducted without JAG oversight — and, worse, that private
    contractors were being allowed unprecedented participation in the
    interrogation process. Moreover, the contractors who participated in the
    interrogation of Iraqi prisoners were operating in a legal twilight zone,
    says Horton.”
    http://osdir.com/ml/culture.people.interesting-people/2004-05/msg00042.html

    “They trumped up a false case of the While house intentionally exposing a covert CIA agent.”

    Obstruction of justice was proven in court.

    “They mischaracterized the meaning of statements in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address to deny that there was cause for escalating the war against Iraq. ”

    What are you talking about here?

    And again you said:

    “The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”

    I still don’t see what lies of the Democrats you are talking about?

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    ““The Press blows up unfortunate incidents as though they were official government policy, such as Abu Ghraib.”

    This is not a lie of the left, it is a fact that rule governing prisoner treatment were relaxed, controls were removed that allowed events like Abu Ghraib to happen:”

    As I said this was not an official act of the US Military. It was a lapse of official policy– a crime. The enlisted people did criminal acts against the detainees for which they were punished.

    What you don’t seem to understand is this kind of silly stuff goes on periodically in most prisons. This is kindergarden stuff: no one got mutilated or killed, just embarrassed.

    You don’t want it to go on, but bored soldiers on night shift get up to crazy things. When it happens: you punish the people who did it.

    What the Press tried to do was to hang this around the upper military’s neck. This was not so. This is a case of you on the Left expecting perfection from young and inexperienced soldiers. And trying to hang their crimes around Rumsfeld’s neck.

    “They trumped up a false case of the While house intentionally exposing a covert CIA agent.”

    Obstruction of justice was proven in court.”

    But, nothing was ever proven that the original case was true. Armatige let the cat out of the bag to the press about Valerie Plame. He told Novak, not anyone in the White House. And Armitage was anti-Iraqi war person working in the State department. The Left’s projection of the White House’s grand conspiracy against Plame was nothing but vapor.

    What the Grand Jury got Scooter Libby on was that his recollections of conversations with a reporter were different from the reporter’s notes. The Grand Jury chose to believe the reporter and that it wasn’t merely a faulty memory.

    Fitzgerald could not claim that the White House intentionally “outed” Valerie Plame. Why? Because there was no relevant law that covered her. She had been “outed” six years before in the Aldrige Ames case.

    ““They mischaracterized the meaning of statements in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address to deny that there was cause for escalating the war against Iraq. ”

    What are you talking about here?”

    I’m talking about the 16 words that Bush used to indicate that Saddam was looking for uranium ore in Africa. The Press mangled those words to mean that Saddam Hussein was looking for Yellow Cake Uranium ore in Niger when what Bush meant was in the Congo. It was the impetus which what sent Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, to Niger.

    Wilson reported to his Bosses in the CIA verbally that he did find evidence that Saddam’s officials were investigating a purchase. But eight months later, Wilson lied in an interview in the Nation magazine and in the New York Times Article that he found no such evidence. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee called Wilson a liar.

    ““The Democratic Party had to demonize the war by mostly telling lies. The lies will be exposed.”

    I still don’t see what lies of the Democrats you are talking about?”

    It is likely that you will ever see the lies as bigoted as you are.

    As I said, You see the lies as standard Democratic Party practices and positions. The point is that time will prove them to be lies. Most of them have already been discarded by the voters as rubbish.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has moved on to new and better lies. In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost. General Patraeus testified in Congressional hearings in September that it was not. Thay there was cause for cautious optomism.

    I wonder if people on the Left know how to determine if something is a lie. It helps to keep you Politically Correct if if you know no history, economics or politics except your own. Also, if you keep up a steady stream of hate against your opponents. If you are in attack mode, you never really hear any replies. Your mind isn’t open enough to consider any alternative. If you took a logic class, you flunked it.

  • roz

    “But, nothing was ever proven that the original case was true.”

    I’m not an expert on the case and don’t really think its worth much attention, but lying to FBI investigators is a crime and according to Fitzgerald this obstructed the investigation. Martha Steward went to jail for the same thing.

    Personally I think Cheney should have been on trial here. Was this proof of a great conspiracy? No, not really. It had a lot more merit and was done with a lot more discretion than everything the Republicans threw at Clinton while he was in office.

    “As I said this was not an official act of the US Military. It was a lapse of official policy– a crime. The enlisted people did criminal acts against the detainees for which they were punished.”

    Yes of course it was a crime, but do you recognize that controls were loosened for dealing with prisoners and interrogations? That when you loosen controls you create a opening for such activities?

    “What you don’t seem to understand is this kind of silly stuff goes on periodically in most prisons. This is kindergarden stuff: no one got mutilated or killed, just embarrassed.”

    I really don’t think the military saw it this way. They were trying to win hearts and minds, this worked against that. SO, as you say, knowing that there is a potential for this sort of thing to happen in prisons like this, these installations were supposed to have JAG and MP oversight to prevent abuse. You want a system were such crimes and abuses are prevented, so that situations like this are stopped if not before they happen, then immediately. Also, guards should get training on proper conduct, these got none.

    “Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has moved on to new and better lies. In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq was lost.”

    Is that really the best you have after all that? That was not a lie, it was his opinion, he is entitled to it and to express it.

    “I wonder if people on the Left know how to determine if something is a lie. It helps to keep you Politically Correct if if you know no history, economics or politics except your own. Also, if you keep up a steady stream of hate against your opponents. If you are in attack mode, you never really hear any replies. Your mind isn’t open enough to consider any alternative. If you took a logic class, you flunked it.”

    Of course all of this could also apply to the right, in fact I think it applies much better to the right given characters like Rush. all the other talk radio people and FOX “News”. – that is why I am trying to get you to substantiate your claims.

  • Pingback: bruce campbell()

  • roz

    Yes I can confirm that if Gore was in office everything would be great now.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “Yes I can confirm that if Gore was in office everything would be great now.”

    Based on what? Your personal opinion? What substantiates that? How do you know that you aren’t delusive?

    You seem to have more faith than I do. I am a doubting Thomas; I have been all my life.

  • roz

    gore is fluent in english.
    he can read a newspaper.
    he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.

    its a start.

  • Pingback: WYE, WYG: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X Leopard — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • UrbanBard

    Really Daniel, deleting my last two entries is censorship; it is a typical leftist ploy. It is one that denies reality.

    This is the SECOND time that I have posted this reply. This is neither an honest or honorable way to deal with an opponent. I know that I am a gadfly. I won’t agree with you, nor will I go away. You cannot answer my criticisms, so you do the leftist thing: you delete my entries. This happens all the time to Conservative posts at MoveOn.org and MediaMatters. The problem with censoring your opponent’s position is that you can pretend that there is no rebuttal: that is delusive. You can get divorces from reality that way. It looks as though you have gone a long way down that path.

    By doing so, you get to pretend that I gave up the cause, thus giving Roz and you, if you are not Roz in disguise, the last word. It is rather petty of you to do this. If Roz or you had run out of anything constructive to say, then that’s on your head.

    My last post was an article detailing how even Osama bin Laden is bemoaning how that al Qaeda has lost in Iraq. But, that wasn’t directly responsive to this thread.

    Let me instead reconstruct my second to last post because it was answer to Roz.

    Roz said:
    “gore is fluent in english.”

    It’s just that Gore is ignorant of Texican, poor boy.

    Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.

    And Gore needs to pull that stick out of his ass.

    “he can read a newspaper.”

    Oh, I’m sure that anyone who graduated from the Harvard MBA program can read a newspaper. Harvard’s educational standards haven’t fallen that low, yet.

    I must admit that I have trouble reading the New York Times and and the Washington Post. It’s not for lack of intelligence, I have an 145 IQ and a Baccalaureate in Electrical Engineering. Nor is it the big words; I know plenty of big words. It’s the hidden meanings and false connotations combined with leftist illogic. It is a malignant fantasy which corresponds to nothing real.

    “he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”

    Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?

    its a start.

    Didn’t anyone ever tell you that whenever you start in on ad Hominem attacks, you lose the argument?

    Besides, the American voter is more apt to like a “down home” man who fractures the English language than some snob with his nose in the air.

    I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man.
    But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.

    The demographics of the country are slowly moving toward the right. The 2000 election required a massive voter turn out by the Democrats, but the extra people voting were in the wrong states.

    The 2004 election was an heroic effort by the Democrats, but the Republicans turned out even more voters. The 2006 election was a normal sixth year reversal of a two term presidency.

    Typically, that means that the majority party will reclaim the Congress in 2008. Iraq will be off the table then; just as it is out of the newspapers now. That is because there is too little bad news. We seem to be winning there.

    Al Gore represents a small but influential elite who hold onto power in America, not because of any native wit, skill or ability, but by their membership in the “old Boy” network. That network is dying, because the Democratic party is in decline.

    Even the big cities in the Blue States are in decline. The population increases and the economic opportunity is in the Red States. The Democratic Party is behind the eight ball.

    Ps. I have copied this post. Delete it again and I’ll just repost it. Shall we go into a song and dance about how you never deleted it? Sobeit.

  • roz

    I’m not Daniel and you are not a gadfly.

    “Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.”

    You can’t share a drink with Bush, he is an alcoholic. We all know that Bush went to Andover and Yale. That’s not Eastern Establishment? He is the son of a Republican President. If that is not establishment, what is?

    ““he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”
    Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?”

    It was an embarrassment to the whole country, really all people in the free world.

    “I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man.
But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”

    He, and they, won the popular vote and would have won the electoral vote if not for cheating in FL.

  • UrbanBard

    Come on Daniel, stop deleting my posts. It’s too childish.

    Roz said:
    “I’m not Daniel”

    I stand corrected. It was a idle speculation, anyway.

    “and you are not a gadfly.”

    You never come within spitting distance of a dictionary, so how would you know?

    ““Gore is an Eastern Establishment snob. He isn’t the sort of man that the average person would want to share a drink with or sit across from in a poker game. Or vote for either.”

    You can’t share a drink with Bush, he is an alcoholic.”

    It take it that you are applying the “Once an alcoholic; always an alcoholic” meme?

    There is just no redemption for you Leftists, is there. Bush has to be a slave to his cravings, right?

    Get real. Grow up. We are all sinners. We all have something that we are tempted to do; but as adults we learn to control their urges. Your sin is to make hasty judgments. And to slavishly follow the New York Times.

    Do you have any proof that Bush drinks alcohol now? No. Will Bush be so impolite to refuse to serve you a drink while he drinks tea? No.

    What’s your point anyway? Other than that you can be asinine?

    “We all know that Bush went to Andover and Yale. That’s not Eastern Establishment? He is the son of a Republican President. If that is not establishment, what is?”

    Home is where the heart is. Bush had a chance to adopt that Eastern Liberal crap and refused. Instead, he went home and laughed about how screwed up your values are.

    That is why you hate him; he could have been you and he rejected that. Eastern Liberal Establishment is a code word for loser. Who wants to be one of those?

    “““he does not give unsolicited neck massages to foreign heads of state.”
    Tell me again how this has ever caused a war?”

    It was an embarrassment to the whole country, really all people in the free world.”

    Boy, you must embarrass easily. I’m never going to take you out for a toot. You are such a snob; no wonder you like Gore.

    I sure that rubbing someone’s neck is more embarrassing, these days, than slitting his throat. You seem to have a great deal of sympathy for the throat slitters.

    ““I do not know Al Gore and he is probably a fine man.
But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”

    He, and they, won the popular vote”

    And the popular vote is worth squat. It doesn’t matter how popular Gore was to the homeless in New York City. What mattered was in Florida where you lost. There were five separate independent re-count long after this was over and in every one– Bush won.

    “and would have won the electoral vote if not for cheating in FL.”

    I am proud to say that our US Supreme Court judges out ranked your Democrats on the Florida Supreme court. The Florida Supreme court had no jurisdiction. It was trying to throw the race toward the Democrats. There was a 7-2 decision in the US Supreme Court saying this. There was a 5-4 decision that there was insufficient time to hold another state wide recount. As later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.

    Daniel, if you delete this; I’ll simply re-enter it. Next, you will start denying me the ability to log in. I’ve gone through this on other leftist websites. You Leftists have have no respect for free speech.

  • roz

    Of course the Florida had jurisdiction.

    “s later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.”

    Actually under a statewide recount Gore would have won.

    Why don’t you get real.

  • roz

    “There is just no redemption for you Leftists, is there. Bush has to be a slave to his cravings, right?

    Get real. Grow up. We are all sinners. We all have something that we are tempted to do; but as adults we learn to control their urges. Your sin is to make hasty judgments. And to slavishly follow the New York Times.

    Do you have any proof that Bush drinks alcohol now? No. Will Bush be so impolite to refuse to serve you a drink while he drinks tea? No.”

    Actually Bush has said in response to the notion that he was “someone people would want to have a beer with” that he does not drink, so he couldn’t, chuckle chuckle.

    But agree with you, he probably is drinking and doing drugs and that explains why he would do something as stupid as giving a neck rub to the chancellor of Germany and all his other erratic, idiotic behavior. How many times have we seen him unable to use the English language? Falls off a Segway. Some incident with a pretzel. Can’t find a door to leave a room. You don’t want to see it but he is pathetic.

    It might not have been fraud but clearly there were a lot of people who intended to vote for Gore whose vote was not properly counted.

    Articles that I have read say that under a statewide recount, which was not requested but could have been, Al Gore would have won:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount

    Quible on the details if you like, but I was responding to this statement:

    “But he does not represent America. The fact that he was chosen by the Democratic party to represent them in 2000 is confirmation that the Democrats do not represent America either.”

    He lost on a technicality, to me it was a sham, but its simply not the case that he did not represent America in the way you say.

    Stop the grandstanding and the puffing statements about the Democrats. We are not socialists or marxist or even anti-capitalist. Clinton signed NAFTA and created market-based systems for the environment. Eliminated the deficit and reduced the debt. He is conservative compared to Bush. Democrats are not perfect but they are also not insane. To me the Republicans seem insane because they don’t follow their principles, fiscal responsibility just one example, and they are leashed to the religious right without whom they have no one to mobilize. They get into office and do the work of large corporations with no thought of the public interest. They have built up a hysteria about the war on terror when what we need is sober, intelligent, pragmatic action and diplomacy. Fear mongering, name calling and the violation of human rights. These are exactly the wrong approaches for our times. I can accept that people are conservative, that I can respect. But honestly, I can’t understand why a conservative would be a Republican. Why would you ally yourself with people who destroy the values you subscribe to? Are you so blind not to see the ways they betray you?

    And you are not a gadfly because you are defending those in power, even their incompetence, their idiocy, you are an apologist for them – a gadfly is a critic of those in power who forces people to see the truth even if its uncomfortable. You just parrot the falsehoods of our mendacious current administration.

  • UrbanBard

    I am replying to the previous above answer for the third time since Daniel has chosen to censor my last two replies. All in an attempt to give Roz the last word. Pretty childish, hun?

    Roz said:
    “Of course the Florida had jurisdiction.”

    The Chief Judge of the Florida Supreme Court said that they did not. The US Supreme Court in a 7 to 2 decision said that they did not have the right to demand recounts in selected counties. It was a 5 to 4 decision that insufficient time was available for a state wide recount.

    What was at issue was that a contestant may challenge the counties in which he loses. Al Gore was challenging the counties that he won, hoping to garner more votes in a recount. That is called “fishing for votes” and it is illegal by Florida law.

    ““s later independent recounts showed, Gore would have lost, anyway. Get real.”

    Actually under a statewide recount Gore would have won.”

    There was one recount where it was quite close, but the ballets had been handled so often by this time that it was anyone’s guess if the count was accurate. Anyway, previous independent recounts dispute that contention.

    As I said in a later post, we are never going to agree on this, so why argue? You won’t agree with my evidence. And I won’t agree with your outlandish statements for which you have no proof. We belong to different churches on this.

    “Why don’t you get real.”

    I am real — all the time. That is what you hate so much about me.

  • roz