Pres. Kerry's NASA

Rand Simberg wrote:

Jim, I'm curious. I occasionally spar with Eric, as long as I
can whip off a quick response, but I'm curious.

Why do you argue so extensively with someone incapable of
arguing (i.e., presenting positions based on facts and logic)?

A few reasons:

1. Egregious misstatements should be contradicted at least
occasionally lest anyone new think that they are accepted wisdom
around here.

2. Others might learn from the exchange. I know I learn a lot
when Jay Windley takes issue with Brad Guth or Scott Grissom.

3. It often takes time (years and decades even) for opposing
arguments to sink in. I can think of a lot of times in my youth
when I must have exasperated people talking sense to me. Thirty
years ago I trotted out the broken window fallacy weekly
explaining why spending money on the shuttle was such a good
idea. I think it was a good five or ten years before the
refutations made any kind of impression on me.

Jim Davis

(George William Herbert) wrote:
Despite their radical college kids, the bulk of the adult
population has consistently wanted US cooperation and
presence. The phenomenon is not new or noteworthy.

It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
they get a job, house, kids, etc...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:59:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(George William Herbert) wrote:
Despite their radical college kids, the bulk of the adult
population has consistently wanted US cooperation and
presence. The phenomenon is not new or noteworthy.

It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
they get a job, house, kids, etc...

Actually, it's not odd at all.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:50:48 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : The great failure of the critics of the US government is in imagining
: : that they understand checks and balances better than we do.
:
:
: Let's talk about the three branches of govt: executive, judical and
: legistative. Who has majority control of the exexutive? Republicans.
: Who has majority control of the legislative? Republicans. Who has
: majority control of the judicial? Republicans.

: The "Republicans" control the judiciary? Is that where gay marriage
: comes from? Who knew?

They got W in the White House didn't they? And as far as the gay marriages
goes, they won't get an amendment, but be certain that lists, like those
from the McCarthy era in the 50s, will exist for gays based upon those
marriages and the paper trail that they generate. Conservatives can't wait
to discriminate the sexual orientation issue based upon the new
documentation that gay marriages creates.

: Now where is your
: checks and balances?

: The same place they've always been. Checks and balances have nothing
: to do with political parties.

Sure they do. Each party inherently adds checks and balances to the system
based upon their differences. Right now conservative Republicans are the
majority in each govt. branch.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:04:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : I didn't say that it was a fantasy that he *would* sell in Euros, just
: : : that the notion that he didn't like dollars was nonsense.
:
: : I see.
:
: The problem with your argument is this: If Saddam could sell all his oil
: for euros, then why need dollars?

: Because he might be able to get even more dollars for it.

Was that the case?

: If he could not sell all his oil and get
: euros, then he would take dollars - makes sense. Doesn't having euros
: being his first choice of currency put the US in a spot?

: It was not his first choice in currency. It was his *only* choice in
: currency. It was all part of the "oil for palaces" program overseen
: by a corrupt UN.

Provide a reference where the UN forced Saddam to take euros for oil.

: Think, Eric, please, before posting.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Eric

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:58:25 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Let's talk about the three branches of govt: executive, judical and
: legistative. Who has majority control of the exexutive? Republicans.
: Who has majority control of the legislative? Republicans. Who has
: majority control of the judicial? Republicans.

: The "Republicans" control the judiciary? Is that where gay marriage
: comes from? Who knew?

They got W in the White House didn't they?

The judiciary is much more than the Supreme Court. And he would have
gotten into the White House anyway--it just would have taken longer.

And as far as the gay marriages
goes, they won't get an amendment, but be certain that lists, like those
from the McCarthy era in the 50s, will exist for gays based upon those
marriages and the paper trail that they generate. Conservatives can't wait
to discriminate the sexual orientation issue based upon the new
documentation that gay marriages creates.

Yes, those evil conservatives. What nefarious scheme will they hatch
next?

: Now where is your
: checks and balances?

: The same place they've always been. Checks and balances have nothing
: to do with political parties.

Sure they do.

No, checks and balances are one branch of government against another,
not one party against another. The founders didn't even contemplate a
two-party system.

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: : : South Korea does not see us as an enemy.
: :
: : Many of their youngest generation to get politically involved do.
:
: : That's fine. The US should have long ago pulled out of South Korea. Let
: : the North Koreans have 'em.
:
: Is that the policy we want?

: What, that the US should not fight wars that have nothing to do with us
: or our interests? Sounds fair to me. If the South Koreans want the US
: out... let them face the million man North Korean army on their own.

You seem to think that the reunification of North and South Korea won't
favor the north. What if the reunification of Germany bad it more like
East Germany? Would that have been a good thing?

Eric

: --
: Scott Lowther, Engineer
: Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
: gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

George William Herbert ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: George William Herbert ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : The problem with Korea these days is that the North and
: : South are starting to see us as a common enemy.
:
: : South Korea does not see us as an enemy.
:
: Many of their youngest generation to get politically involved do.

: You're missing it.

: That statement is true now. It was true 5 years ago, and 10,
: and 15, and 25, and 35, and 45 years ago.

Was it true in 1953? I don't think so.

: Despite their radical college kids, the bulk of the adult
: population has consistently wanted US cooperation and
: presence. The phenomenon is not new or noteworthy.

What happens when the youngest generation becomes over 30, are they going
to automatically think like their parents? Why presume so? It is this
belief that the world wants to be like us that is a fallacy. Many just
want us out of their lives rather than trying to make them in our image.

: The US has always played an excellent evil empire
: foil for left wing radical protests,

Yes we do it so well!

: whether we were
: doing anything malign at the time or not. The view
: has been institutionalized in a lot of places through
: successive generations. Kids usually grow out of it.

Kids become complacent apathetic adults.

: I have not traveled in Korea, but I have read up on
: the situation there, and some of my friends have been
: there a lot, and I used to work for a subsidiary of
: a Korean company and worked with a lot of South Korean
: nationals. In my at least moderately educated judgement
: the situation over there is not by any means truly
: anti-american.

I hope that you are right. A sound plan for the North would be to win over
the South in some manner as to oust us from the picture. It has been 50
years. Will it continue this way indefintely?

Hard to say.

Eric

: -george william herbert
:

Derek Lyons ) wrote:
: (George William Herbert) wrote:
: Despite their radical college kids, the bulk of the adult
: population has consistently wanted US cooperation and
: presence. The phenomenon is not new or noteworthy.

: It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
: they get a job, house, kids, etc...

Those are the ones that never become enlightened. You know, they don't get
post graduate degrees, tend to grow out rather than work out. Lose their
sense of humor and become wage slaves to get stuff.

Eric

: D.
: --
: Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:59:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
: (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: (George William Herbert) wrote:
: Despite their radical college kids, the bulk of the adult
: population has consistently wanted US cooperation and
: presence. The phenomenon is not new or noteworthy.
:
: It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once
: they get a job, house, kids, etc...

: Actually, it's not odd at all.

I guess older liberal Democrats are simply the odd ones in your book?

Eric