|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
In article k.net,
Edward wrote: wrote in message ... Hello Al (& Wayne), Sorry, but I think my post is relevant. However, your counter argument, as was Wayne Howell's in another post: ...Please, crawl back into your hole and go back to lurk mode!...) were very well thought out, I admit. I guess I will be spending the night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me. Thanks for the kind welcome. Linwood ) Other than that, have you been getting much observing in? Ed ------- Hello Ed, A little. Here in south Louisiana, just outside of New Orleans, the air has been terrible. The sky is poor where I live with so much sky fog that I can seldom see much more than 2nd and 3rd magnitude stars from my house. I viewed Mars several times with my C8 SCT (on an equatorial mount). I could see the air currents and heats waves just shimmering across the face of the planet. I still saw, of course, much more than I ever saw previously. I look at astro pictures on the internet mostly and read S&T regularly but I go outside to look at the sky mostly to remember that it is all real and not just another TV program. How about you? Where are you located? Linwood |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
In article , Gareth Slee
wrote: Path: news1.east.cox.net!east.cox.net!peer02.cox.net!cox .net!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!n ewsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc3-ptal1-5-cust49.swan.cable.n tl.COM!not-for-mail From: "Gareth Slee" Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur Subject: President Bush / Astro - Relevant Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:13:33 +0100 Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3-ptal1-5-cust49.swan.cable.ntl.com (81.103.82.49) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063664019 27154518 81.103.82.49 (16 [162923]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: east.cox.net sci.astro.amateur:905543 X-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:13:40 EDT (news1.east.cox.net) wrote in message ... I guess I will be spending the night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me. Linwood. Don't take it personally This is USENET!!! -- Gareth Slee Gareth, I am familiar with USENET. I was just being sarcastic before, though. Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. Linwood |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
Hello Bill,
I think you may be right. I must be liberal. After reading a couple of replies, I thought about them long and hard, so convincing were their refutations (go back in my hole). Then I, coincidentally, looked down in the front end of my telescope and realized that I could not see my reflection, not even an out of focus relection, in the main objective. Oh Deity, I'm doomed. I do apologize a little for bringing the subject up in an Astronomy (Telescope) newsgroup; I couldn't help myself. But I really do think it has some relevance. Astronomy is Science. And the Scientific Method (the best part of Science), I believe, is sometimes in jeopardy from dogmatic and demagogic leaders. Linwood ---------------- In article . net, Bill G. wrote: There you go, Linwood, speaking the truth about the Lunatic Right. You will simply **** them off, and they will retaliate by calling you "biased" and, shudder, "liberal." Bill G. wrote in message ... Hi, I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a "lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and the little bit about Astronomy. But - to George Bush and the latest threads regarding his grades and qualifications - and his intelligence. This is not only about Astronomy but also and more so about a very close relative of it - Evolution. In this case Evolution Scienceıs continual battle against the onslaught of Scientific Creationism believers, mostly the Moron Far Right but also some Stupid Lefters too. But among political leaders actively pushing it, mostly the Right Wing. Creationists label their (theory) Science so that it may possibly sneak through the courts, because their goal is to pass legislation which forces schools to teach Creationism (Bible stories) alongside Evolution in science classes, and our US Constitution wisely forbids that. Creationism Theory is the modern equivalent of (as far as being Science) Flat Earth Theory. The world was created approximately five or so thousands of years ago, so goes its main tenet. A 5,000 year old universe would present a lot of problems with current Cosmology Theory. Unless The Creationists' deity is tricking us, we should not be able to see any stars, or galaxies, or anything, farther than around 5,000 light years away, because their light would not have reached us yet. Those damn Cepheid Variables must be The Big Guy's little jokes. Our wonderful President, George W. Bush, along with his Sheriff, John Ashcroft, also believes that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution in science classes. To those (astronomers) who believe in Creationism, I would guess that youıre looking at the world through the wrong end of your telescope, which would decrease resolution significantly and would make the ³what really is² harder to see. For those pocketbook-first Right Wingers, who really know better, and yet still praise Bush and his myopic and astigmatic judgment, wake up and see who and what you're lying in bed with. And how much you have to lie to yourselves to excuse him. But there's more. The greatest Republican ever, so Right Wingers claim, was President Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan also believed that the Bible should be taught alongside Evolution (if Evolution should be even taught at all). And whom is Bush trying to load the Courts with? His favorite Supreme Court Justice is Antonin Scalia, the wisest of the wise. In Louisiana, where I live, in the 1980's, we (I abstained) tried to legislate Creationism into our laws and we took it all the way to the US Supreme Court. See Edwards VS Aguillard, 1987. Creationism lost (thank a deity). But there were two dissenters. Can you guess whom? Justice Scalia, along with Justice Rehnquist, another Bush favorite, thought and ruled that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution, and in science classes. Around that same time, however, there was another politician, who was speaking out against the then current legislative attacks by Creationism advocates. I had never heard of him before that. Guess who! None other than that terrible Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, the scourge of Right Wing America as seen against that shining Supernova of Wisdom, George W. Bush. If the world was created 5,000 years ago, I guess that means President Bush was born yesterday. Hey, maybe it was. Clear skies without cloudy heads, Linwood Albarado |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
wrote:
I guess I will be spending the night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me. Thanks for the kind welcome. You have got to be kidding me. You come on here and basically say that anybody who doesn't see things the way that you see them are idiots and you expect a "kind welcome?" You think that those of us who believe that we were created by a super-intelligent being are silly and dilluted, but YOU beleive you evolved from a ROCK! Furthermore, dismissing another theory of anything without any proof or hard evidence to support that dismissal is in and of itself UNSCIENTIFIC. The fact is that evolution and the Big Bang Theory have had major problems from day one, and both theories have been twisted so much, they remind me of the Christmas Tree in Charlie Brown's Christmas. They tried hanging all sorts of crap on it, but it was still and freakin' ugly tree. No one here expects you to beleive in Creationism and I don't want to debate it here, as it is REALLY OFF TOPIC, but don't come here and hurl insults at peoples beliefs and faith and expect to not get your teeth kicked in. Thats just stupid. Maybe your children will be more EVOLVED than you. Matt |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
In article , wrote:
Hi, I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a "lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and the little bit about Astronomy. snipped all the political demogoguery Linwood Albarado Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup. It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party. You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..." I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection." More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides of the issues. I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation "science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side). I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard? If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees, what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright nuts, but not stupid. I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either. Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair." What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice versa... The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers. But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either man has done in office. For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to expose their prejudices publicly? I know, because this is Usenet.... Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future. Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -sdg |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
commentary/perspective snipped
Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -sdg Or, that most rare of Usenet jewels, praise. Excellent post, Sean. Chris Nicholl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -------------------------------------------------------------- You will not get any flames from me! This is a well thought out and very well written statement, and I applaud you. Al "Sean Golden" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: Hi, I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a "lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and the little bit about Astronomy. snipped all the political demogoguery Linwood Albarado Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup. It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party. You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..." I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection." More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides of the issues. I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation "science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side). I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard? If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees, what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright nuts, but not stupid. I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either. Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair." What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice versa... The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers. But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either man has done in office. For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to expose their prejudices publicly? I know, because this is Usenet.... Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future. Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -sdg |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
President Bush / Astro - Relevant
In article
, Sean Golden wrote: Hello Sean, Actually I agree with some of your post. But we have a different view, it seems. You appear to be an educated decent guy who is trying to see the best in people. And you are taking the middle ground about whether the Left or the Right is correct. Truth doesnıt care if its Left or Right or in the Middle. It just is. You are correct that this newsgroup is a place for telescopes, not politics. But, often, straight lines or different paths intersect. When Politics start determining what is taught, and enforced, it is no longer just Politics. I doubt if Isaac Newton, whom you mention, living today, would believe in Creationism, but you never know. And Iıve read Tolkien's LOTR 3 times and love it. It is fantasy, of course, and I appreciate his work, but differently than I do the work of Carl Sagan or Arthur C. Clarke. But, I would not support LOTR to be taught as actual History. We are all individuals and as such, each of us can be smart in one thing and a fool in another. So it's hard to judge any individual accurately. So I try to judge by actions. The posts (regarding President Bush) in this newsgroup made for several days before I jumped in, made me feel compelled to input something. In my original post I made some value judgments but all of my facts, I believe, were correct, which no one yet has disputed. You labeled my post demagoguery. Demagoguery: Making use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. I do not believe I was demagogic. Forceful, yes; arrogant, probably; opinionated, yes; my conclusions, always debatable, of course. But incorrect, I don't believe so. But if I was, which of my facts were incorrect. Let me put it simply. If people's religious beliefs were practiced benignly and kept personal, I would respect that, and many do just that and it is and should be their right. However, respecting a person's beliefs is not what this is about. Not at all! A powerful, shortsighted, Right Wing / Conservative movement has, for a good while now, been very actively attempting to move our government into the early stages of a Theocracy, using religious demagoguery to manipulate a malleable public. Whether that is overstatement, only time will tell. But ³actively² is the key word here. The RW is constantly trying to change the US Constitution, changing my world and limiting my Freedom, and tolerance is not their underlying trait. I think that the best thing about America is its Constitution and its natural resources, but unfortunately I now feel that the greatest danger to Freedom are the people themselves. In a Democracy (Republic) the citizens should be taught to be smart and educated. Taught to be curious, somewhat skeptical, and objective. Teaching fantasy in place of Science does not keep people smart. Teaching fantasy to control people is a bad thing. Religion is not and never was benign. It seems benign here today, in America, but it seems so only because it has been, through much suffering, politically defanged. The Right Wing is trying to give Religion fangs again. Do I believe that President Bush and the part of the Right Wing that is supporting him in this cause are demagogic? Definitely, and malignantly so. Do I think that President Bush is dumb? Less than I used to. I think you are confusing education (Yale) with wisdom. Will all this have an effect on sci.astro.amateur.? Probably not, but who knows. In my post, I stressed the 5,000 year old universe as the main tenet of current Creationism. Being a physicist, by nature and/or by profession, do you, Sean, believe that the universe is only 5,000 years old? Do you think it would be a good thing to teach students in schools that the universe is only 5,000 years old? Do you feel that Newton would believe so if he lived today and know what we know? If you knew decent loving people who believed sincerely in Astrology, or a Flat Earth, or other pseudo-science, would you support them if they wanted their beliefs taught as fact in science classes? Would you support teaching about divining rods in Geology and petroleum engineering classes? Would you like to give Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson more influence on your life and beliefs? Galileo, too, was a scientist and look what state-enforced religion did to him. He was forced to deny what he saw through his telescope. Look at the Mid-East world today, ruled by rigid interpretations of ancient religions, written by superstitious peoples who believed that demons might be behind every rock. This Right Wing (not all * mostly the ones I am speaking about) has no foresight, no understanding of history and cannot even see that that could happen anywhere. Why shouldnıt I be forceful against such bunk. The other side has not been shy. The Liberals are not clean either, of course, and it burns my ass when they, too, are sloppy about their facts. Tribalism is the norm on both sides and Objectivity is the crazy uncle in the closet. You are correct about that. I believe it would be great if the best ideas from the Right and from the Left were brought together and applied, without the blind Group Loyalty on both sides, and I do not confess to that here. But right now, the Right has been taken over and the moderate Republicans, like many Democrats, are afraid to be outspoken. They are afraid of the common man. They helped train us too well to be reactive rather than reflective. You state below ³...this is the last place (sci.astro.amateur) I know of that suffers from a lack of science Perspective . . .² I am not sure that I agree completely with that. Just as the Shuttle, as opposed to Hubble, is the cowboy whiz-bang aspect of astronomy, so too, are telescopes another cowboy aspect. I have always loved telescopes but recognize this is so, and have no problem with that. Telescopes are technology, not science, though they are a means to learn science. Though some I have read here seem brilliant to me, it is not a given that most here have a good feel for science itself. My end goal is not to insult, though some people will be insulted. Is it ³Politically Incorrect² to criticize Bush and his religious demagoguery and his followers, or does political correctness only apply to Liberals? I am not accusing you of inferring that, but the question is relevant. I will try to keep to Astro subjects after this thread dies. (Unless the devil makes me do it.) Linwood In article , wrote: Hi, I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a "lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and the little bit about Astronomy. snipped all the political demogoguery Linwood Albarado Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup. It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party. You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..." I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection." More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides of the issues. I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation "science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side). I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard? If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees, what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright nuts, but not stupid. I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either. Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair." What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice versa... The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers. But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either man has done in office. For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to expose their prejudices publicly? I know, because this is Usenet.... Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future. Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -sdg In article , wrote: Hi, I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a "lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and the little bit about Astronomy. snipped all the political demogoguery Linwood Albarado Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup. It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party. You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..." I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection." More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides of the issues. I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation "science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side). I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard? If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees, what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright nuts, but not stupid. I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either. Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair." What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice versa... The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers. But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either man has done in office. For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to expose their prejudices publicly? I know, because this is Usenet.... Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future. Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides... -sdg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 14th 04 10:49 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
Are Saddam's Sons Alive? | Madam Vinyl | Space Shuttle | 17 | August 5th 03 09:25 AM |