Hype sells!

[GenSeneca]

The link is that the attack of 9/11 gave the neoconservative voices within the administration an excuse to take out Saddam Hussain, and to convince a gullible public that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the response to that attack. That is the only link. Iraq did not attack the US, nor did it have to power to do so had it wanted to.

The statists in both parties wanted the war in Iraq, Gore, both Clintons, the Democrat leadership, right down the line.

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

There is of course the Rockefeller Report as well:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Perhaps you'd like to argue the case that Rockefeller is actually a neocon.... Personally, I've found far more evidence that Statist policies and politicians from both sides are to blame for the rush to war in Iraq than it simply being the fault of statists on the Right side of the isle.

 

[PLC1]

The statists in both parties wanted the war in Iraq, Gore, both Clintons, the Democrat leadership, right down the line.

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

There is of course the Rockefeller Report as well:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple



Perhaps you'd like to argue the case that Rockefeller is actually a neocon.... Personally, I've found far more evidence that Statist policies and politicians from both sides are to blame for the rush to war in Iraq than it simply being the fault of statists on the Right side of the isle.

I did imply that it was the neoconservatives only, didn't I? That was unintentional. of course, the statists in both parties were in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The Congress of the United States, including both parties, voted to approve it, even though some would like to have rescinded their votes afterward.

The philosophy of neoconservatives, by which I mean the PNAC, was a strong voice in favor of the war.

But, there is plenty of blame to share with statists on both sides of the aisle, that is correct.

 

[Andy]

That's just another of the arguments ascribing to God what we don't understand. It doesn't prove intelligent design.

Personally, I think that evolution does a good job of explaining, at least in broad terms, just how god created life on earth. While there is no empirical evidence that god was, in fact behind it, there are volumes of evidence explaining how evolution works. Just picking out one thing we don't understand and saying it is proof of god does not make a scientific theory.

Your belief in a creator, my belief in a creator, anyone else's belief, is just that: A belief. It doesn't even come close to being a scientific theory.

If you want evidence of a creator, try to explain where the first life came from. Science has no explanation, at least not yet. That, of course, is still another thing we don't understand, and is not scientific proof that there is a creator.

Really? So you can explain which came first, or how one was created without the other, even though it's scientifically impossible? Then by all means, you best publish your information given that you'll likely be world famous for doing so.

Perhaps you could also explain how life evolved when our DNA prevents changes outside of it's designed limits, preventing any class of animal from becoming another.

Here's one. Which came first, plants or animals? If animals came first, they'd use up all the oxygen and die. If plants came first, they'd use up all the carbon dioxide and die. In either case, life would start and then cease to exist in a few years time.

There are literally hundreds of examples. How about the human eye? How did dozens of systems "evolve" in parallel unless by intelligent design? Each part of the Eye is a individual system. Since each system is utterly useless on it's own, they would have evolved out of existence before ever seeing anything.

So, the rest of them were perfectly happy with the infidel invading their nation by force, and the soldiers were actually welcomed as liberators, just as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney predicted? Great!

Does that mean the war is over now, it having been far longer than the predicted six months already?

The war with Saddam was over in months. We didn't expect the problems we had with restoring a new government. Perhaps we should have, but nevertheless, the Iraqi public are not against the US. Never were. It was the same in Vietnam. The people supported us. It was the Vietcong that didn't.

The link is that the attack of 9/11 gave the neoconservative voices within the administration an excuse to take out Saddam Hussain, and to convince a gullible public that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the response to that attack. That is the only link. Iraq did not attack the US, nor did it have to power to do so had it wanted to.

Do I need to repost all the quotes from before 9/11? The government was out to take down Saddam, long before then, and the democrats were just as in on it.

See, if perhaps before 9/11, there had not been anything about Iraq, then maybe I'd buy this theory. But we had been talking about dealing with Saddam for YEARS before this.

So here comes 9/11, and everyone including all the democrats say Iraq was likely involved. Here we have all these statements about how we need to go there from people like Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton, and nearly the entire democrat leadership, the very same people that supported going inot Iraq 4 years prior....

and you claim it was all "neo-conservatives". Sorry I don't buy it. The evidence doesn't support that position.

 

[PLC1]

Really? So you can explain which came first, or how one was created without the other, even though it's scientifically impossible? Then by all means, you best publish your information given that you'll likely be world famous for doing so.

Perhaps you could also explain how life evolved when our DNA prevents changes outside of it's designed limits, preventing any class of animal from becoming another.

Here's one. Which came first, plants or animals? If animals came first, they'd use up all the oxygen and die. If plants came first, they'd use up all the carbon dioxide and die. In either case, life would start and then cease to exist in a few years time.

There are literally hundreds of examples. How about the human eye? How did dozens of systems "evolve" in parallel unless by intelligent design? Each part of the Eye is a individual system. Since each system is utterly useless on it's own, they would have evolved out of existence before ever seeing anything.

I agree that there are hundreds of examples of reasons to believe in a creator. What I'm saying is that such a belief does not conform to the standards of a scientific theory.

Do you know how scientific theories are formulated? Hint: it is not by finding examples of things that science can't explain.

The war with Saddam was over in months. We didn't expect the problems we had with restoring a new government. Perhaps we should have, but nevertheless, the Iraqi public are not against the US. Never were. It was the same in Vietnam. The people supported us. It was the Vietcong that didn't.

Why, then, have we had such problems founding a new government? If the people were for us, then it should have been like applying the Marshall Plan in Europe. No one there set off bombs to kill American troops, preached hatred for Americans to young people, or started an "insurgency" to get us out of their countries.

Do I need to repost all the quotes from before 9/11? The government was out to take down Saddam, long before then, and the democrats were just as in on it.

See, if perhaps before 9/11, there had not been anything about Iraq, then maybe I'd buy this theory. But we had been talking about dealing with Saddam for YEARS before this.

So here comes 9/11, and everyone including all the democrats say Iraq was likely involved. Here we have all these statements about how we need to go there from people like Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton, and nearly the entire democrat leadership, the very same people that supported going inot Iraq 4 years prior....

and you claim it was all "neo-conservatives". Sorry I don't buy it. The evidence doesn't support that position.

I didn't say it was all neoconservatives. The Neoconservatives were but one voice urging military action.

I did say that the attack of 9/11 was an excuse to do what the neoconservatives, and most likely some others as well, wanted to do all along. Most of the rest of the administration and Congress joined in the Get Saddam Express after the attacks. I believe that is not too far from being the same thing you just said yourself.

I also said that the attack on the WTC was not carried out by Iraq, or by Saddam Hussain. The only connection between that attack and the invasion was that it provided a nifty excuse.

Ask the average man on the street why we invaded Iraq, and I'll bet that more than half will still say it was because of 9/11. Why do you think that is?

 

[Andy]

I agree that there are hundreds of examples of reasons to believe in a creator. What I'm saying is that such a belief does not conform to the standards of a scientific theory.

Do you know how scientific theories are formulated? Hint: it is not by finding examples of things that science can't explain.

They do conform to standards of scientific theory. Why would you suggest they do not? For example: DNA is a code. Does this conform to standards of scientific theory? (yes) A code can not exist without an intelligence. Does this conform to standards of scientific theory? (yes). If you have an alternative view, let's hear it. You must either prove that DNA isn't a code, or that codes can randomly happen spontaneously without a creator.

But, to be honest you are correct about one thing. This doesn't "prove" intelligent design. So what is my point?

My point is this: Evolution is just as much about faith, as intelligent design. This debate would be over, or never happen if evolution wasn't taught either. But if we are going to have evolution taught, then intelligent design should be taught as well. Both do not conform to scientific theory.

For example: Researchers discovered recently that DNA has a backup code within itself, that prevents long term mutations. Say you have two animals with the exact same mutation in the exact same gene. When cross bred, the reproduced animal didn't have the mutated gene. How? It's impossible, unless there is a backup cope of the DNA, that repaired itself.

One problem... if they do not reproduce mutations, then how can evolution happen? It can't. So what is evolution based on? Repeatable, demonstrable, observable results? No. There is not one single example of this anywhere ever.

Even in Micro-evolution, or adaptations of animals to their environment, what has been discovered is that all adaptation exists within the limits of DNA. In other words, for animals grow darker colors, all happens within preset limits of their DNA. The DNA doesn't change, the animal does not evolve.

Again, what is evolution then based on, since clearly the scientific evidence doesn't support it? Faith. Evolution is based on faith, just like faith in a creator G-d.

Why, then, have we had such problems founding a new government? If the people were for us, then it should have been like applying the Marshall Plan in Europe. No one there set off bombs to kill American troops, preached hatred for Americans to young people, or started an "insurgency" to get us out of their countries.

I'm a bit surprised you would even ask. Prior to the invasion of Europe, the people of the european countries were unified. The people of Iraq were not. One of the ways Saddam kept himself in power, was by turning the people against each other.

Another problem has been that those favored by the former Saddam administration, of course didn't want to give up their favored status. Further, former military personnel of Saddam, thought we would exterminate them, leaving only open hostility as their alternative.

But, none of this should be surprising. You do realize that in the US, we had the exact same thing? In 1776, we declared our independence from Briton. For the next 11 years, we had several attempts at a government that failed, until we finely wrote the constitution in 1787.

During the revolution, the British conquered New York, and floods of people, loyal to the British empire, went to New York, where they fought beside, and supported British troops. Granted they didn't have IDEs then, but that was as close as they could get with an "insurgency".

I didn't say it was all neoconservatives. The Neoconservatives were but one voice urging military action.

Along with conservatives, moderates, leftists, socialists and everyone else. So why mention neo-conservatives at all?

I did say that the attack of 9/11 was an excuse to do what the neoconservatives, and most likely some others as well, wanted to do all along. Most of the rest of the administration and Congress joined in the Get Saddam Express after the attacks. I believe that is not too far from being the same thing you just said yourself.

Yeah, like everyone wanted to do all along. Again, why specifically mention "neoconservatives" when it was everyone?

I also said that the attack on the WTC was not carried out by Iraq, or by Saddam Hussain. The only connection between that attack and the invasion was that it provided a nifty excuse.

Not all that relevant. The fact Saddam did try and establish a working relationship with Al Qaeda, means that he would have in the future, regardless of if he didn't have one yet. The job needed to get done, and we hadn't taken care of business yet. 9/11 showed that the lame way we had handled our international problems, was not enough.

Ask the average man on the street why we invaded Iraq, and I'll bet that more than half will still say it was because of 9/11. Why do you think that is?

I would wager you are wrong. Beyond that, the people who came back from Iraq, still say they believe the world will be a safer place without that wacko around.

 

[PLC1]

They do conform to standards of scientific theory. Why would you suggest they do not? For example: DNA is a code. Does this conform to standards of scientific theory? (yes) A code can not exist without an intelligence. Does this conform to standards of scientific theory? (yes). If you have an alternative view, let's hear it. You must either prove that DNA isn't a code, or that codes can randomly happen spontaneously without a creator.

But, to be honest you are correct about one thing. This doesn't "prove" intelligent design. So what is my point?

Before I can even begin to answer that, I have to know what your understanding of the term "scientific theory" is. I think I've explained mine, and it is based on the scientific method.

My point is this: Evolution is just as much about faith, as intelligent design. This debate would be over, or never happen if evolution wasn't taught either. But if we are going to have evolution taught, then intelligent design should be taught as well. Both do not conform to scientific theory.

Evolution is not at all about faith, but about starting with facts, and using facts and observations to come up with a hypotheses, or an educated guess, about what those facts mean. After that hypothesis has stood the test of additional observations and tests, many times over and from many different people, it becomes accepted as a theory. A theory is accepted as true until new evidence is found to indicate it may not be correct.

There is no new evidence to indicate that the theory of evolution is not correct, none, nada, zippo. The only reason to try to refute it is that it contradicts a belief system, and it does not contradict the concept of god. It only contradicts the notion that the Bible stories are literal truth, rather than allegories.

For example: Researchers discovered recently that DNA has a backup code within itself, that prevents long term mutations. Say you have two animals with the exact same mutation in the exact same gene. When cross bred, the reproduced animal didn't have the mutated gene. How? It's impossible, unless there is a backup cope of the DNA, that repaired itself.

One problem... if they do not reproduce mutations, then how can evolution happen? It can't. So what is evolution based on? Repeatable, demonstrable, observable results? No. There is not one single example of this anywhere ever.

Even in Micro-evolution, or adaptations of animals to their environment, what has been discovered is that all adaptation exists within the limits of DNA. In other words, for animals grow darker colors, all happens within preset limits of their DNA. The DNA doesn't change, the animal does not evolve.

Again, what is evolution then based on, since clearly the scientific evidence doesn't support it? Faith. Evolution is based on faith, just like faith in a creator G-d.

Once again, evolution is not based on faith, but on fact, and DNA does change over long periods of time. The hummingbird no doubt shares some of its DNA with T Rex, its distant ancestor, but not all of it. Humans share 98% of our DNA with our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, but that 2% makes a dramatic difference, doesn't it?

I'm a bit surprised you would even ask. Prior to the invasion of Europe, the people of the european countries were unified. The people of Iraq were not. One of the ways Saddam kept himself in power, was by turning the people against each other.

Another problem has been that those favored by the former Saddam administration, of course didn't want to give up their favored status. Further, former military personnel of Saddam, thought we would exterminate them, leaving only open hostility as their alternative.

But, none of this should be surprising. You do realize that in the US, we had the exact same thing? In 1776, we declared our independence from Briton. For the next 11 years, we had several attempts at a government that failed, until we finely wrote the constitution in 1787.

During the revolution, the British conquered New York, and floods of people, loyal to the British empire, went to New York, where they fought beside, and supported British troops. Granted they didn't have IDEs then, but that was as close as they could get with an "insurgency".

So, the Iraqi insurgents are like the revolutionaries who founded this nation? Does that make them freedom fighters, too?

Along with conservatives, moderates, leftists, socialists and everyone else. So why mention neo-conservatives at all?

Because of the definition of Neoconservative:

Function: noun
Date: 1952

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Definition #2 in particular.

Not all that relevant. The fact Saddam did try and establish a working relationship with Al Qaeda, means that he would have in the future, regardless of if he didn't have one yet. The job needed to get done, and we hadn't taken care of business yet. 9/11 showed that the lame way we had handled our international problems, was not enough.



I would wager you are wrong. Beyond that, the people who came back from Iraq, still say they believe the world will be a safer place without that wacko around.

Saddam Hussain had no use for Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion.

It may well be that the world is better off without Saddam Hussain. It would be a lot better off without other brutal dictators, as well. Does that mean that we need to go and depose all of them? Are we going to wait until there is another terrorist attack, then say, "Hey, we're attacked! Which dictator should we take out this time?"

There is no connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11. Most of the terrorists were, in fact, Saudis. Should we have invaded Saudi Arabia?

BTW, have you noticed how you are making my original point by arguing several unrelated points at the same time?

 

[Andy]

Before I can even begin to answer that, I have to know what your understanding of the term "scientific theory" is. I think I've explained mine, and it is based on the scientific method.

Empirical, measurable evidence based on observation and experimentation.

Evolution is not at all about faith, but about starting with facts, and using facts and observations to come up with a hypotheses, or an educated guess, about what those facts mean. After that hypothesis has stood the test of additional observations and tests, many times over and from many different people, it becomes accepted as a theory. A theory is accepted as true until new evidence is found to indicate it may not be correct.

Ok. First, the facts are life does not come from non-life. Fact is, codes can't exists without an intelligence. Fact is DNA can't evolve.

So you tell me, what is evolution based on? Observable facts? Nope. Demonstrable evidence? Nope. So what then? Faith.

There is no new evidence to indicate that the theory of evolution is not correct, none, nada, zippo. The only reason to try to refute it is that it contradicts a belief system, and it does not contradict the concept of god. It only contradicts the notion that the Bible stories are literal truth, rather than allegories.

Huh? lol I just listed several ways in which scientifically, evolution is impossible. And then you claim there's not evidence to the contrary of evolutionary theory. Are you willfully choosing to ignore scientific evidence, or what?

Once again, evolution is not based on faith, but on fact, and DNA does change over long periods of time. The hummingbird no doubt shares some of its DNA with T Rex, its distant ancestor, but not all of it. Humans share 98% of our DNA with our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, but that 2% makes a dramatic difference, doesn't it?

No, DNA does not. The only changes that happen within DNA, are confined within the limited perimeters that the DNA allows. In other words, it simply can not change to anything, only what the DNA is already programmed to allow. Bottom line, it's impossible for one animal to morph over any amount of time, into another. As in NOT POSSIBLE.

So, the Iraqi insurgents are like the revolutionaries who founded this nation? Does that make them freedom fighters, too?

The "Iraqi insurgents" would more likely be similar to the british loyalists, fighting against freedom. We're more like the French who sided with the colonies in revolt against the British.

Because of the definition of Neoconservative:

"Function: noun
Date: 1952

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means"

Definition #2 in particular.

So were the Soviets really neo-conservatives? Put in "USSR" for "United States" and that's exactly what the soviets did.

I'm trying to figure who doesn't support promotion of democracy, and national interest in international affairs even through military means.

Moreover, isn't national interest, the best policy? The worst we can do is run all over the world for no reason at all. One of the biggest marches against US activity was after we blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan. What was the biggest complaint? We had no business being there. Why did the Bosnians march against us? We had no business being there.

Saddam Hussain had no use for Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion.

Now that is provably wrong. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a well known, life long terrorist, prior to the Iraqi invasion:

He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after a US missile strike on his Afghan base, though the report that he lost a leg in the attack has not been verified.

Further:

The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.

In other words, clearly even if one could claim that Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't have a 'working' relationship, the were obviously trying to gain that relationship.

It may well be that the world is better off without Saddam Hussain. It would be a lot better off without other brutal dictators, as well. Does that mean that we need to go and depose all of them? Are we going to wait until there is another terrorist attack, then say, "Hey, we're attacked! Which dictator should we take out this time?"

Depends, did the dictator in question fail to submit to UN inspections, fail to abide by a cease-fire agreement, and fund and attempt to gain working relationships with terrorist groups targeting US civilians? If so, then yes.

There is no connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11. Most of the terrorists were, in fact, Saudis. Should we have invaded Saudi Arabia?

If it can be proven that the government knowingly supplied funds and support for terrorist targeting US interest, then yes.

BTW, have you noticed how you are making my original point by arguing several unrelated points at the same time?

Each issue was brought up by you. You brought up who supported the war. I proved everyone supported the war. You brought up evolution. I have responded to it. You brought up the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I merely submitted evidence.

If anything, you proved your own point by bringing up unrelated subjects.

 

[PLC1]

Empirical, measurable evidence based on observation and experimentation.



Ok. First, the facts are life does not come from non-life. Fact is, codes can't exists without an intelligence. Fact is DNA can't evolve.

So you tell me, what is evolution based on? Observable facts? Nope. Demonstrable evidence? Nope. So what then? Faith.



Huh? lol I just listed several ways in which scientifically, evolution is impossible. And then you claim there's not evidence to the contrary of evolutionary theory. Are you willfully choosing to ignore scientific evidence, or what?



No, DNA does not. The only changes that happen within DNA, are confined within the limited perimeters that the DNA allows. In other words, it simply can not change to anything, only what the DNA is already programmed to allow. Bottom line, it's impossible for one animal to morph over any amount of time, into another. As in NOT POSSIBLE.



The "Iraqi insurgents" would more likely be similar to the british loyalists, fighting against freedom. We're more like the French who sided with the colonies in revolt against the British.



So were the Soviets really neo-conservatives? Put in "USSR" for "United States" and that's exactly what the soviets did.

I'm trying to figure who doesn't support promotion of democracy, and national interest in international affairs even through military means.

Moreover, isn't national interest, the best policy? The worst we can do is run all over the world for no reason at all. One of the biggest marches against US activity was after we blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan. What was the biggest complaint? We had no business being there. Why did the Bosnians march against us? We had no business being there.



Now that is provably wrong. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a well known, life long terrorist, prior to the Iraqi invasion:

​

Further:

​

In other words, clearly even if one could claim that Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't have a 'working' relationship, the were obviously trying to gain that relationship.



Depends, did the dictator in question fail to submit to UN inspections, fail to abide by a cease-fire agreement, and fund and attempt to gain working relationships with terrorist groups targeting US civilians? If so, then yes.



If it can be proven that the government knowingly supplied funds and support for terrorist targeting US interest, then yes.



Each issue was brought up by you. You brought up who supported the war. I proved everyone supported the war. You brought up evolution. I have responded to it. You brought up the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I merely submitted evidence.

If anything, you proved your own point by bringing up unrelated subjects.

Thank you. That is what I was trying to do all along, prove my own point. You have been a great help in that effort.

So, in order to be a "conservative", it is necessary to believe that evolution is wrong, that creationism is science, that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, and that global climate change is hoax. It is not enough to simply believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government, but it is necessary also to dismiss modern science, support military adventures, and give that same limited government the power to decide who may marry whom, and when and if a pregnancy must be continued to term. You have told us which side of the issues you are on, and why.

I think you're wrong about the war, and know without a doubt that you're wrong about evolution, but that is not the point. The point is that those issues are not even remotely related.

Well, maybe remotely.

In order to believe what you believe, it is imperative to start with the belief, then find facts to back up that belief. That is the diametric opposite of the scientific method, of course.

So, that is the link. Start with a belief system, then find facts to support it rather than starting with facts and observations, formulating a hypothesis from it, then testing that hypothesis many times over.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Good post.

I ready Andy's post and could not think where to start, there was so much nonesense in it.

I notice that opponents of evolution generally don't understand it.

They probably don't want to either as the moment it makes sense another nail is added to the religious coffin.

It is also interesting how this kind of ignorance coincides with right wing politics.

But then right wing politics is generally about the manipulation of the stupid by the corrupt.

For example, right wing politics tends to prosper during economic downturn when the corrupt can present the simple message to the stupid that it is not their fault they have no money but rather it is that of all these immigrants stealing the jobs.

And boy do the followers swallow it.

 

[Andy]

Thank you. That is what I was trying to do all along, prove my own point. You have been a great help in that effort.

Ok... you proved your own point true by arguing a bunch of unrelated topic. If that's all you wanted to do, why post here? You could have done this by yourself without going on an internet forum.

So, in order to be a "conservative", it is necessary to believe that evolution is wrong, that creationism is science,

Where did I say that? In fact, I remember explicitly stating before that it isn't the case. You seem to be working from the logical fallacy that since I am a Constitutionalist Conservative, and since I have proven evolution un-scientifically plausible, and shown that intelligent design has a basis in science, that this means everyone who is Conservative must believe those things as well.

There is no such mandate in Conservatism.

that the invasion of Iraq was necessary,

We already covered this. Everyone believed the Iraq invasion was necessary, not just conservatives. Do you need the list of quotes from left-ists?

and that global climate change is hoax.

Once again, no one suggested that climate change is a hoax. This is a typical left-ist attempt at derailing the topic to a straw-man, in order to be able to attack it.

It is not enough to simply believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government, but it is necessary also to dismiss modern science, support military adventures, and give that same limited government the power to decide who may marry whom, and when and if a pregnancy must be continued to term. You have told us which side of the issues you are on, and why.

I see you are the one in all those things. You dismiss modern science, as you have shown a dozen times in this thread. The left typically supports military adventures all over the place. You want to force us to abide by your terms on who marries whom, and you wish to accept murder in the name of "mothers choice".

I think you're wrong about the war, and know without a doubt that you're wrong about evolution, but that is not the point. The point is that those issues are not even remotely related.

You can't respond to the scientifically available data on DNA, on plant & animals vs. the atmosphere, the limitations of DNA in adaptation, and I haven't even gotten to the impossibility of an evolved Human eye, or the incredibility complex blood clotting system. Yet, you 'know' without a doubt that I'm wrong. Sounds like faith to me. How about you?

In order to believe what you believe, it is imperative to start with the belief, then find facts to back up that belief. That is the diametric opposite of the scientific method, of course.

Not at all. I start from scientific evidence, and move towards conclusion based on that evidence. In fact, before I knew anything about science and so on, I was a hard core leftist. It was because I started thinking about the issues, that moved me to my current position on all these issues.

So, that is the link. Start with a belief system, then find facts to support it rather than starting with facts and observations, formulating a hypothesis from it, then testing that hypothesis many times over.

Nice theory, but since I know myself more than you, I know that I was to the left of nearly every issue before I investigated them. It was the introduction evidence and data, that moved me to where I am on nearly everything issue. In fact, when you examine this thread, which one of us has provided evidence and data? Me. Not have provided nothing.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Andy, evolution proceeds by random DNA mutation.

That is why it is the genes that survive so well and not the carcasses they occupy.

No wonder you buy religion so readily, you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

 

[PLC1]

Ok... you proved your own point true by arguing a bunch of unrelated topic. If that's all you wanted to do, why post here? You could have done this by yourself without going on an internet forum.

I wouldn't have had you as a sounding board.

Where did I say that? In fact, I remember explicitly stating before that it isn't the case. You seem to be working from the logical fallacy that since I am a Constitutionalist Conservative, and since I have proven evolution un-scientifically plausible, and shown that intelligent design has a basis in science, that this means everyone who is Conservative must believe those things as well.

There is no such mandate in Conservatism.

I see. Then, is it enough to be in favor of fiscal responsibility and limited government, without all of the peripheral and unrelated issues, to be a conservative? Do you consider my views to be conservative?

We already covered this. Everyone believed the Iraq invasion was necessary, not just conservatives. Do you need the list of quotes from left-ists?

So, supporting the war in Iraq is as much a leftist position as it is a conservative one. Is that your position?

Once again, no one suggested that climate change is a hoax. This is a typical left-ist attempt at derailing the topic to a straw-man, in order to be able to attack it.

No one suggested such a thing? Without taking the time to go back and sift through all of this rather lengthy thread, I can't dispute that.

So, then, climate change is real, the science behind it is sound, and both conservatives and liberals agree with it. Very good.

I see you are the one in all those things. You dismiss modern science, as you have shown a dozen times in this thread. The left typically supports military adventures all over the place. You want to force us to abide by your terms on who marries whom, and you wish to accept murder in the name of "mothers choice".

I have dismissed modern science? No, I don't think so. Force someone to abide by who marries whom? Hardly. That is certainly not a Libertarian view, nor is the view that I should be able to impose my values regarding abortion on the rest of society remotely Libertarian.

You can't respond to the scientifically available data on DNA, on plant & animals vs. the atmosphere, the limitations of DNA in adaptation, and I haven't even gotten to the impossibility of an evolved Human eye, or the incredibility complex blood clotting system. Yet, you 'know' without a doubt that I'm wrong. Sounds like faith to me. How about you?

None of the above is impossible, quite the contrary. If the human eye can't evolve, why do we have eyes? Why did less complex creatures have rudimentary eyes?

Not at all. I start from scientific evidence, and move towards conclusion based on that evidence. In fact, before I knew anything about science and so on, I was a hard core leftist. It was because I started thinking about the issues, that moved me to my current position on all these issues.



Nice theory, but since I know myself more than you, I know that I was to the left of nearly every issue before I investigated them. It was the introduction evidence and data, that moved me to where I am on nearly everything issue. In fact, when you examine this thread, which one of us has provided evidence and data? Me. Not have provided nothing.

And, you can't see the contradiction between the above statement about having been to the "left" on the issues we are discussing, and this one:

You seem to be working from the logical fallacy that since I am a Constitutionalist Conservative, and since I have proven evolution un-scientifically plausible, and shown that intelligent design has a basis in science, that this means everyone who is Conservative must believe those things as well.

So, which is it? Is a conservative someone who believes in limited government, or is it also necessary to:

Believe that creationism is a scientific theory,
Believe that the government gets to decide who marries who,
believe that the government gets to decide when an abortion can be performed,
believe that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

If not, then you can count me as a conservative, and the Libertarians are the most conservative people in America. If so, then I am a flaming leftist, and there is no conservative party left in the United States.

So, which is it, option A, or option B?

 

[Andy]

I wouldn't have had you as a sounding board.

You didn't need me. You listed out a string of unrelated topics you have views on. That made your own point.

I see. Then, is it enough to be in favor of fiscal responsibility and limited government, without all of the peripheral and unrelated issues, to be a conservative? Do you consider my views to be conservative?

I think the rule of law, as in murder is wrong, is a conservative issue. So a view that murder is ok, as in abortion, is not conservative.

You seem to get this idea that ideology is like a label. That you just stick the label on the person and they are that label. That is not the case. Many people hold conservative views on some issues, and liberal ones on other issues.

So, supporting the war in Iraq is as much a leftist position as it is a conservative one. Is that your position?

No. The leadership of the left, Clinton, Pelosi and Dodd, and so on, all knew the same information as everyone else. Thus they believed that going to war with Iraq was necessary. Once they realized that the war would be a useful political football to gain power, they switched to the more advantageous position.

This was a smart move on their part because they know Bush would see the war through to the end, and at the same time, they could then attack Bush over the war, without being scrutinized themselves. So they had Saddam taken care of, and scored political points at the same time.

That's why they never voted to cease funding for the war, or even tried. They all wanted Saddam removed, they just also wanted to bash Bush for 8 years, so they could seize power at the end, just like they have.

You have to remember that to the left, everything is about power. JFK and Bay of Pigs. Why didn't he support the invasion he commissioned? Political football. Once word was out, even if he did, and it was successful, it would be a political negative. So, he allowed the Cuban Exiles to be slaughtered.

No one suggested such a thing? Without taking the time to go back and sift through all of this rather lengthy thread, I can't dispute that.

So, then, climate change is real, the science behind it is sound, and both conservatives and liberals agree with it. Very good.

You are acting very very stupid. Grow up.

Everyone agrees that climate change is real. They only question AGW. What is AGW? It's man-made global warming. The left assumes this is true. It is not. Scientifically, AGW is nearly impossible, at least on a measurable basis. Man is not driving climate change. CO2 isn't driving climate change.

So no, we do not agree with man-made global warming. It's a ludicrous idea to start with, and has no basis in fact.

I have dismissed modern science? No, I don't think so. Force someone to abide by who marries whom? Hardly. That is certainly not a Libertarian view, nor is the view that I should be able to impose my values regarding abortion on the rest of society remotely Libertarian.

Sure you have. Or if you have not, it's because you don't know the modern science involved. You are either closed minded, or ignorant. I'm willing to bet on the latter. I wager you don't even know the other side of the argument, and thus assume that there is no other side, and that I must be ignoring science to not agree with it.

None of the above is impossible, quite the contrary. If the human eye can't evolve, why do we have eyes? Why did less complex creatures have rudimentary eyes?

Ah, see? That right there is my whole point. To ask the question if the eye can't evolve, then how do we have them, is to work from a presupposition, that hasn't been proven true.

We clearly do have eye's, yet it's provable they can't evolve. So how do you work that out? You are working from the presupposition, that the fact we have eyes means they must have evolved. That's circular logic!

And, you can't see the contradiction between the above statement about having been to the "left" on the issues we are discussing, and this one:

No, I guess not. Unless you read into the text things not implied. I was left of nearly every issue in the past. I guess you'll have to detail exactly which issue specifically you want to refer to.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself, if you mean evolution, I never held a real belief in evolution. It never made logical sense to me before, and all the information I've gathered thus far, shows the how un-scientific it really is.

So, which is it? Is a conservative someone who believes in limited government, or is it also necessary to:

Believe that creationism is a scientific theory,
Believe that the government gets to decide who marries who,
believe that the government gets to decide when an abortion can be performed,
believe that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

Well creationism is a scientific theory. That's just a fact. As for it being a conservative thing, I just don't see that as being a pre-req.
Marriage likely is a conservative view. I don't meet many conservatives who don't believe that marriage is what it is. That being a man and a women.
Abortion is murder, so yes that fits with the conservative rule of law. Namely that murder is wrong, and should be treated as such.
Everyone believed going into a Iraq was not a "good" idea, but a required thing.

If not, then you can count me as a conservative, and the Libertarians are the most conservative people in America. If so, then I am a flaming leftist, and there is no conservative party left in the United States.

LOL... if there is two conservatives in the US, there's a conservative party. I know dozens of people who support conservative ideals. You are generally not a conservative on most issues. You already know this.

That said, you seem to be asking the same question over and over, and I've answered it a dozen or more times, but you keep asking, and I'm not sure why. The question you repeat constantly is, is conservatism just limited government? (fiscal responsibility *is* a limited government)

The answer is no. Conservatism extends to a world view that applies to dozens of topics. You are more likely similar to a libertarian. They seem to have a very narrow scope of limited government, but otherwise anything goes. The two views are not the same.

 

[PLC1]

That said, you seem to be asking the same question over and over, and I've answered it a dozen or more times, but you keep asking, and I'm not sure why. The question you repeat constantly is, is conservatism just limited government? (fiscal responsibility *is* a limited government)

The reason I keep asking it is that you keep giving different answers.

The answer is no. Conservatism extends to a world view that applies to dozens of topics. You are more likely similar to a libertarian. They seem to have a very narrow scope of limited government, but otherwise anything goes. The two views are not the same.

Is that your final answer?

 

[Andy]

The reason I keep asking it is that you keep giving different answers.

huh. Well I don't ever remember saying it any different. But then, the way you have twist answers about global warming to mean things it didn't, then likely this is the same.

Is that your final answer?[/QUOTE]

Yes of course. Conservatism was never so narrow to only mean limited government.