Republican hypocrisy - where to start?

Let's start with the handling of terrorists:

The republicans have been relentless in their criticism of Pres. Obama's handling of terrorists.

- In 2009, we caught twice as many terrorists as did bush.

- Only the terrorists released from Gitmo by bush have rejoined terrorists groups.

- bush tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian courts while Pres. Obama is criticized by republicans for doing so.

- bush took 10 days to respond to Richard Reed (the shoe bomber) but Pres. Obama was criticized for taking 3 days to speak about the Christmas day underwear bomber.

- bush tried the shoe bomber in civilian court but Pres. Obama is criticized for wanting to try the underwear bomber in civilian court.

- the republicans leaders criticized the underwear bomber being mirandized but were told on Christmas Day that the FBI had the underwear bomber in custody. They claim they didn't know the FBI would mirandize him!! The shoe bomber was mirandized within 5 minutes.

Edited February 10, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

They can and do find some person on the fringe whose opposing opinion they will embrace rather than the consensus of the majority of educated and expert opinions. They will ignore the 95% who agree on something and chase after the looney 5% who still believe the sun revolves around whatever planet they live on.

Did you know that a news wire report from scientists in 1980 made this surprising statement: "The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10% per century."

Scientists have been watching for over 100 years. Additional studies have shown that the rate is variable, but on average it is more like 400ths of a % per century. Every hour the sun is shrinking about 2 feet. Of course, 2 feet an hour isn't much when you consider the sun is nearly a million miles in diameter. But what are the implications?

If the sun is shrinking .04% per century, then it totals .4% per millinium. Now if you believe the sun's age is only 6000 years there's no real problem. In that time, the sun will have shrunk only about 2.4%. Life on earth would go on quite fine. But if you believe the earth and the sun have been around for nearly 5 billion years, as scientists predict, you have a problem.

If the sun existed only 250,000 years ago it would have been double its present diameter. At that size with the earth at the present distance from the sun, it would be too hot on earth for life to exist.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument.

Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the

'creation-science' community

continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth.

Van Till, 1986, p.17

That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error.

An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals.

I ask that this thread NOT morph into an evolution vs creationism thread. Start a new thread if desired.

First, and by far the worst, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, as might be detected over a period of years, then it has always been shrinking!

The second error is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! Their conclusion was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.

(I obviously shortened the article for space saving.)

Copyright © 1995 Dave E. Matson. Copies of this paper may be made and sold by Edward T. Babinski, the National Center for Science Education, and all other groups who are battling the attempts by "scientific" creationists to adversely affect the quality of science education. All others are welcome to make and distribute copies provided that they are given away free of charge.

If we have to stick to pier reviewed published papers on Climate Change lets do the same on Creationism.

patty: "I certainly don't believe that anyone who disagrees with someones policies or makes fun of someone because he is the opposition (rep. vs. dem.), 'hates' them. I only used that word because in the past whenever I expressed my disagreement with a politician on an issue, I was told that I was a "hater" and/or a "bigot" on these forums. I was just reciprocating what is done around here to show others how wrong it is. I am glad that you picked up on it and now maybe others can see that it's NOT 'hate' or 'racisim' or 'bigotry' that moves us, but simply the persons agenda or beliefs or political stand that we don't like or approve of."

Bigotry does not mean hate. Look it up. Check out racism while you're at it.

You are the only person that I have obvserved using the terms hate and hatred. And you use them quite often. You may even be the only one using those terms in thread starters.

Do not blame others for the way you post or the things that you think or assume. Take responsibility for what you say. Others have no control over you. Only you can control what you post and the terms that you choose to use. If you don't want someone to resent your mean assumptions, then think before you accuse them.

Edited February 24, 201016 yr by BJean

patty: "Did you know that a news wire report from scientists in 1980 made this surprising statement: 'The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10% per century.'

"Scientists have been watching for over 100 years. Additional studies have shown that the rate is variable, but on average it is more like 400ths of a % per century. Every hour the sun is shrinking about 2 feet. Of course, 2 feet an hour isn't much when you consider the sun is nearly a million miles in diameter. But what are the implications?

"If the sun is shrinking .04% per century, then it totals .4% per millinium. Now if you believe the sun's age is only 6000 years there's no real problem. In that time, the sun will have shrunk only about 2.4%. Life on earth would go on quite fine. But if you believe the earth and the sun have been around for nearly 5 billion years, as scientists predict, you have a problem.

"If the sun existed only 250,000 years ago it would have been double its present diameter. At that size with the earth at the present distance from the sun, it would be too hot on earth for life to exist."

__________________

patty, can you tell us where you got this information?

Patty,

Have you ever looked into intelligent design theory instead of the young earth theory? It still fits with Christianity and it is compatible with science as well.

patty: "I certainly don't believe that anyone who disagrees with someones policies or makes fun of someone because he is the opposition (rep. vs. dem.), 'hates' them. I only used that word because in the past whenever I expressed my disagreement with a politician on an issue, I was told that I was a "hater" and/or a "bigot" on these forums. I was just reciprocating what is done around here to show others how wrong it is. I am glad that you picked up on it and now maybe others can see that it's NOT 'hate' or 'racisim' or 'bigotry' that moves us, but simply the persons agenda or beliefs or political stand that we don't like or approve of."

Bigotry does not mean hate. Look it up. Check out racism while you're at it.

I didn't say that it did. I said "I was called a hater, and a bigot and a racist.

You are the only person that I have obvserved using the terms hate and hatred.

Soooooo not true! Do you want me to go looking for the posts where I was told that I 'hate' Obama, and that I am a racist bigot? Cause I can very easily.

And you use them quite often. You may even be the only one using those terms in thread starters.

Do not blame others for the way you post or the things that you think or assume. Take responsibility for what you say. Others have no control over you. Only you can control what you post and the terms that you choose to use. If you don't want someone to resent your mean assumptions, then think before you accuse them.

I wasn't blaming anyone for the way I post. I was explaining WHY I was posting the word 'hate' when refering to people not liking politicians policies or beliefs or agendas. It was because others here describe it as 'hate' when you disagree with their views. Right, Cleo'smom?

patty: "Did you know that a news wire report from scientists in 1980 made this surprising statement: 'The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10% per century.'

"Scientists have been watching for over 100 years. Additional studies have shown that the rate is variable, but on average it is more like 400ths of a % per century. Every hour the sun is shrinking about 2 feet. Of course, 2 feet an hour isn't much when you consider the sun is nearly a million miles in diameter. But what are the implications?

"If the sun is shrinking .04% per century, then it totals .4% per millinium. Now if you believe the sun's age is only 6000 years there's no real problem. In that time, the sun will have shrunk only about 2.4%. Life on earth would go on quite fine. But if you believe the earth and the sun have been around for nearly 5 billion years, as scientists predict, you have a problem.

"If the sun existed only 250,000 years ago it would have been double its present diameter. At that size with the earth at the present distance from the sun, it would be too hot on earth for life to exist."

__________________

patty, can you tell us where you got this information?

Sure, I just happened to be reading a book, by Dennis R. Petersen called 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation', to my 2 sons this morning. I homeschool them and it was part of Science reading. It's a greta book.

Patty,

Have you ever looked into intelligent design theory instead of the young earth theory? It still fits with Christianity and it is compatible with science as well.

The Intelligent Design Theory is not biblical creationism. There is an important distinction between the two positions. Biblical creationists begin with a conclusion that the biblical account of creation is reliable and correct, that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent—God. They then look for evidence from the natural realm to support this conclusion. Intelligent Design theorists begin with the natural realm and reach the conclusion that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent (whoever that might be).

Either way, a creator made this place.

The Intelligent Design Theory does not presume to identify the source of intelligence (whether it be God or UFOs or something else), the vast majority of Intelligent Design theorists are theists. They see the appearance of design which pervades the biological world as evidence for the existence of God. There are, however, a few atheists who cannot deny the strong evidence for design, but are not willing to acknowledge a Creator God. They tend to interpret the data as evidence that earth was seeded by some sort of master race of extraterrestrial creatures (aliens). Of course, they do not address the origin of the aliens either, so they are back to the original argument with no credible answer.

Homeschooler.......who would have thought? I`m sure Darwin is reviewed for an objective (other) opinion....lol. An leave PG alone and stop caller her a Hater! Although, I can`t think of one subject I could agree with her on, (not even the same Eastern Time Zone we both live in), that said, she knows not of Hate. Being a Christian, does not allow for such feelings or emotions. Just continue to turn the other cheek and forgive seventy times seven. I got a question though, in the unlikely event you "DO" reach (490), do you start all over again?

Edited February 24, 201016 yr by phil1336

Now we know why the hypocritical republicans didn't want a deficit reduction committee - they like to talk the talk but they don't like to walk the walk.

The emphasis and ( ) are mine.

Paul Krugman / Starve the beast: Fiscal calamity is the GOP's plan to shrink government

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

OK, the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do.

For readers who don't know what I'm talking about: Ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are very popular. (By the way, these are all socialistic programs) So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?

The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.

And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unfunded wars. In addition, the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020.

So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Barack Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission.

Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse -- in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn't have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order.

Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they're adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they're still not willing to do that.

In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). (I have posted about this specific hypocrisy on this thread)And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: "I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, 'Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.' "

What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because "middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., GOP) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes." (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the GOP is the party of the affluent?)

At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan -- and there isn't any plan, except to regain power.

But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: In effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.

Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times.

Have you ever read "Dispensational Truth" by Clarence Larkin? It is a fascinating book written about God's plan and purpose in the ages. In it, I learned much about the Pre-Adamite Earth. I tend to agree with the author and what he talks about. The earth could be millions of years old, but that mankind was created 6000 or so years ago. The first verse in the bible states "In the beginning God creates the Heavens and the Earth. (In the beginning, whenever that was, millions or billions of years ago, no one knows for sure) The second verse says, "And NOW the earth was formless and empty." (meaning NOW (about 6000 years ago), some catastrophy befell the earth to make it formless and empty and NOW, at the time of this stories beginning, when God creates Mankind, Adam and Eve) It continues to say, "and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. This catastrophy that happened brought darkness and water to cover the earth. (probably a flood of some kind, but not to be confused with the flood of Noah's time) but God's Holy Spirit was still there. He believes that the six days work as described in Genesis 1:1-3 is not a description of how God made the original earth, but how He restored it from its "formless and empty" condition to its present state. This would make sense because when you read about Adam and Eve, and after God created them he said, Now go forth an re-plenish the earth. Meaning there were beings on this earth before Adam and Eve's time.

I am unsure of how old the earth is. It does not matter anyway. Whether the earth is a billion years old, or a few thousand years old, God is still the maker of it. When I get to Heaven someday, He will fill me in on all the things I want to know about.

I would love to continue to talk about this, but not on this thread. I will talk about it on the Do you think God exists thread. One of those.

patty: "Do you want me to go looking for the posts where I was told that I 'hate' Obama, and that I am a racist bigot?"

Yes, that would be helpful in your defense. Again, having someone say that you "hate" Obama is quite different from someone saying that you are a bigot or racist. I am pretty sure I have said that you are a bigot and/or I said you're racist. Although I don't use the second term often. Bigot works just fine.

However I haven't said, ever, that you hate Obama. I have no way of knowing how you feel emotionally about our president. However if I am to believe your posts to be truthfully what you think, then bigotry comes to mind quite frequently. Because proof is usually in the pudding.

I wasn't blaming anyone for the way I post. I was explaining WHY I was posting the word 'hate' when refering to people not liking politicians policies or beliefs or agendas. It was because others here describe it as 'hate' when you disagree with their views. Right, Cleo'smom?

I will answer that question with a this column that says much of what I've been saying but he gets paid for it:

Reg Henry

I'm mad as heck at those who are mad

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

By Reg Henry,

Today's column starts with a confession: I may have to go to anger management classes. I need to manage becoming more angry. It is all the rage, you know.

Just look around. Tea Party folks, politicians and talk show hosts have worked themselves up into a high lather of political indignation. But my problem is that I hate being angry. I think it is a poison for the soul.

Before embracing my inner ranter, I prefer to go through the stages of wrath in the hope of avoiding maximum meltdown. I find that turning the other cheek should always be tried first before ever moving on to mild irritation, medium peevishness, creative sulking, pointed sarcasm, hot and bothered manner and, the last stage, impersonation of Mount Vesuvius.

Unfortunately, many people today are in full eruption, threatening to turn America into a latter-day Pompeii. If this goes on, future scientists will find perfectly preserved bodies of guys in baseball caps reaching out to adjust their talk-radio dials.

The situation in America today reminds me of "Network," the 1976 movie in which a crazed TV anchor tells viewers to throw open their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Not a good thing. Such unhinged, unfocused anger relieves everybody of the burden of serious thinking. That is precisely the case today. In most cases, people have gone from being flat-out asleep to mad as wet hens in the course of just one year. Gosh, I wonder what happened. Whatever the reason, thank goodness no racism was involved!

The angry ones insist they have good cause for their rage and, of course, they surf the real misery of the Great Recession. But those who complain the loudest seem to be doing very well, thank you very much. Are Glenn Beck and some of the better-fed politicians in the ranks of the unemployed?

It is true that the Obama administration is spending money like a drunken sailor, but much of it has been done to stimulate the economy in accordance with a highly conventional economic theory, without which millions more jobs would have been lost.

Blinded by their rage, the president's critics always forget to mention this last part -- just as many of them at the time forgot to complain when George W. Bush was the toast of the drunken sailor community and finally presided over the ruination of the economy.

(I am forgetting myself. The new Political Correctness insists that it is bad form to give the recent historical context of our current troubles, which makes as much sense as dropping a person on a desert island without food and, when he gets hungry, not allowing him to mention that he was dropped on a desert island.)

In truth, I have become cynical about much of this newly minted anger. You say Obama trashes the Constitution? Where were you a few years ago when Bush and Cheney were up to their mischief? Not a peep of complaint out of most of you.

For the record, my own feelings concerning the previous administration dwelled somewhere between pointed sarcasm and hot and bothered, and I would recommend that to all concerned citizens now justifiably vexed by the Obama administration. Free-ranging hatred, however, is always to be avoided like the plague it is.

How did we get like this? As most of the anger could have been awakened as easily years earlier if the current naysayers were in the mood, the only logical explanation is that a party in power for eight years lost and another took over -- which seemed to some people positively un-American and an excuse for having a fit like spoiled children who did not get their way.

Well, I, for one, have become angry with the newly angry. I am tired of the whole raft of lunacies -- the Birther movement, absurd claims of socialism, e-mails that malign the president on the basis of made-up facts, the whole toxic stew flavored by sheer and unadulterated detestation. I am tired of reading that some loser who crashed a plane into an IRS office is hailed in some quarters as a hero and a patriot. Some hero. Some patriot.

Enough. It's time for reasonable people to take back their country and not let its fate be decided by those who shout the loudest. It's time to close our windows and quietly say in a spirit of good will: I am not going to support such hatred anymore. And do you know why? Because the second part of "United we stand" is "divided we fall."