In his news conference today, Gibbs said Iran needs to stop their nuclear program
in order to join the world in a "meaningful relationship."

Wow, that should change their minds. :err:

In his news conference today, Gibbs said Iran needs to stop their nuclear program
in order to join the world in a "meaningful relationship."

Wow, that should change their minds. :err:

I believe they also stated that severe economic sanctions were next... This will not get a free pass...

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

you are too funny. Obama stood on the sidelines while Iranians were being killed after the elections and in normal Obama fashion, his response was too little, too late. And you say he "reached out to the people", you think the average Iranian gives too $hits about Obama? The iron hand rules there and thats not changing anytime soon. As far as UN Sanctions.....OOOOOOHHHH Scary....... how'd those pan out for Iraq? I guess if they dont we can just pass another, and another and another and another and another......

Iran will nuke Israel and Spence will say..."Obama did everything perfectly and brilliantly.....it was Bush's fault that all of those Israelies are dead"...what a dope....


"People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship."
-spence

I think Neville Chaimberlain said the same thing about Hitler...


today...
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran tested its most advanced missiles Monday to cap two days of war games, raising more international concern and stronger pressure to quickly come clean on the newly revealed nuclear site Tehran was secretly constructing.
State television said the powerful Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran's missile program, successfully tested upgraded versions of the medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles. Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe within striking distance.

you are too funny. Obama stood on the sidelines while Iranians were being killed after the elections and in normal Obama fashion, his response was too little, too late. And you say he "reached out to the people", you think the average Iranian gives too $hits about Obama? The iron hand rules there and thats not changing anytime soon. As far as UN Sanctions.....OOOOOOHHHH Scary....... how'd those pan out for Iraq? I guess if they dont we can just pass another, and another and another and another and another......
What was Obama to do, invade?

UN sanctions were quite effective in stopping Saddam's production of WMD's.

-spence

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence


Do you really believe that there can be productive dialogue with Ahmadinejad? This is the same guy that believes that the Holocaust never happened and wants to blow Israel off the map. He also claimed that the global economic crisis was a good thing because it collapsed liberalism. :smash:

Do you really believe that there can be productive dialogue with Ahmadinejad? This is the same guy that believes that the Holocaust never happened and wants to blow Israel off the map. He also claimed that the global economic crisis was a good thing because it collapsed liberalism. :smash:

But the President is only a bit player, it's the Ayatollah and military who have the real authority. What we saw this summer was that the circle of clerics is not as tight as we once believed.

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

Iran has interests, everybody has a price...

-spence

But the President is only a bit player, it's the Ayatollah and military who have the real authority. What we saw this summer was that the circle of clerics is not as tight as we once believed.

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

Iran has interests, everybody has a price...

-spence

Exactly, Spence. Ahmadinejad really isn't supposed to have authority over the nuclear weapons program in Iran, yet he's the one making the most noise about it. He's kind of like another President who likes to be involved in everything.

Just because he won't nuke Isreal, doesn't mean that he's someone who other world leaders should trust. Time and time again, he's made comments that point to him as being a loose cannon.

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

-spence

easy for you to say, your children don't live in Israel...

Exactly, Spence. Ahmadinejad really isn't supposed to have authority over the nuclear weapons program in Iran, yet he's the one making the most noise about it. He's kind of like another President who likes to be involved in everything.
Yes, that's exactly it. He makes "noise"...

This isn't rocket science. The more the rest of the world think's he is a whack job the more power he has. He has no legal authority to order any Iranian forces to move.

You do know the game of poker was invented by Persians don't you?

Just because he won't nuke Isreal, doesn't mean that he's someone who other world leaders should trust. Time and time again, he's made comments that point to him as being a loose cannon.

Trust? Hell no...he's extremely manipulative.

But it's not like Obama is going to sit down for a little chat. Any negotiation would be between his people and our people. If there is any concession we need to have clear and easily verifiable benchmarks. We need to have the G5 on our side before we sit at the table.

There is another way you know. We could call Iran a bunch of names, insult the rest of the World, cry foul when they didn't show us their cards and refuse to speak with them until they agreed to give up their position before we met.

If it comes to it, we need to bring some pain.

Yes, the Bush strategy...look where it got us in 8 years. The irony is that before the "Axis of Evil" speech, Iran was helping us after 9/11. We even had a mutual interest!

-spence

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

RIJIMMY
Very well said.

Be exposed! The Jewish intellegent service probably already knew

Stalin and Hitler had dialogue and a close relationship too, that is until Hitler attacked.

The UN has starved the North Koreans and and strict sanctions for years and plenty of dialogue, dialogue, dialogue and they still got materials for rockets. What makes Iran any different?

It's time to unleash the Jewish Air Force

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.
Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216264)

-spence

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

While I don't have an opinion on the Iran situation because, quite frankly, I don't care.

But based on your above comments, what exactly should be done about Iran then? Should we extend the military and embark on fighting wars on three separate fronts, all against Islamic countries?

Eventually, the world will have no choice but to believe the US hates Islam - and then you'll see how much "unsafer than a year ago" we will be.

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins. :)

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins. :)

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216264)

-spence

Now I know why your a nut:rotf2:
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.:rotf2:

Now I know why your a nut:rotf2:
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.:rotf2:

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins. :)

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence


I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

What was Obama to do, invade?



-spence

What could he have done? How about one of those teleprompter passionate speeches THE VERY DAY of the reports of civilians being killed? How about calling for an IMMMEDIATE meeting of the UN Security Council? How about LEADING !!!!!!!

I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

i dont agree 100%. Islam is not the problem, but enough of Islam, as an entity, is not speaking up enough about the extremists nor taking any action. Its pretty telling when you see the polls on who caused 9/11 and a large majority of muslims beleive it was the jews. They need to get over the palestinian thing. Muslims countries do NOTHING to help the palestinians other than condemn the jews. Spread the wealth.

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

No, it "echos" evidence for demographic predictions. Some predictions actually occur. Some don't. The statitistics on fertility rates for various countries is not new. Nor are those on the rapidly growing Muslim populations, way out of proportion to their starting points. The predictions are based on demographic data. As far as I know, no one has disputed them. Whether they mean anything to you or not is up to you

How about calling for an IMMMEDIATE meeting of the UN Security Council? How about LEADING !!!!!!!
To what end? Invasion?

They certainly didn't want to look like we were meddling in their affairs, which is a stigma the US has among the Iranian people.

Also, given the situation had we taken a harder line it would have most likely just empowered the Iranian hardliners. By showing their true colors they revealed their weakness. The clerics are not all on the same page.

A knee-jerk reaction might have impressed the neocons, but the goal is to win the long-term struggle.

It's looking like the Administration has worked to find some common ground among the G5 which is necessary to apply any real pressure.

The Iranian issue will be solved via incremental success, of which the past 8 years have seen none.

-spence

To what end? Invasion?

They certainly didn't want to look like we were meddling in their affairs, which is a stigma the US has among the Iranian people.

Also, given the situation had we taken a harder line it would have most likely just empowered the Iranian hardliners. By showing their true colors they revealed their weakness. The clerics are not all on the same page.

A knee-jerk reaction might have impressed the neocons, but the goal is to win the long-term struggle.

It's looking like the Administration has worked to find some common ground among the G5 which is necessary to apply any real pressure.

The Iranian issue will be solved via incremental success, of which the past 8 years have seen none.

-spence

huh? Do you actually think before you post or is this an automated reply which pulls together a bunch of pro-obama talking points? You think the PEOPLE of Iran didnt want the support of the American President because it would be seen as meddling during the election aftermath, yet you think the PEOPLE of Iran are behind Obama because he is meddling in their nuclear effort? You come up with some wacky rationalization for everything. Common sense needs to prevail at some point.

You think the PEOPLE of Iran didnt want the support of the American President because it would be seen as meddling during the election aftermath, yet you think the PEOPLE of Iran are behind Obama because he is meddling in their nuclear effort? You come up with some wacky rationalization for everything. Common sense needs to prevail at some point.

These are different issues.

The election issue is one where Obama didn't want to de-legitimize the opposition by giving the hardliners an out to write it off as US led subversion of Iranian sovereignty. Considering we have a history of meddling in Iranian politics, this is a serious concern.

The nuclear issue is a national security concern where the Iranian government appears to be in violation of International Law. From what we saw of the last election, the people clearly don't think the current government is serving their interests.

I'm not sure how you think this is a wacky rationalization. I'm watching how the Administration appears to be feeling the situation out, and so far it looks like they might have a workable strategy in play.

-spence

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216264)

-spence

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, has finally noticed that Barack Obama is not leading as chief executive but is still stuck in campaign mode - as if he is still running for the office:


The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?
I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.
Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."
This isn't a contradiction, but rather a pragmatic observation. The UN certainly has dysfunctions, but at the present it's the only global organization with legal legitimacy. While I'd agree this shouldn't be seen as a crippling constraint, when used properly it could dramatically diminish the options of our opponents.

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."
Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

A very interesting book (I loaned to my father and haven't seen since) is the "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" by Andrew Bacevich.

"Bacevich is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--Tony Judt, The New York Review of Books
Basically he argues that as a nation we've come to rely on cruise missiles rather than thinking to solve our big problems.

Good book...

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Militarism-Americans-Seduced/dp/0195311981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254251588&sr=8-1

-spence

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?
See Spence, I don't like Obama. I don't like what he stands for. He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues. He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward. Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.
FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.
Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.
Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

[QUOTE=spence;714535]I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?
Not a cheap shot, I was just wondering where your critical thinking went. Read your own responses in this thread.

See Spence, I don't like Obama.

I got that.

I don't like what he stands for.
America?

He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues.
I see that he has a different approach than Bush, but where has Obama shown a lack of courage?

He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward.
Election year fluff long since debunked.

Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate.

The Illinois state Legislature allows members to vote "present" rather than "yes" or "no." The Times reported in December that "present" votes provide a way for lawmakers to voice opposition to an issue. Such votes can also help them avoid the political fall-out of voting "no":

Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.
Yep, Iran sure was intimidated.

FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.
I think most would agree that the majority of the Patriot Act is very reasonable. Some elements need additional measures to ensure privacy is protected. I don't see this as "trashing."

Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.
Where?

Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

I'm really not all that educated, it just comes naturally :smokin:

-spence

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.
It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.
No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2009/04/have_the_conservatives_in_just_two_and_a/ObamaHitler.jpg

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.
I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.
This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.


Belize? Riots? This is not marginalizing, it is super-minimalizing and smearing. It was Zakaria, not you, that left out "right wing" opinions in ALL the countries to whose select media he referred.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2009/04/have_the_conservatives_in_just_two_and_a/ObamaHitler.jpg

Your picture is not the GOP. Is code pink the Democrat party?

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

It is the nature of treaties to constrain. Without the constraint, anything goes. On the other hand, if too much constraint already exists, a treaty may remove it. That is usually the object of "free trade." I have not followed "current" conservative position on trade. It has traditionally been for open markets. It is the nature of law, in a society such as ours, to constrain government from infringing on the rights of the people.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.-spence

Where did you find these beliefs? I am not aware of them.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

Anyway, my response was to your question to ME, did I think the U.S. has the diplomatic strength that it had in the 1940s. I wasn't responding for the GOP, or neocons.

the folks comparing Obama to Hitler are Lyndon Larouche followers...they're lefty's...

didn't Obama say that Iran is a tiny country and posed no threat?

It appears Obama's now pissed off the French. Now even the French are calling him out. This is getting embarressing.

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

In regard to Zakaria saying that Obama's speech was well received ALL OVER THE WORLD except in ONE PLACE, he must not consider much of the trepidation in East Europe to be occurring in a place. There is much fear there with his "cooperation" with Russia. Especially when, in July a group of politicians and scholars from 9 of these countries published a lengthy open letter to Obama stating the need for continued and expanded US engagement in the security of that region, and specifically pointed to the need for maintaining the planned missile-defence installations and NOT to bow to Moscow's wishes.

He also must not think Israel is much of a place. 4% of Israelis see obamas policies as pro-Israel, 51% see them as pro-palestinian. 88% of Israelis, by the way, view Bushes administration as pro-Israel.

Because of the growing Islamic "problem," their are many in Western Europe who have become "right wing populists," some percentages as high as 25-30% or more. They do not have favorable views of Obama and his policies. But, of course, the MEDIA that Zakaria hears reports that everywhere in the world except America's right wing netherworld received Obama's speech well.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2009/04/have_the_conservatives_in_just_two_and_a/ObamaHitler.jpg
-spence

In regard to your photo, isn't it interesting that the Obama as Hitler photo is being held conveniently backwards right at the camera, the sign holders arms fully extended (which couldn't be held in that position very long due to circulation and gravity/weight problems) so as to place the photo prominently above the distraction of the messy crowd, dominating the photo in an almost perfect artistic "third" portion. And all so conveniently coinciding with the click of the camera.

And regarding Zakaria's saying the discourse of American conservatism today being death panels and Hitler, how about:

Gore Vidal, major leftist and Obama supporter, says the Republican party is a mindset, like Hitler youth, based on hatred, and conservatives are fascists.

Ted Turner, leftist CNN guy, compares Fox News to Hitler.

CNN host D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany.

Allen L Roland (lefty radio host) said Bush was like Hitler.

Edward Jayne said Bush was like Hitler.

George Soros compared Bush to Nazis.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd said Bush reminded him of Goering.

Al Gore referred to republican computer teams as brownshirts.

Novelist Andrew Greeley depicted Bush as a Hitler figure.

Judge Guido Calabresi said Bushes rise to power was like the rise of Hitler and Mussolini

Various leftists depicted Bush as Attila, Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ, Frankenstein.

Anti-war protests of 2003-2007 was rife with images of Bush with Hitler Mustache and Nazi uniform.

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.
Agreed, but that not the point that Fareed was trying to make. It was quite simply, that the GOP has offered little but to demonize Obama in the hope of stalling his Administration.

That liberals have used the analogy is moot. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's the context of the recent dialogue that's important when discussing his commentary.

As for the missle shield in Europe...are we fighting the Cold War or the War on Terrorism? One observation (ok, also made by Fareed) is that US foreign policy too often tries to have it all. It calls for behavior modification and regime change and then complains when it gets neither.

It's quite possible that Obama's concession to Russia could add to our hand in Iran, and that this has a larger long-term net value for our security.

Does this mean that some reporting has glossed over these concerns? Perhaps, but was that of interest to the American media consumers? Perhaps not as much.

-spence

Agreed, but that not the point that Fareed was trying to make. It was quite simply, that the GOP has offered little but to demonize Obama in the hope of stalling his Administration.

That liberals have used the analogy is moot. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's the context of the recent dialogue that's important when discussing his commentary.

-spence

So why do you show us that stupid, probably staged, photo?

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in). The only actual Republican politician he mentioned was Nixon. He painted ACTUAL UNNAMED Republican politicians as fools-by-proxy. He immediately excoriated a "right-wing netherworld" comprised of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and a debate in The National Review, and then proclaimed that today's discourse of American conservatism is: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler. As an editor of Newsweek, either he KNOWS that actual Republican politicians have not discoursed Hitler and have discoursed every major topic, or he is too ignorant to be an editor of a major news journal. Does he, or you, know that there are 32 bills on health care reform submitted by House Republicans? Of course, when Republicans speak, as far as the media to which Zakaria pays heed, its like an insignificant little gust passing away. Because Republican views differ from the politically accepted norm of the select media, when they are given attention, they, naturally being different than Obama's, are considered obstructionism, or demonization to defeat him. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE? Is that not what the Dems did throughout much of Bushes terms? SUCCESSFULLY?

Much of Zakaria's article was about diplomacy, but he was very undiplomatic and sarcastic toward the right.

So why do you show us that stupid, probably staged, photo?
How do you know it was staged? If I were attending a rally you'd better believe I'd bring a double sided sign.

If it were an image of Obama as the Joker would that be any different? I'm sure I can find plenty of those.

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in).
Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

The only actual Republican politician he mentioned was Nixon. He painted ACTUAL UNNAMED Republican politicians as fools-by-proxy. He immediately excoriated a "right-wing netherworld" comprised of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and a debate in The National Review, and then proclaimed that today's discourse of American conservatism is: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler. As an editor of Newsweek, either he KNOWS that actual Republican politicians have not discoursed Hitler and have discoursed every major topic, or he is too ignorant to be an editor of a major news journal. Does he, or you, know that there are 32 bills on health care reform submitted by House Republicans? Of course, when Republicans speak, as far as the media to which Zakaria pays heed, its like an insignificant little gust passing away. Because Republican views differ from the politically accepted norm of the select media, when they are given attention, they, naturally being different than Obama's, are considered obstructionism, or demonization to defeat him. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE? Is that not what the Dems did throughout much of Bushes terms? SUCCESSFULLY?
I've yet to see any real GOP leadership on these issues. Are there legitimate ideas out there? Of course there are, but they are not the focus of attention because the party is in a reactionary position and looking towards the quick emotional hit, the pundits, rather than those who might actually make a difference.

About the only rationale I've seen from Republicans on the issue of health care has come from Republican "business executives".

-spence

As for the missle shield in Europe...are we fighting the Cold War or the War on Terrorism? One observation (ok, also made by Fareed) is that US foreign policy too often tries to have it all. It calls for behavior modification and regime change and then complains when it gets neither.

It's quite possible that Obama's concession to Russia could add to our hand in Iran, and that this has a larger long-term net value for our security.

Does this mean that some reporting has glossed over these concerns? Perhaps, but was that of interest to the American media consumers? Perhaps not as much.

-spence

Discussing the missile shield is another lengthy topic. I introduced the SIZABLE POPULATION AND AREA of East Europe, as well as Israel, as well as sizable numbers of West Europeans, as a rather huge block of folks that Zakaria left out of his everyplace in the world except in America's Right-Wing netherworld. You called it marginalizing (which I think is a mean thing to do), I call it willful ignorance, misinformation, which leads me to mistrust what he says.

There is a great deal in Eastern Europe that SHOULD concern "American media consumers". And they might well be very interested, but, we remain ignorant, perhaps Zakaria as well, because the "media" doesn't tell us. As I said before, if all the truth resided in media reports, you might have a point.

How do you know it was staged? If I were attending a rally you'd better believe I'd bring a double sided sign.

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

You DO think well of yourself, don't you.

I've yet to see any real GOP leadership on these issues. Are there legitimate ideas out there? Of course there are, but they are not the focus of attention because the party is in a reactionary position and looking towards the quick emotional hit, the pundits, rather than those who might actually make a difference.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.

About the only rationale I've seen from Republicans on the issue of health care has come from Republican "business executives".
-spence

HR77, HR109, HR198, HR270, HR321, HR464, HR502, HR544, HR917, HR1086, HR1118, HJR1441, HR1458, HR1468, HR1658, HR1891, HR2520, HR2607, HR2692, HR2784, HR2785, HR2786, HR2787, HR3141, HR3217, HR3218, HR3356, HR3372, HR3400, HR3438, HR3454, HR3478.

Iran has spent the last year or so building a second nuclear facility in a mountain. They are going to have a bomb. That they will not be denied. If you think inspectors or a piece of paper will stop then then you need a little more realitity in your life. Talk will not work.
Obama had his chance at an internal uprising a few months ago and he sat on his hands and did nothing for fear of offending.

Obama had his chance at an internal uprising a few months ago and he sat on his hands and did nothing for fear of offending.

Aren't you tired of committing your money to policing the world?

Iran getting the bomb is of minimal risk to the US when compared to any of the European countries.

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.
I quickly grabbed a photo to spice up my post, not to serve as the backbone of the argument. Postulate all you want as to the origins of that photo, it does nothing to counter the assertion that as far as the GOP is concerned, demonizing Obama is prioritized over furthering any constructive debate.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.
I don't really care about party. I vote based on the candidates and the issues, and I'm fairly certain I've voted for far more Republican candidates over the years than Democrats.

HR77, HR109, HR198, HR270, HR321, HR464, HR502, HR544, HR917, HR1086, HR1118, HJR1441, HR1458, HR1468, HR1658, HR1891, HR2520, HR2607, HR2692, HR2784, HR2785, HR2786, HR2787, HR3141, HR3217, HR3218, HR3356, HR3372, HR3400, HR3438, HR3454, HR3478.
So did you actually read any of these before you cut and pasted?

To provide for a credit for certain health care benefits in determining the minimum wage.

To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report on the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to require that additional tariffs be imposed on products of that country on the basis of the rate of manipulation by that country of the rate of exchange between the currency of that country and the United States dollar.

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize assistance to improve security and promote economic development in Mexico.

Etc...

These are the great GOP ideas we've been waiting for? Did any make it past sub committee?

-spence

I quickly grabbed a photo to spice up my post, not to serve as the backbone of the argument. Postulate all you want as to the origins of that photo, it does nothing to counter the assertion that as far as the GOP is concerned, demonizing Obama is prioritized over furthering any constructive debate.

What is your connection of the GOP to that photo? Is the sign carrier a GOP congressman? Did the GOP give him the sign and tell him to display it? I have no idea who that person is, what his intentions are, to which party he is affiliated, for all I know, you sent him there. The photo does nothing to support the assertion that the GOP is demonizing Obama. And if it's a set-up, it is even worse.

I don't really care about party. I vote based on the candidates and the issues, and I'm fairly certain I've voted for far more Republican candidates over the years than Democrats.

So this is supposed to give you the bona fides to connect the GOP to that photo?

So did you actually read any of these before you cut and pasted?

To provide for a credit for certain health care benefits in determining the minimum wage.

To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report on the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to require that additional tariffs be imposed on products of that country on the basis of the rate of manipulation by that country of the rate of exchange between the currency of that country and the United States dollar.

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize assistance to improve security and promote economic development in Mexico.

Etc...

These are the great GOP ideas we've been waiting for? Did any make it past sub committee?

-spence

When you google the HR numbers, you will find numbers for various years. For instance the HR321 that refers to the foreign exchange rate policies of China is the 2007 bill. The 2009 HR321 is the health care version. The HR502 that refers to security in Mexico is the 2007 bill. The 2009 bill is the health care version. The majority of the HRs I listed are small items. The largest, most important one, in the list is HR3218. It is titled Improving Health Care For all Americans Act, introduced by Republican House Representative John Shadegg.

So which NON-EXISTENT Republican health care proposal is Democrat congressman Alan Grace referring to when he says the Republican health care plan tells you to die quickly? Is this demonizing rather than furthering the debate? Or is it demonizing and obstructing only if a Republican says it?

So which NON-EXISTENT Republican health care proposal is Democrat congressman Alan Grace referring to when he says the Republican health care plan tells you to die quickly? Is this demonizing rather than furthering the debate? Or is it demonizing and obstructing only if a Republican says it?
It was a stunt...like "you lie"...he makes the bed in which he sleeps.

-spence

It was a stunt...like "you lie"...he makes the bed in which he sleeps.

-spence

So is his stunt a demonization of an ACTUAL Republican health care plan (which Dems keep claiming doesn't exist and Repubs only demonize, without being constructive, for the quick hit to defeat Obama)? Or is his stunt somehow calling attention to the fact that there is no Republican plan by saying that such a non-existent plan tells you to die quickly?

So is his stunt a demonization of an ACTUAL Republican health care plan (which Dems keep claiming doesn't exist and Repubs only demonize, without being constructive, for the quick hit to defeat Obama)? Or is his stunt somehow calling attention to the fact that there is no Republican plan by saying that such a non-existent plan tells you to die quickly?
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?

-spence

I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?

-spence

Sarcasm represents a difficult verbal behavior, and many who attempt to use it, fail to accomplish the task.

Sarcasm represents a difficult verbal behavior, and many who attempt to use it, fail to accomplish the task.

I see, so I guess that invalidates the entire commentary.

-spence

I see, so I guess that invalidates the entire commentary.

-spence

The universe is infinite, and entireties are diffilcult to comprehend.

The universe is infinite, and entireties are diffilcult to comprehend.

I see you're not an advocate of quantum theory.

-spence

I see you're not an advocate of quantum theory.

-spence

I see by your avatar that you are. And a pseudo-postmodernist as well.

I see by your avatar that you are. And a pseudo-postmodernist as well.
I think that some postmodernist thinking can be very beneficial to understanding complex things, or coming to a better understanding of absolutes - which should be applied judiciously.

As Obi wan said, "only Sith believe in absolutes."

-spence

I think that some postmodernist thinking can be very beneficial to understanding complex things, or coming to a better understanding of absolutes - which should be applied judiciously.

As Obi wan said, "only Sith believe in absolutes."

-spence

Hmmm. Might be a contradiction between your postmodernist self and your quantum theory self. The postmodernist side is very beneficial to understanding absolutes, but your quantum theory side cannot achieve absolute certainty because of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty.

BTW, has the postmodernist in you tackled the deconstruction of quantum theory? That would be a spectacular contribution to the philosophy of science.

Hmmm. Might be a contradiction between your postmodernist self and your quantum theory self. The postmodernist side is very beneficial to understanding absolutes, but your quantum theory side cannot achieve absolute certainty because of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty.
Actually, it's just the opposite.

Quantum theory stipulates that particles can be in more than one place at one time, or even disappear and reappear somewhere else. This "uncertainty" is critical for modeling the relativism of morality :hihi:

BTW, has the postmodernist in you tackled the deconstruction of quantum theory? That would be a spectacular contribution to the philosophy of science.
And make for some really, REALLY whack artwork in the process.

If I had the brainpower I'd be all over it.

-spence

Actually, it's just the opposite.

Quantum theory stipulates that particles can be in more than one place at one time, or even disappear and reappear somewhere else. This "uncertainty" is critical for modeling the relativism of morality :hihi:-spence

It is also the model for unraveling concepts such as "balance of nature" or even such things as a perfectly balanced eco-system. It is probably critical for modeling evolution. Quantum theory can probably explain why things constantly evolve rather than idylically staying the same. Even your avatar didn't like the "uncertainty" inserted into quantum theory and tried to disprove it. He said that God doesn't play dice with the universe. Interesting that he doesn't seem to have stated any opinions on evolution. I kinda think he didn't like that either. Maybe he has commented on it. I'm not well-versed on his bio.

Even your avatar didn't like the "uncertainty" inserted into quantum theory and tried to disprove it. He said that God doesn't play dice with the universe.
I actually did a project on that quote in art school. It was a composition of a God figure throwing dice at the end of a craps table. Ironically enough it was a study in perspective!

Not making that up.

I think Einstein simply didn't want to give up on the idea that everything in physics could be defined in a logical manner. Perhaps this was just his ego talking...

-spence