Letters to the Editor
had_enough
Published Letters: 817 Editor's Choice: 48
-
@tyler ... listen carefully...
[Read the article: Maybe he really is "the commander guy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]tyler wrote:
In a different thread, you suggested I could only show responsibility (for voting for bush) by voting dem next time.
That is silly.
What if the dems drink the "electablility" kool-aid again and put a train wreck like clinton on the ticket?
&&&&&&&&&
You really regard Clinton as a trainwreck? Even crippled by vengeful GOPers who couldn't stand the fact of his personal power, he managed to create eight years of enormous wealth and freedom in this country. He fixed the budget deficit left by Reagan and Bush and set the stage for the growth we have seen, even including the dot.com bubble.
I'd take a Clinton any day over Bush. Any Bush. The fact that you would not do likewise is a little bewildering. If you really believe the rest of what you say about Bush.
But perhaps you simply don't agree with my argument that "they are not all the same." Do you understand just how much damage Bush has done? I don't think you do. I think you have only the most superficial understanding of just how deeply Bush has damaged our politics, our political economy, our international diplomacy and our future. The fact that you voted for him in 2004 suggests you don't get it. The fact that you think that Kerry would have been *worse* than Bush proves you don't get it.
I find your entire line of "reasoning"--if you want to call it that--specious. Just an example of denial. You don't want to accept blame for Bush, and for your own heedlessness in voting for him TWICE..instead, you want to blame Democrats for not nominating Jesus as their candidate. Although I'd guess you wouldn't have voted for him either...after all, he'd have been a democrat.
I quit. You need to clear up your fuzzy thinking, Tyler, and see things a big more clearly. Right now, you're in a fog of denial.
(by the way, we do agree on one thing: I'd have voted for Dean in a heartbeat. But the Dems were too cowardly to give him the support he deserved. On that, we agree.)
-
@richard ray ... ok, but..
[Read the article: Inside the Creation Museum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]rray wrote:
Consider the bold statement that in the Newtonian realm it is a 'fact' that 2 + 2 = 4. Nope. We have far and away enough cases in the induction to make it possible to use that belief effectively, but it cannot be proved inductively at a basic level, and it can in fact (mathematical fact) be proved that it cannot be proved one way or the other. Sorry.
********
Ok, I'll concede that much. Consider a more rough-and-ready approach. One can calculate pi to billions of places, but one need only use the first three or four places to do useful work with pi.
If you want to argue about how far above one axis lies the asymptote, fine, but I have better things to do.
Because that, in essence, is what your post proposes: that the distance from the axis as the line approaches infinity is somehow important.
For the purposes of useful work, evolutionary theory, and my faculties together prove the absence of any supernatural being that created the Universe...or anything else.
It is elementary that I cannot prove a negative. What I was attempting to do was describe what my atheism is to me: a fact of nature as much as the laws of gravity. Not a belief system. There is no faith involved in atheism.
For the purposes of useful work, no faith is required. I think Dawkins has more than adequately made the case that evolutionary theory allows for nothing more than a blind watchmaker. If you choose to regard that as evidence of *God* I won't argue with you.
-
@tyler... nice try, but still no cigar
[Read the article: Maybe he really is "the commander guy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]tyler wrote:
As for had_enough, your basic argument is that I'm too stupid or in too strong a state of denial to understand. How gracious of you.
%%%%%%%%%%%
If you had watched people like YOU, who should have known better, vote for Bush twice, you'd be suffering from reactionary myopia too.
I'd say you're half-bright at this point. Look. I didn't vote for Bush. Never would have. I made it a point to educate myself about the guy during the 2000 campaign before he was appointed to office by the SCOTUS.
I hoped he wouldn't be as bad as I feared, but he proved to be infinitely worse. I can see you voting for the guy the first time in a fog of ignorance. But the second time??? There's no excuse for that.
And you can diss Clinton all you want, but the record is clear: he will be considered one of the best Presidents, and Bush will clearly be the worst. Right there with James Buchanan. And there are good reasons for that.
When you bring up Waco you just make yourself look silly. David Koresh was a nut, abusing people in there, he and his people asked for it, and they got it. They fired on ATF agents. Even if the ATF guys fired first (that's in perpetual dispute), the Davidians were asking to be killed, firing on Federal Agents. What did they expect? And note that the Bush administration let the guy do his shit for a long time before the ATF finally put an end to it...a *month* into Clinton's term.. to blame Clinton for "Waco" is suspect at best, and I'm one of those people who think the ATF did the best they could under the circumstances. Were they perfect? No. Were they doing the work of the People? Yes.
To me you sound like a spiritual republican desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable, and if I sound a little cranky about it, it's because I've HAD_ENOUGH of that shit!