## just a Thought . . . . .

Post by drawscore » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:14 pm

. . . . . which can apply to both sides of the aisle:
"Too much of the electorate either isn’t sufficiently perceptive, or is so blinded by ideology that they will believe anything negative about those with whom they disagree."
(From a column by Tom Blumer)
Drawscore

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Kyle » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:37 pm

That's a pretty accurate quote...and I will refrain from saying anything else on the matter.

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:04 am

I quite agree, Drawscore... at least with the quote itself.
Where we likely disagree is whether or not you are yourself counted as one of the people being referred to in any capacity in said quote. I at least admit that is possibly true of me to *some* extent. For example, though I VERY rarely watch TV News channels I tend agree with what they say on MSNBC far more than I do with Fox News, though NOT to the point where I take what I hear there as Gospel. Even so, I very rarely watch MSNBC; usually on occasions where I am outside of home (such as a hospital waiting room) as I do not have a TV let alone cable and rarely access such news via Internet. I take what is said even on MSNBC with a grain of salt, just as I do NOT automatically condemn what is said on Fox but tink about it first. Do you admit the same of yourself (in your case taking what you hear on FOX News with a grain of salt)... or do you think you're somehow an exception and/or that Fox News is unbiased? That's what *I'd* like to know.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by skybird137 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:15 am

In the 1990's there was a series of posters known as the 'Demon Eyes' posters.
These were targeting The Labour party. There was a backlash against the Conservatives for sinking to such tactics and it turned people into Labour supporters. In the end, it may have contributed to the landsilde victory by Labour.
I don't know about other countries, but in Britain 'Demonising' your opponent is not a good idea.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:38 pm

> skybird137 wrote:I don't know about other countries, but in Britain 'Demonising' your opponent is not a good idea.

Unfortunately it often works quite well in the US. That's one reason why it keeps getting worse with each election here.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by drawscore » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:43 pm

I tend to agree with what is said by Brett Baier, Shepard Smith, and Bill O'Rielly. Sean Hannity is a bit too far to the right for my tastes. Fox News does trend center right, but MSNBC is hard left. For those that think this claim is somewhere out in right field, I invite you to watch O'Reilly, Van Sustren, and yes, even Hannity, on Fox, five random times each, then do the same for Schultz, Maddow, and O'Donnell on MSNBC. Then count how many Democrats or liberals appear on the Fox shows, and how many Republicans or conservatives appear on the MSNBC line up.
Drawscore

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:39 pm

> drawscore wrote:I tend to agree with what is said by... Bill O'Rielly. Drawscore

Don't recognize the other two names you had listed, but I've seen O'Reilly. As far as I'm concerned, the man is a close-minded, bigoted, semi-racist idiot. Here are some random clips of him I found on Youtube (titles are NOT mine):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcd ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Ald5f_ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iniX9rmp ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vh_Gja ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB-YKx0_ ... re=related
Bugger; this thing limits me to 5 Urls.
If these are representative of the man, I definitely have seen all of him I *want* to see.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Kyle » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:43 pm

Shepard Smith is a newscaster, not a commentator like O'Reilly or Hannity. He really shouldn't be compared to the two of them.

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by drawscore » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:45 pm

Jason, you're only watching snippets, and the snippets are posted by those who disagree with O'Reilly.
But you have proven a point for me. Stewart and Dawkins came on O'Reilly's program, even though they disagree with him in many areas. What O'Reilly did would be akin to Rachel Maddow inviting Ann Coulter to come on her program.
Drawscore

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jack Roper » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:07 pm

Rachel Maddow has invited lots of conservatives on to her shiow--they refuse to do so. I wonder why?

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:40 pm

I agree Drawscore that the snippets are far from random but I couldn't find any pro-O'Reilly ones despite a sincere search for them. Anyway, the fact that they are apparently unedited is telling enough. Taking the one you cited about Dawkins, in addition to the fact that he would scarcely let the man speak a complete sentence without rudely interrupting him, I vehemently disagree with him (and agree with Dawkins) about the inappropriateness of allowing creationism to be taught as being equal in validity to real science. It's not; it's mere speculation fostered by religion, and separation between church and state means that teaching religious beliefs has no place in the classroom. It'd be like scientists opr archeologists insisting on equal time at the church pulpit, pointing out where the Bible is in error or at least disputed about some things (such as the fact that there is NO archeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed or the fact that camels were not yet domesticated in Abraham's time despite what the Bible says otherwise). In another with Newt Gingrinch, even Newt wouldn't go so far as to agree with O'Reilly's contention that Obama is equivalent to Fidel Castro (and how unbiased IS that contention anyway)? There was one I did not include where he is claiming that what causes tides is unknown. Shoot, that's been known for centuries. He also like to talk over people he disagrees with; not letting them get a word in edgewise. As far as I am concerned that is not the act of a fair-minded man, but a conservative ideological bully. The dumbass governor of my state is pretty similar.
Incidentally, I have absolutely no idea who the hell Rachel Maddow is; so there's another name I'll have to Google sometime.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by drawscore » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:44 pm

I don't think O'Reilly is going to blow his own horn, so to speak. And the people that put up the clips are doing so to make themselves look good.
Rachel Maddow is a liberal commentator on MSNBC, in the 9-10 ET time slot. As for her inviting conservatives, she may say she does, but I have serious reservations. If Sean Hannity can get liberals (besides Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, and Geraldo Rivera, all Fox News contributors) to come on his show, Rachel Maddow (and Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell) should have no problem getting conservatives to come on theirs. Being a conservative myself, I know the mindset. "Hey, I got a chance to go on in front of a liberal audience, and it's a challenge for me to face the opposition, and possibly change a couple of minds." No matter what she says, I don't think for a minute, that she, or any of the other MSNBC commentators, EVER invited a conservative on their programs, other than one employed in house. After all, it's not as if liberals never lie.
Drawscore

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:49 am

As I said, I never even heard of Maddow nor do I watch such shows (liberal or conservative), so I have no real opinion on the matter of who appears on what show, nor could I care less. The only reason I even bothered to watch clips of O'Reilly was because of his being mentioned by Neil Degrasse Tyson a couple of times in an extended clip showing a friendly debate between him and Dawkins and some Creationists and he was being mentioned a someone who claimed that the cause of tides were mysterious (when they're not).
In any case too many conservatives like O'Reilly give me the definite impression that being conservative means being anti-science, and that's something *I* can *never* be. Most scientists are in fact liberal because understanding science requires an open mind. So in that sense at least, yeah, call me a liberal - and I'm proud of it. I actually used to be a conservative until I noticed that dichotomy between science and religion being all but identical to the one between religion and science - and I chose science. There's more to it than that, but it is essentially the case.
With moral and social issues (such as welfare spending or the military budget) I am somewhat more conservative, but when it comes to religion and teaching junk science like Creationism in the classroom then I suppose I am as liberal as they come. I think global warming deniers are kidding themselves but I also believe solutions suggested by the likes of Al Gore are far too impractical. I am far less patient with those who insist on believing in Creationism and banning teaching of Evolution in the classroom. And I have only contempt for conservatives who insist that the moon landings were a hoax; IMO that idiot Bart Sibrel deserved the knuckle sandwich Buzz Aldrin gave him for calling him a liar, coward and thief right to his face in public while videotaping him. I'd like to give Sibrel a beating myself for promoting such utter tripe and spreading such ignorance to the point where over twice as many people now believe that there there are who approve of Congress. Gawd what a world the 21st century has become! Perhaps Liberals deserve some of the blame, but IMO hard-line anti-science conservatives deserve the lion's share of it.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by drawscore » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:08 pm

Anti-science? One of the biggest damn fool mistakes Obama made, was de-funding NASA, and making us dependent on the Russians to get our people to and from the International Space Station.
Drawscore

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by skybird137 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:55 pm

An alternative to the Space Shuttle should have been ready to go into service during the Bush Administration. Instead the USA will have to wait for a manned Dragon Capsule.
The irony is that the Dragon system will be much cheaper that Soyuz or any USA alternative that was planned.
When the Russians heard that the USA spent many billions of dollars on the planning and talking stage of the ISS, they commented "If you had given us that money, we would have built it for you."
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:50 pm

> drawscore wrote:Anti-science? One of the biggest damn fool mistakes Obama made, was de-funding NASA, and making us dependent on the Russians to get our people to and from the International Space Station.
> Drawscore

No argument there, except for one thing (and I know you don't want to hear this) but the problem began with Bush. The decision to end the Shuttle program by 2010 without a viable replacement was made by Bush back in 2004. Not that Obama has improved the situation any since.
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/04/wh ... uttle.html
Obama shares a large part of the blame too, of course. Moreover, he confused things further with his idiotic notion of skipping a return to the moon to go on the Mars or some asteroids. That's ridiculous. With an all new system it'd make much more sense to make a shakedown cruise to the moon first, which is much closer to Earth so that returning (or getting help) is much more feasible if anything goes badly wrong. But Obama's continuing to decrease NASA's budget is no way to achieve any such lofty goals.

> skybird137 wrote:An alternative to the Space Shuttle should have been ready to go into service during the Bush Administration. Instead the USA will have to wait for a manned Dragon Capsule.
> The irony is that the Dragon system will be much cheaper that Soyuz or any USA alternative that was planned.
> When the Russians heard that the USA spent many billions of dollars on the planning and talking stage of the ISS, they commented "If you had given us that money, we would have built it for you."

Considering their recent track record, including a rocket that failed just this month to deliver two satellites into orbit (to say nothing of the Phobos probe that was ruined in a launch failure some months ago), I wouldn't trust Russia to build bottle rockets to launch from the park!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by skybird137 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:04 pm

> Considering their recent track record, including a rocket that failed just this month to deliver two satellites into orbit (to say nothing of the Phobos probe that was ruined in a launch failure some months ago), I wouldn't trust Russia to build bottle rockets to launch from the park!

So the Russian is the only country that has launch failures?
First, the Briz-M for the Satellites is not the older and more reliable type of launchers used on the ISS or Soyuz.
Second, the Zenit-2M launcher isn't even Russian, it was built by the Ukraine.
Should we compare manned space-flight fatalities? After all, that is the important one...
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:34 am

> skybird137 wrote: So the Russian is the only country that has launch failures?

No, but right now they're the ones having the worst ones.

> skybird137 wrote: First, the Briz-M for the Satellites is not the older and more reliable type of launchers used on the ISS or Soyuz.

Yeah? So?

> skybird137 wrote: Second, the Zenit-2M launcher isn't even Russian, it was built by the Ukraine.

To an older man like me who remembers when both were parts of the Soviet Union, that makes little impression on me.

> skybird137 wrote: Should we compare manned space-flight fatalities? After all, that is the important one...

If you want to talk total history we have have more deaths, but only because of the shuttle, which Russia never had, giving us many more manned missions in toto. Excluding that, Russia has had more fatalities than we have had. In fact, excluding the space shuttle, we have had NO fatalities on a space mission in actual flight (Apollo 1 was merely a training mission on the ground, and the notorious Apollo 13 thankfully had no fatalities), whereas those old time Soyuz missions had several. In fact, the Russian manned (or even unmanned) space program has NEVER been comparable to the American after thew first few years. No Space Shuttle, no manned missions to the moon. No successful landings on Mars. No probes beyond Mars. The only achievement they've made that we haven't yet is landing a working probe on Venus (it didn't work for long of course). Yes, they were the first to send a satellite into orbit, the first to send a man into orbit, and even the first to send a woman into space. But that's just about it! Sure, we've had more fatalities, but something this worthwhile always has risks. There were more fatalties with the first airplanes than there have been among space missions, and you're probably about as safe in a space shuttle launch as in a lifetime of driving a car in traffic with all the idiots.
Though that's just my take. To be fair, here's an opposing viewpoint:
http://salul.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/soyuz-vs-shuttle/
As for OUR track record I'd have taken my chances to go on the Shuttle myself if anyone had let me, even if the chances were far worse than they were. Probably not so with the Soyuz, though I admit some bias may be involved.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by skybird137 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:05 am

> Yeah? So?

The point being is that for the ISS they used an older, proven system of launch. Yet you say that these are as bad as the launchers that failed recently? They are not, which is obvious.

> To an older man like me who remembers when both were parts of the Soviet Union, that makes little impression on me.

Dismissing something just because you can't get your facts straight. You said Russian and when you were shown that your data was wrong you just try to dismiss it.

> In fact, excluding the space shuttle, we have had NO fatalities on a space mission in actual flight

If you exclude shuttle missions before 2003, you can get the same result. If you exclude Soyuz missions before 1972, you could get zero fatalities for the Soyuz Missions as well, which were four fatalities. Massaging away numbers can give you anything you want.

> No Space Shuttle

Really Jason? I didn't think that you'd stoop to this level, but I was wrong. . The Russians built one, and saw it as a white elephant. There is even arguments about whether the space shuttle program saved any money in the long term, compared to disposable launches
If you had mentioned what the Russians had concentrated on which was close Earth orbit and long term living in space, it would have been more balanced. The Space Race ended with the Lunar Landings, but it seems some people think that it should be going on.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com

### Re: just a Thought . . . . .

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:20 am

> Yeah? So?

The point being is that for the ISS they used an older, proven system of launch. Yet you say that these are as bad as the launchers that failed recently? They are not, which is obvious.
I never said they were. What I AM saying NOW is perhaps they should go back to that, since the new system does not seem to work so good.

> To an older man like me who remembers when both were parts of the Soviet Union, that makes little impression on me.

Dismissing something just because you can't get your facts straight. You said Russian and when you were shown that your data was wrong you just try to dismiss it.
You misunderstand. My facts are perfectly straight. But because the Ukraine is now a separate country does not make it fundamentally different from Russia even after twenty years, anymore than Disney World is fundamentally different from Disneyland - just more advanced. Before you diss what I said, perhaps you should make sure you understand what it is I am trying to say.

> In fact, excluding the space shuttle, we have had NO fatalities on a space mission in actual flight

If you exclude shuttle missions before 2003, you can get the same result. If you exclude Soyuz missions before 1972, you could get zero fatalities for the Soyuz Missions as well, which were four fatalities. Massaging away numbers can give you anything you want.
Fair enough I suppose. After all, the Russians HAVE done much better in their own manned missions lately. Thankfully none of the launch failures involved no live cosmonauts. Maybe they should go back to using that system they use for launching crew for launching satellites as well.

> No Space Shuttle

Really Jason? I didn't think that you'd stoop to this level, but I was wrong. . The Russians built one, and saw it as a white elephant. There is even arguments about whether the space shuttle program saved any money in the long term, compared to disposable launches
Stooping to what level? The space shuttle IS and WAS a more advanced spacecraft. The problem was that they didn't use it to anywhere near its full potential and it wasn't needed for most of the things they actually did with it, so in that sense yes it was a white elephant. It was also badly designed in some respects too. But at least we tried. Unfortunately that was a lack of vision in its actual use and deployment.
If you had mentioned what the Russians had concentrated on which was close Earth orbit and long term living in space, it would have been more balanced.
I thought I HAD said that, if in different and perhaps less flattering terms. But long term living in space only gets you so far if you stay in low Earth orbit. IMO it's getting time to go on to the next step; permanent bases on the the moon and manned missions beyond. Granted it's expensive, but if we spent the money we waste arming ourselves against each other instead it'd suddenly be pretty affordable. Too bad that world political tensions makes that impractical and will likely continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime.
The Space Race ended with the Lunar Landings, but it seems some people think that it should be going on.
The Space Race, no. Further lunar landings and other missions to Mars and the asteroids though - in partnership with Russia and other nations rather than competition - yes.
In short, I do not think we disagree on matters as much as you seem to think we do. My only original point is that... right now... the Russians are having serious technical problems they'd better deal with soon or missions on both sides are in serious jeopardy. That's ALL I was saying; otherwise, you seem to be reading a lot of negative stuff into what I said that I never intended or even thought, just like someone else did in a different post when I discussed my admiration of Galileo (something I never imagined was even remotely controversy until I get blasted out of the blue for being anti-Catholic!).
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...