General Music Chat

The point of the fruit question isn't that you have cultural knowledge of fruit. The point is - can you see the pattern?

And, which pattern would this be, if you don't have a cultural knowledge of the fruits? How can you see the pattern, if 2 of the 4 fruits are unknown to you? Do you think the questions all relate to visual aspects (shape, size, color..etc)? They are often not.

ColorsFade,

You are right about fighting for the person next to you, but what about the other reasons I gave? Is it really your opinion that our enlisted men and women DO NOT believe in what they are doing in Iraq?

And I don't get "confused" by diversity of opinion. That was a cheap insult and unnecessary. I RELISH varied opinion, because it is how ALL the facts get out best, and how I PERSONALLY come to find the truth, which is more often than not, somehwere in between the two extremes. And truth is all I care about, not my personal viewpoint. I have no vested interest, EVER, in ANY argument or position, other than knowing the truth. When I find that I am not on the side of truth (as I understand it) I change my opinion to match what I understand the truth to be.

I have ALWAYS lived my life this way. I am far less concerned about being embarrassed because I was wrong about something and had to change my position, than I am about holding onto a WRONG belief in the first place.

But back to issues...

I don't think I have claimed that Bush was correct or not in WHATEVER his true motivations were, only that to degrade him into having childish motivations for putting Americans at risk is UNREASONABLE.

Defending his daddy's honor, is a ridiculous assertion.

It would be a better argument that he wanted to show he was a better president than his father. Also a ridiculous assertion, but less ridiculous than the former one.

Think about our history with radical Muslim nations.

We end up dealing with something major from them, every 5 to 10 years. My best guess is, that Bush wanted to be the president to change it once and for all. The cost, both in lives, treasure and public embarrassment is significant, and REOCCURRING. If you had a gnat that continued to bite you over and over, wouldn't you want to find a permanent solution?

And the greatest threat, is proliferation of nuclear weapons. You have nations that have archaic attitudes, but the money and growing power, to threaten nations which they disagree with. And unlike nations with more progressive attitudes, these people will use them.

This is not a small matter.

"World" dominance has changed hands more than a few times.

To assume that having modern attitudes, or holding the power currently, will always insure things stay that way, is to disrespect the lessons of history.

The point of the fruit question isn't that you have cultural knowledge of fruit. The point is - can you see the pattern?

And, which pattern would this be, if you don't have a cultural knowledge of the fruit? How can you see the pattern, if 2 of the 4 fruits are unknown to you? Do you think the questions all relate to shape, size, color..etc. They are often not.

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

Not all IQ tests are created equal, are they? So which is the better test? The test that relies on cultural knowledge to riddle out the pattern, or the test that does not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that not all IQ tests are created equal... And people would be wise to recognize that fact when discussing such tests.

It's kind of like talking about anything - cars for instance - or guitars - and assuming they're all created equal.

They're not...

ColorsFade,

You are right about fighting for the person next to you, but what about the other reasons I gave? Is it really your opinion that our enlisted men and women DO NOT believe in what they are doing in Iraq?

It's my opinion that some do, and some don't. I don't see the world in black and white like so many other people do. And maybe you don't see it that way either, but you aren't giving me that impression.

I know there are people who do NOT believe in what they're doing in Iraq, but they find other reasons to complete their job every day. They do it for their brother, for the people sitting next to them in the Humvee, because they're depending on them; they do it for their family back home, because they don't want to disappoint them; they do it for their country, because they believe it the USA, but not because they believe in Bush and the war.

See? There's all sorts of different reasons why someone does what they do. It's not all because they drank the Bush Kool-aid and think they're going to make the world a better place by invading Iraq.

I don't think I have claimed that Bush was correct or not in WHATEVER his true motivations were, only that to degrade him into having childish motivations for putting Americans at risk is UNREASONABLE.

I don't think his motivations were childish. I think they were simply wrong. They were the result of an impatient man who surrounded himself by yes-men who gave him bad advice and he took it. He acted irresponsibly with the lives of the American soldiers. He didn't think things through, and he didn't act like the diplomatic leader of a world superpower.

Defending his daddy's honor, is a ridiculous assertion.

I tend to agree.

We end up dealing with something major from them, every 5 to 10 years. My best guess is, that Bush wanted to be the president to change it once and for all. The cost, both in lives, treasure and public embarrassment is significant, and REOCCURRING. If you had a gnat that continued to bite you over and over, wouldn't you want to find a permanent solution?

Yes. But Bush's "solution" showed a complete lack of understanding of his opposition. He underestimated the Muslim people the same way McNamara underestimated the Vietnamese people.

And the greatest threat, is proliferation of nuclear weapons. You have nations that have archaic attitudes, but the money and growing power, to threaten nations which they disagree with. And unlike nations with more progressive attitudes, these people will use them.

And so Bush's answer was to invade Iraq, who ended up having no WMD's, and meanwhile, next door, the Iranians are building nuclear plants...

To assume that having modern attitudes, or holding the power currently, will always insure things stay that way, is to disrespect the lessons of history.

Exactly.

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

Not all IQ tests are created equal, are they? So which is the better test? The test that relies on cultural knowledge to riddle out the pattern, or the test that does not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that not all IQ tests are created equal... And people would be wise to recognize that fact when discussing such tests.

It's kind of like talking about anything - cars for instance - or guitars - and assuming they're all created equal.

They're not...

mmmh, I think ppl have been saying just that all along. For my part, I've been saying that I.Q. test are culturally biased, which is the MAJOR problem with I.Q. test (some more than others). Like CraigMaxim said, they are trying to come up with an I.Q. test that's not culturally biased, but they are having a hard time to make it happen. If you ever find an I.Q. test that doesn't have ONE question that's culturally biased, please, send it to me...honestly!

So, in other words, we all have been saying the same thing, we just have been saying it in our own way

ColorsFade,

I never said that no military personel believe they are wasting their time there, but instead, that the MAJORITY of servicemen and women, believe they are accomplishing good and important things there.

As to the WMD issue.

Why would we invade Iraq and stay there, even when no WMD's were found?

Because we can.

Not saying that proudly, but realistically.

Iraq sits in the middle of the region. Iraq was easy to take over as they were already under U.N. rules and restrictions and their ability to wage war had already been weakened in the first Gulf War. And probably not coincidentally, Iraq sits on one side of IRAN with Afghanistan on the other. Surrounding Iran may be an important message to them, as well as a staging ground for a future assault from both sides.

Iran is the real threat.

Bush knew this. His military advisors knew this. Our military leaders knew this.

It is important to not only listen to the media spin on events, but also to try and read between the lines. ANY government is going to do things for the reasons they deem necessary, but some pretext is necessary to justify it publicly. Is this reality a beacon of morality? Of course not, but IT IS reality, and IT IS how things work.

Original Question >>> "What's wrong with healthcare"

Nothing. We are all unhealthy.

LOL @ Chippy

This thread really got off track huh?

Iran is the real threat.

If Israel was never created, 60 years ago, do you think Iran would still be considered as a threat, today?

I think the threat of Iran is blowed out of proportion (mainly because of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Iran is a country that's been sinking financially for over a decade. Also, the ppl are extremely divided on the issue of Israel, only the government as a real extremist view of Israel. Ppl want peace and ppl will not back the government if Iran goes to war with the US and Israel. Also, most Arab countries will not allow Iran to do anything stupid, most Arab nations can't stand Iran's regime.

Iran is like N. Koera: all smoke but no fire. All empty threats to make them look big and scary.

I think the threat of Iran is blowed out of proportion (mainly because of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

I think the recent election and the public aftermath prove that point.

ColorsFade,

I never said that no military personel believe they are wasting their time there, but instead, that the MAJORITY of servicemen and women, believe they are accomplishing good and important things there.

I don't know if the majority do or not. I have no stats to back it up one way or another.

I really don't care if the majority believe one way or the other. I care about the lives of the troops being spent without good cause. And right now, I don't think it's a good cause.

People may *think * they're doing good over there, but are they? World view says no.

There are other ways to skin this cat. Unfortunately the Bush administration couldn't think outside the "brute force" method... But that gets us right back to the intelligence debate. Bush might have a 120 IQ, but he still made bad decisions, showed a lack of patience and an unwillingness or inability to give deep thought and analysis to the problems at hand.

Iraq isn't about terrorism. It's about a larger issue that can't be "won" with tanks and guns...

As to the WMD issue.

Why would we invade Iraq and stay there, even when no WMD's were found?

Because we can.

Or, the simpler answer - because Bush made a bad decision and (more importantly) because - as he displayed MANY times throughout his presidency - he possessed a complete and total inability to change course. He stuck with the bad decision.

Bush believed in making a decision and sticking to it, no matter what happened, or what new evidence turned up, or what new circumstances came about. That was his M.O. That will be my personal lasting image of Bush as president - a guy who made a decision, for good or bad, and then stuck to it like glue, like a religious dogma, no matter what else turned up to the contrary.

I don't find that kind of behavior makes for good leaders or decision makers. You have to be able to reassess situations when new information comes in. You have to be able to change course if you are presented with evidence that your current path is the wrong one. You have to take the scientific approach - believe your hypothesis, sure, but when new information comes into the equation that debunks your hypothesis you have to be open to changing your mind.

Unfortunately, while this is a necessary trait of problem solvers, it's viewed as "waffling" in the political arena. Which is a real shame.

Bush knew this. His military advisors knew this. Our military leaders knew this.

And that's still not why they went into Iraq...

I mean, it's neat - you're really trying. I give you an "A" for effort. You're spinning as good as anyone on Fox news. But it's just not reality. Bush made a bad decision and stuck with it. That's who he was.

Time to move on.

He's out of office now. His legacy will be decided by people with more literary clout than you or I.

We have a chance now to move forward and maybe stand back and look at the whole situation and try to find some "real" answers that don't involve bombing our way into foreign nations and pissing off the world...

ColorsFade,

I am not "trying" to convince you of anything, and I am not "trying" to defend Bush, and I am not "trying" to make sense out of something that allegedly has no sense to it. I am merely saying that there are often REAL REASONS why things are done, that are not under the pervue of the publlic.


You don't think that the bills being rammed through congress and rushed votes on them, which give other lawmakers almost no time to even read the bills, let alone review them are coincidental do you? They want their plans turned into law BEFORE there is time for scrutiny of them. Are they going to admit this? Of course not. The public line is that the American public needs these measures passed immediately, for their own good. Health Care passed before August? This country hasn't had universal health care since it's inception more than two centuries ago. Suddenly it is an emergency? We haven't had universal health care in over 200 years, and the entire health care system is going to be radically changed in a month? Without time for reasonable debate and scrutiny of the issue?

These people aren't trying to destroy the country by doing this. They believe what they are doing is right.

Bush believes what he did was right.

Whether any of them are right or not, only time will tell us.

But to assign a motivation to Bush that he maintained the course because he didn't want to be embarrassed, is not very different from assuming he did it to defend his father's honor.

It is simplistic and unreasonable and incorrect.

Dave,

Are you suggesting that we would find peace with Muslim nations if it weren't for our support of Israel's founding and subsequent support for their existence?

Just clarifying.

Dave,

Are you suggesting that we would find peace with Muslim nations if it weren't for our support of Israel's founding and subsequent support for their existence?

Just clarifying.

lol, that would be way too simple, considering that America started to unknowingly disturb the Mulism world in the 30's, when they first started to dig for oil, in Saudi Arabia (btw, that's where Bin Laden is from)! The creation of Israel and the exile of thousands of Arabs, just escalated the hate to an exponential level...but the hate has been already there for about a decade.

But, seriously, all I was pointing out is Iran didn't threat anybody, but Israel. Yes, they probably do have Nukes (but, who doesn't...lol </sarcasm>) and, yes, the Iranian government is a major pain in the ass. BUT, we know for a fact that N. Korea has Nukes, hell, Kim just tested a Nukehead, 2 months ago. Plus, all the Missile tests here and there, they even kicked out all U.N. personals. And, what do we do about it? Not much!

Now, you have Iran that's being seen as a bigger threat than N. Korea, or just as equally, but the only thing Iran has done, is making an empty "threat" to Israel and being suspected of having Nukehead (or building one). Also, Iran has a form of democracy, while N. Korea has a dictator. I'm glade that Iran is having a crisis with the election. It forces the world to see that Iran is vulnerable and more complex, than the Media and some world leaders want us to believe. We also get to see what the citizens are about.

Sooo, as I was previously saying, Iran' threat has been blowed out of proportion

I am merely saying that there are often REAL REASONS why things are done, that are not under the pervue of the publlic.

What you're trying to do is say that there were legitimate reasons for Bush making the (apparently) horrible decisions he made. Believe me - I get what you're trying to do. I really do.

But it's essentially the Alien Abduction argument. It's the argument that comes up as a last resort, when one doesn't want to face any of the evidence that is based on actual fact.

"Well, my wife would NEVER leave me! What a stupid decision! She loves me! And no one would want to harm her! She's as sweet as can be! So she must have been abducted by aliens!"


Do you see, now, how you're coming off here? It appears like you're grasping... It makes it so we can't even have a decent, logical conversation about this, because you won't even acknowledge the most basic, observable facts about the thing.


It gives one the impression that you don't even understand basic human nature. Most people who believe strongly in something are not open to having their minds changed about it. It's no different than religious dogma. People believe it and they believe it with every fiber of their body, despite any evidence to the contrary.

You and I can agree on this point, for sure:

Bush believes what he did was right.

And that's it in a nutshell. He believed he was in the right. And when people believe that, they become closed off to additional data, analysis and solving problems. They just head down the course they've chosen full speed ahead. And that's exactly what Bush did.

Whether any of them are right or not, only time will tell us.

Time has already told us...

But to assign a motivation to Bush that he maintained the course because he didn't want to be embarrassed, is not very different from assuming he did it to defend his father's honor.

It is simplistic and unreasonable and incorrect.

This is the funniest part: I never said anything about being embarrassed. You're apparently smarter than that, so I'll just chalk it up to... whatever.

But for Bush - it had nothing to do with being embarrassed. It was about being right. Hey - even folks who listen to Rush Limbaugh know this. It's the most basic thing... It's about being RIGHT.

Bush thought he was right, so he stuck to his guns. That's his M.O. I don't think he cared bout being embarrassed or how the media portrayed him or any of that nonsense. I think, very simply, he thought he was right. He surrounded himself with "yes" men who agreed with him, so there was no one in his inner circle to challenge his ideals. Once he fully believed he was right, he had his "mandate" to carry forth with his objective. So he did. And he never wavered. And people thought that was a really strong character trait for Bush; that he never wavered. "Hey, he doesn't waffle!" That's what they praised.

But the truth is, in any leadership position, that's the worst kind of character trait to have. You have to be open to data. You have to be open to having your views challenged. You have to be able to analyze changing data and changing conditions and changing parameters, and you have to be able to reassess. Bush didn't do that - he didn't believe he had to - because he thought he was right.

It's nothing more complicated than that. It's not some super-secret reason locked away in a CIA vault that makes it all make sense. Bush thought he was right. It's a human characteristic.

And that actually makes a LOAD of sense, when you think about it.