Well good if you believe that physics would prove you right

Excuse me, that's not what I said. Physics doesn't prove me right, it just proves you wrong: wrong in your reflexive, knee-jerk rejection of anything that smacks of "mysticism."

Since you need to get past that irrational reflex before any evidence of psi phenomena (including but not limited to astrology) would ever be given a fair hearing, I see no reason to bother giving you any until then. A study of relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos might help you reach that point of enlightenment, and then we can go from there.

And you still need to learn to mind your manners. Didn't your mother teach you anything?

Only a stupid person would want to be proud of arrogance Brian.

The world is a hard place Brian an acceptance of a foolish mysticism lets you see more as you wish it was so you accept it as real. Fine go ahead and believe until you gain the maturity to deal with reality.

Actually, though, Bubba, you are so bloody rude and obnoxious, and so much the caricature of an atheist, that I begin to suspect a troll.

That being the case, I'll leave you to the tender mercies of others until your behavior proves you worthy of more of my time.

Since you know so much explain chaos theory and quantum mechanics to me. (I suspect you can't as I doubt you can do more than read boiled down summaries)

Yeah since you can't deal with me go and hide.

Bubba,

I happen to agree with you in so far as saying that astrology cannot be proven by science. Brian's post about psi was not gibberish, it was an assertion that there is some influence that he calls psi that causes the alignment of the planets to have some influence on a person born at a particular time.

If Brian claimed that this was science then we could say that he was mistaken since the realm of science deals with the physical world by use of the scientific method. A claim that astrology could be backed up with science is pseudoscientific. However, looking back through the posts, I did not find one where Brian claimed that he was talking about science.

You are right that the equation Brian offered did not demostrate any physical effect. X's and Y's must have physical referents to be scientific. Otherwise they are purely mathmatical.

However, I have another bone to pick with you and Brian both. There is a difference between a claim that astrology has a scientifically demonstrable physical effect and the claim that all mystical experience in human beings is crap. I am not sure which one of you actually equated them or if that assumption is just underlying the conversation.

Many people have mystical experiences. Are the experiences themselves scientifically demonstrable? No. But the effects on the people who have them are evident. Some would reduce that to the effect of psychology on a person's physical well being. Others truly believe that they come from a Source of Being that is not part of the physical world. Ultimately, such a Being is not part of the physical world and therefore science has nothing to say about it. It is outside the boundaries that define science and how it operates.

Personally, I believe in the Eternal Creator of the Universe. I am a scientist. I am not conflicted because I understand the limits of science as one way of human knowing.

Finally, there are a number of very famous rationalists who also had mystical or religious experiences. Among them are Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes.

With no explanation of what Psi is or how it works it is gibberish.


What Brian is posting is run of the mill "paranormal" junk spouted by those who desperately want to believe.

Do I believe in God yes I do, out of nothing nothing comes, but exactly how he works, what his purpose is, and such I have no idea, that is way beyond me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, though, Bubba, you are so bloody rude and obnoxious, and so much the caricature of an atheist, that I begin to suspect a troll.

That being the case, I'll leave you to the tender mercies of others until your behavior proves you worthy of more of my time.

Don't go, man. This is live entertainment!

Speaking of mysticism, here is something a little off the wall from Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I keep coming across reports of people with a similar sense. Is this for real?


www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

(Standard disclaimers)



What Is The April Surprise?
By Chuck Baldwin
April 1, 2003


Call it intuition. Call it premonition. Call it what you want, but my
heart screams at me that there is a big surprise coming for the
United States of America. What will it be? When will it come?
From whom will it come? Those questions are yet to be answered.

Could it be that some of Iraq's Muslim brothers from Iran and
Syria will join the fight thus turning the Iraq War into a Middle
East War? We are already hearing quiet reports of Muslims from
Syria slipping into Iraq. Furthermore, Iran is obviously agitated at
having American troops on two of her borders. Will she decide to
jump in with both feet?

Remember, as much as Iran dislikes Iraq, it hates America even
more. After all, Iran commonly refers to us as "The Great Satan."
Iran is also on President Bush's "axis of evil" list. They might feel
that after America dispenses with Iraq, we will turn our guns on
them. Will they attempt to preempt this possibility by attacking
first?

North Korea is another wild card. They, too, claim that the United
States is planning a preemptive strike against them. Will they
initiate a nuclear or conventional confrontation with the United
States while we are imbedded in Iraq?

Then, there is China! A recent CNN report stated, "The Iraqi war
has convinced the Chinese Communist Party leadership that some
form of confrontation with the U.S. could come earlier than
expected."

CNN quotes President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao as
saying it is important that "China make good preparations before
the rainstorm," and that it "be in a position to seize the initiative."

China's People's Daily commentator Huang Peiahao accused the
United States of "seeking world-wide domination." Another
Chinese government leader said that Washington is attempting to
"build a new world order under U.S. domination."

The report states that Chinese leaders are convinced that the United
States will attack North Korea as early as this summer. As a result
of these events, many within the Chinese government are urging
Beijing to "adopt a more pro-active if not aggressive policy to
thwart U.S. aggression." Does that mean we should expect a
possible attack against the United States by the combined forces of
China, North Korea and Iran by sometime later this year or even
earlier?

Another major question is, "What is Russia going to do?" Russia
still controls thousands of nuclear missiles; most of them are aimed
at the United States. Russia also yet possesses a sizeable and potent
army. Furthermore, Russia has recently entered into several
agreements and alliances with China. If conflict erupted between
the West and the East, just where would Russia fit in?

Furthermore, is there any merit to all those rumors about foreign
troops building along our southern border? We know China
controls the Panama Canal. Have they been surreptitiously
funneling troops into Mexico? Have they made a secret deal with
the Mexican government to assist an invasion against America's
great Southwest? Mexico has been less than supportive of Bush's
decision to attack Iraq, that's for sure.

Beyond that, we know that there are thousands of foreign troops
currently housed on American military bases throughout the
United States. Where do their loyalties lie? We have already seen
at least one Muslim soldier in our own army attack and kill
Americans due to his support for Saddam Hussein. Do we really
believe that foreign troops located on American bases have any
loyalty to the United States? Just what kind of action would these
troops take if a multi-front war broke out? Why are they even
here?

President Bush's decision to invade Iraq is fraught with risks.
Surely, he understood that when he gave the order to attack.
Perhaps he feels that America is invincible. Maybe we are.
However, whether we are insuperable or not doesn't depend on our
military capabilities but on the sovereign will of Almighty God!

Since God is our ultimate Protector and Defender, one would think
that our leaders would seek His favor and approbation during this
perilous period. That doesn't mean offering politically-correct
prayers or ending speeches with the demand that "God bless
America," while at the same time virtually ignoring His laws and
principles, either. And it certainly doesn't mean commanding our
troops to remove their Christian symbols or forbidding them from
having copies of the Bible.

While this war has certainly not taken God by surprise, there could
be some surprises yet in store for us. Right now, the best surprise
would be no surprise at all, and that's what I'm praying for.

? Chuck Baldwin

Remember, as much as Iran dislikes Iraq, it hates America even
more. After all, Iran commonly refers to us as "The Great Satan."
Iran is also on President Bush's "axis of evil" list. They might feel
that after America dispenses with Iraq, we will turn our guns on
them. Will they attempt to preempt this possibility by attacking
first?

North Korea is another wild card. They, too, claim that the United
States is planning a preemptive strike against them. Will they
initiate a nuclear or conventional confrontation with the United
States while we are imbedded in Iraq?

Yep. Just what I was saying.

Dang, how is this for a 4T headline?
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Pfc. Jessica Lynch, likely to become the first popular hero of the Iraqi War, is only 19. She?s too young, in my estimation, to be of the Hero mold, or a Millie. But maybe she is just a very late one. On the other hand, she may be on the leading edge of my generational archetype?the thumb-sucking Artist. In which case, will there soon be a name for these Silent-esque children who sheepishly take bullets for the Holy Cause?

--Croaker

According to the Strauss and Howe timeline, Jessica Lynch would be among the first cohorts of the Millies--she would have been born in either 1982 or 1983.

Let's see... 19 in April 2003? It would have to be either 1983 or 1984 (probably 83)

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece it is perfectly acceptable to attack he beliefs of one who premises their world view on faulty beliefs. The only way one could possible believe that the alignment of planets affects world events is to as I have said before completely divorce themselves from reason. Once one rejects reason for an ill-defined and fallacious mysticism there is no further point in talking with that person as they have abandoned reality and entered a dream world that has nothing to do with reality.

bubba again, I don't mean to pick on you; you have much to contribute to this site. However, I feel inclined to correct your errors as I see them. To wit:

You wrongly conclude that I "premise my world view" on astrology, as you imply. It is simply an interesting subject which I find intriguing and of some value-- and also I enjoy shocking people such as yourself who have very limited world views. Embrace the possibility that you might possibly agree with someone about something, and disagree with them about something else. Brian and I could tell you about that. :wink:

Astrology is a great load of crap studied by idiots (note it is spelled correctly). It is a perspective that interests no one of any intelligence who has determined to make their stand in the real world.

You have seen the results of IQ tests from everyone who is interested in astrology? If not, I suggest it is YOUR statement that is divorced from reason or reality.

I will tell you one more time why this war is a sign of the fourth turning, and I will go real slow so that maybe you can understand.

1. This is not World War II, it is not occurring without dissent. So don?t bother to tell me that such is the case. I know that.
2. Look at the facts whether you agree with the war or not Bush sold a majority of the people that Saddam was a threat and we had to remove him before he struck us. That is an argument that sounds like a crisis era argument rather than a third turning argument.

I suppose because it is a more drastic action.

3. If you doubt Bush has made the sale of the argument look at how the Democratic party has been basically silent. This tells me that their internal polls tell them attacking the war is a losing issue.
4. Look at what has happened with Peter Arnett.
5. Look at how support for the war remained solid even when the public believed it was going poorly.
I could cite more examples but I believe this makes the point. The national mood is different now that it was before.

You may be right; we might be entering 4T. The point was that your original description implied a 4T is about people being silent and obedient. If you understand that such is not the case, then we can mostly agree.

I caution you about #5 though. You still claim in effect that a sign of 4T is silent obedience to government policy. Perhaps you mean that in a 4T the people stick to an opinion longer, despite circumstances. But the "public believed the war was going poorly, yet supported it" for a very short time. We don't know yet how the war will turn out, or whether support will remain solid. A week is not enough time to draw conclusions, Mr. "reason." Support was very shaky going in, and so could easily turn again if the war goes badly again, or if the aftermath is bad.

Remember too that the public supported the Vietnam War for 3 years before opinion began to turn. And when Nixon was in office, support went back up. Yet is was considered an unpopular war, indicative of a 2T mood.

I know you hate Bush, I know you want him to be wrong, but understand that has nothing to do with whether the national mood has changed. It has. What it means and where it will come out is unclear, but he national mood is different. Don?t let the fact that you hate Bush keep you from seeing what is in front of your face.

I don't hate Bush; most of his policies are dangerous and stupid. I do want him to fail and lose (I don't need to "want him to be wrong;" I KNOW he's wrong); we might then have a chance to change the direction of our country. If we can stop his warmongering by throwing him out of office, we might go back to 3T for a while. Perhaps not. But if he is rejected in 2004 (and is unable to steal the election again, or stage a coup), then at least there's a chance that when 4T comes for real that we'll navigate it more smoothly, and deal with the real issues we face, instead of just having to spend years to deal with the unnecessary messes that W has caused.

The Democrats were more silent in the Congress than during the Gulf War, but there was also more dissent this time than last time. Polls supporting this war are lower than for the Gulf War.

The national mood, if it has changed like you say, will probably support more of the wars Bush has in mind, and will keep him and his neocon successors in office in order to pursue them. This means of course that the national mood has gone crazy. Paranoia I believe is the diagnosis. That could still be a 4T mood, yes; but it will surely mean that this will be a destructive 4T that will destroy our nation, rather than lead it to a higher place.

It could also be a 4T mood that people at some point will realize HOW crazy our policies are, and revolt.

There are many factors to consider here. Nothing is real clear, and a lot depends on what happens in the next 2 years. Perhaps the author was right, and we'll know by 2005.

In any case, you cannot analyze "national mood" completely apart from your own political perspective. Only conservatives think that silent obedience is the sole sign of a 4T. They forget that revolts also occur in 4Ts, but don't mention those.

Originally Posted by bubba

The left is getting hysterical. They can?t deal with the fact Bush has out maneuvered them, and if they don?t start figuring out how and why he has done it rather than being hysterical they wont come back. Yes Mr. Meece this is a partisan statement, I know it no need to tell me go back to observing Uranus.

Yes, southern cracker. Bush outmaneuvered us. How did he do it? By getting his brother and his brother's girlfriend to cook the registration rolls by throwing off convicted felons who weren't, so fewer black folks could vote in Florida. Thanks to the closeness of the election, it worked. Other than that, he did no maneuvering. The American people are afraid and cowed by 9-11, and so are going along with paranoid policies that everyone who might possibly hurt us, will hurt us unless we destroy them.

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by bubba

The left is getting hysterical. They can?t deal with the fact Bush has out maneuvered them, and if they don?t start figuring out how and why he has done it rather than being hysterical they wont come back. Yes Mr. Meece this is a partisan statement, I know it no need to tell me go back to observing Uranus.

Yes, southern cracker. Bush outmaneuvered us. How did he do it? But getting his brother and his brother's girlfriend to cook the registration rolls by throwing off convicted felons who weren't, so fewer black folks could vote in Florida. Thanks to the closeness of the election, it worked. Other than that, he did no maneuvering. The American people are afraid and cowed by 9-11, and so are going along with paranoid policies that everyone who might possibly hurt us, will hurt us unless we destroy them.

I suppose it was Bush who got the polls to stay open in Black Districs up North hours past the official closing time. And gave everyone a ride to the polls so there could be an unpresidented 100% turnout too.

Whatever.......

Originally Posted by eameece

Yes, southern cracker. Bush outmaneuvered us. How did he do it? By getting his brother and his brother's girlfriend

Huh? Katherine Harris is Jeb's mistress?

Wow! Look at what I missed last night! :-o

I have said to Eric before that astrology never worked for me, and as of this moment I can't get an intuitive grasp around Brian's psi theory either. My experiences simply haven't been the same as theirs, and so what? They are both good men whom I respect and admire. And they have had some arguments on this forum that have reached titanic proportions! :lol: Yet they always manage to work past their disagreements.

And if I could ever slow down my life enough to study their theories in more depth, I might even find that I agree with them! ;-) 8)

I've had mystical experiences; I've had weird things happen to me that have no rational explanation behind them, so I try to keep an open mind about these things. I believe in God and call myself a Christian, but I'm the furthest thing from a Bible-thumper you'll ever find.

Honestly, to call into question the intellectual capacity of anyone who posts on this board is just plain silly. People have been rude, arrogant, and dishonest, but I don't think anyone here is outright stupid.

Originally Posted by justmom

Please don't go Bubba. I appreciate your views. Unfortunately, you are correct in your assesment on the "my brain is bigger than your brain syndrom".On this site and only this site, we (conservatives) are out numbered. In the real world they are dying a hearty death.
hahahahahaha...

Which "real world" would that be, pray tell?

Actually I don't think they are stupid, what I believe is that they have slightly above average IQ's and are desperately attempting to make people belive they are brilliant.

In other words they are not nearly as smart as they would like everyone to believe they are. They are second rate minds trying to pass for first rate.

Mr. Meece in a minute I will take your arguments as to why this is not a fourth turning apart.

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually I don't think they are stupid, what I believe is that they have slightly above average IQ's and are desperately attempting to make people belive they are brilliant.

IQ tests only measure a small slice of human intelligence. They can't measure intuition and creativity. I have a high IQ score, but I don't think creatively; I think pragmatically.

I am an ISTJ as measured by the Myers-Briggs index; Eric and Brian are INTxs. They think in big pictures; I see the devil in the details.

Jenny, I did want to address the rest of this post, the confusion about the spelling debate notwithstanding:

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I see Justmom as a nativist, rather than a bigot. She's perfectly happy to have an America of different races, religions, and ethnicity, as long as they conform to what she sees as core American values. It is a point of view that not everyone shares, but I'm happy that she gives voice to it -- it is an attitude shared by an awful lot of Americans.

I sense more a pattern of xenophobia rather than nativism, though I suppose there is a fine line between the two.

I am trying to understand the context of Maxine's posts, and that's why I continue to challenge her assertions. I was very disturbed by her remarks about Muslims. Perhaps I am reading too much into them, or losing something in the translation. So I will keep on asking her to clarify her points.

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by bubba

I thought it would be an intelligent discussion I now realize it is a place where a lot of people who are desperately attempting to prove they are smarter than they are post, but I belive that I will hang around to bring give you all a dose of reality from time to time.

Rush prove astrology is real, give me a solid theory on why it should work and not a lot of spurious correlation.

Please don't go Bubba. I appreciate your views. Unfortunately, you are correct in your assesment on the "my brain is bigger than your brain syndrom".On this site and only this site, we (conservatives) are out numbered. In the real world they are dying a hearty death.
hahahahahaha...

I'm afraid I can't agree. They're holding their own well enough, though we've managed to fight them to a standstill on most fronts. In the 90s, they had the presidency, now we've got it. With the country this perfectly divided, whichever side controls the White House tends to get some of what it wants, the oppositions gets almost nothing, and thus whichever side holds the White House tends to think it's 'winning'.

Just a 5 years ago, liberals were congratulating themselves on how they had finally defeated the conservative reactionary fogies once and for all.
The Clinton impeachment was going to finish off the GOP politically, remember?

That was an illusion, and so is the current apparent defeat of the libs.
Each side has too deep and serious a constituency to be defeated that completely (except short term, that's easily managed).

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by bubba

The left is getting hysterical. They can?t deal with the fact Bush has out maneuvered them, and if they don?t start figuring out how and why he has done it rather than being hysterical they wont come back. Yes Mr. Meece this is a partisan statement, I know it no need to tell me go back to observing Uranus.

Yes, southern cracker. Bush outmaneuvered us. How did he do it? By getting his brother and his brother's girlfriend to cook the registration rolls by throwing off convicted felons who weren't, so fewer black folks could vote in Florida. Thanks to the closeness of the election, it worked. Other than that, he did no maneuvering. The American people are afraid and cowed by 9-11, and so are going along with paranoid policies that everyone who might possibly hurt us, will hurt us unless we destroy them.

Eric, you on the Left are just going to have to get over this. There has been NO EVIDENCE presented that the election in Florida was rigged, and people have been looking for it.