The Party of Liars, Kooks and Extremists

[Rouser2]

Comparing the Presidential candidates of the Dems, the Repubs and the Libertarians, which political party is the party of....

Racists

"...in 1976 Jimmy Carter (Democrat) ... said that he was in favor of allowing white communities to 'maintain their ethnic purity' and that the government shouldn't be in the business of injecting minorities into historically 'pure" neighborhoods'" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint061801.html

Dunces

"During a critical debate with Jimmy Carter a month before the presidential election, President Gerald R. Ford declared in response to a question from the New York Times' Max Frankel, 'There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe.' While the statement may have been prophetic, given the events of a decade later, it was absurd at the time." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/ford.htm

Extremists

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice..." -- Barry Goldwater, Republican


Liars and Low Lifes

''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …" -- John Kerry (Congressional Record, March 18, 1986

("The records show that his (Jewish) grandfather, Frederick Kerry, was born as Fritz Kohn. He changed his name to Kerry in 1902, immigrated to the United States in 1905 — and committed suicide in a Boston hotel in 1921") http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Kerry%B4s+Jewish+ro ots&intcategoryid=3

"The senator, who is actually half-Jewish and half-English with a lot of French relatives, is accused of being less than forthcoming about his heritage."http://cbn.org/CBNNews/News/040601a.asp

* * *

Al Gore (Democrat) -- "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

* * *

"Im no crook." -- R. Nixon (Republican)

* * *

"President Johnson campaigned for election in 1964 with the promise not to escalate the war. 'We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys out to be doing for themselves,'"

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=517

-- Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)


* * *

"Read my lips -- no new taxes." -- George W. Bush

* * *

"I did not have sex with that woman -- Ms Lewinsky." Bill Clinton, (Democrat)

* * *

For deception, duplicity, extremism, violence, low life moral turpitude and down right ignorance, the Libertarians can hardly hold a candle to these guys -- all of 'em Dems or Repubs.


-- Rouser

[Sundog]

For the same reason that the Mithraists have a far cleaner record in history than the Christians - because no one knows who the heck they are, nor cares.

Perhaps when one achieves a noticeable position in any sort of public spotlight, we'll have the chance to examine them.

[Shane Costello]

Wasn't there a thread here a while back about a libertarian candidate who turned a distinct shade of blue?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Rouser2
...
For deception, duplicity, extremism, violence, low life moral turpitude and down right ignorance, the Libertarians can hardly hold a candle to these guys -- all of 'em Dems or Repubs.
-- Rouser

Apparently in order to get one's idiotic quotes in the National Review, one must get elected. The Libertarians have yet to do this on any perceptible scale.

So I think your examples have a pretty strong "selection bias".

[Regnad Kcin]

Al Gore (Democrat) -- "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."Correct."I did not have sex with that woman -- Ms Lewinsky." Bill Clinton, (Democrat)Correct.Originally posted by Rouser2
For deception, duplicity, extremism, violence, low life moral turpitude and down right ignorance, the Libertarians can hardly hold a candle to these guys -- all of 'em Dems or Repubs.That's nice.

Your other examples might individually make for compelling analysis, by the way. However, I would hazard a guess that you're not interested in nuanced discussion.

[Nasarius]

Al Gore (Democrat) -- "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

This is more of a slip of the tongue than anything else. Do you really think that Gore would be so arrogant that he thinks he "created the Internet"?

It's far more likely that he meant:
""I took the initiative in helping to create the Internet."

Which is true.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Sorry, I'm no Democrat fan, but this one just irritates me, especially when it gets passed around that Gore said he "invented" the Internet.

[zakur]

Kooks? Did someone say kooks?

Big Blue Libertarian (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bluecandidate_021003.html)

[CapelDodger]

from Sundog:
For the same reason that the Mithraists have a far cleaner record in history than the Christians - because no one knows who the heck they are, nor cares.

Perhaps when one achieves a noticeable position in any sort of public spotlight, we'll have the chance to examine them.
Spot on. Couldn't be bettered.

Edited to add:
Democracy - doncha love it?

[Major Billy]

Originally posted by Rouser2
''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …" -- John Kerry (Congressional Record, March 18, 1986

John Kerry never said this. I know it's hard to believe, but U.S. Congressional staffers do make mistakes.

[Regnad Kcin]

Incidentally, this is a misquote I didn't catch first time around:"I did not have sex with that woman -- Ms Lewinsky." Bill Clinton, (Democrat)In actuality the president said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (My emphasis.) It's a small distinction but worthwhile for discussion purposes. Could be fun.

In any event, I'm reminded of an old Fusco Brothers comic wherein Axel, the wolverine, is being hurried along by brother Lance, as they are late for an appointment and have yet to leave the house:

Lance (at the door, car keys in hand): C'mon, Axel, we're late!

Axel (grooming himself at the vanity): Just a sec!

Lance: There's no time to wait!

Axel: Okay, half a sec!

Lance: We're running late...and you want to halve secs?!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Correct.Correct.That's nice.

Your other examples might individually make for compelling analysis, by the way. However, I would hazard a guess that you're not interested in nuanced discussion.


"I'd hardly rate the thread on Libertarians as a "nuanced" discussion.

-- Rouser

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Rouser2

"I'd hardly rate the thread on Libertarians as a "nuanced" discussion. You want back to the sixties to try and make a point about the two main parties. The libertarian candidate has been picked apart just based on the policy initiatives that he has put forth and what little we know of his biography. It is the guy's viewpoints that are being skewered in the other thread, as they are so wacky. That, and his complete lack of qualifications for the office of President of the United States. He went to college for 5 years but couldn't graduate. He takes a stand against government intrusion into people's lives - which is a fine principle to stand on - but makes exceptions for things like guns. Why allow people the freedom to sue a gun manufacturer? No, we can't allow them to do that! A court might say guns are bad! And it appears that there is nothing Badnarik loves more than his guns.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comparing the Presidential candidates of the Dems, the Repubs and the Libertarians, which political party is the party of....

Racists

"...in 1976 Jimmy Carter (Democrat) ... said that he was in favor of allowing white communities to 'maintain their ethnic purity' and that the government shouldn't be in the business of injecting minorities into historically 'pure" neighborhoods'" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint061801.html


You forgot to include the following paragraph where it explains the remark was a bit too casual and taken somewhat out of context and that Carter apologuised for it two weeks later. Some racist. Next time you try to impune an either polictal party with the stigma of racism you should try to scour the internet for a better example - like one that actually proves your point.

[Nova Land]

I recently attended a 10-day Buddhist meditation course. It is considered extremely important for those taking part in the course to refrain during the 10 days from certain behaviors: no killing is permitted, no stealing, no intoxication, no sexual misconduct, and no lying.

For most of these all that is needed is for the participant to verbally agree that they will not do the behavior. Killing, stealing, getting intoxicated, and having sexual relations all generally require a certain conscious effort. But in order to prevent participants from lying during the course of their stay, participants are required to take part in Noble Silence -- no talking or other communication with other course participants. The reason? Because it is very, very easy in the course of casual conversation to misspeak, and almost all of us do it frequently, often without conscious effort or intention.

If one wishes to partake in serious Buddhist meditation, that level of fussiness about verbal misstatements may be a good idea. In judging others around us in everyday life, however, I would prefer to define lie a bit more restrictively. There are many verbal misstatements (some even deliberate) that I have heard people make (or made myself) which don't upset me at all.

When someone accuses people or political parties of being liars, I expect to see some serious and disturbing misstatements offered as evidence. If, instead, the accuser is reduced to picking out trivial, debatable, or commonplace misstatements, it tells me just the opposite: that on a scale of dishonesty, the people being accused don't rate very high.

Let's look at the examples that R2 provided.

I. lies, Democratic:

(a) Al Gore: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Others have already pointed out the flaws with this. Not an impressive example. If this is one of the best examples Rouser2 can find against Gore, then I'd have to rate Gore as pretty honest.

(b) John Kerry: ''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …"

Pretty innocuous sounding to me.

R2: are you asserting that Kerry does not have any ancestors who came from Ireland? You don't say that clearly. Is that (a) because it's not true, (b) because you don't know, or (c) because you didn't proofread what you were writing carefully enough? I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify what it is you are saying about Kerry's ancestry.

What you did write strikes me as odd: "The senator, who is actually half-Jewish and half-English..." Since when are Jewish and English addable? Jewish is not a nationality. Nor does being Jewish exclude being Irish, so I fail to see why Jewishness was brought up. Could you explain the relevance, and what point you were trying to make?

(c) Lyndon Johnson: [R2 points out that Johnson campaigned for election in 1964 with the promise not to escalate the war, but then did escalate after winning the election.]

I agree that LBJ campaigned on that platform 40 years ago and proceeded to do the opposite. The fact that you felt the need to use a 40-year-old example rather than providing more recent ones speaks well for the Democrats.

(d) Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman..."

In my observation, a great many people in the society around me engage in affairs with one person while supposedly in a committed relationship with another, and it seems commonplace to attempt to conceal this. I agree this is not a morally good thing to do, but I know many people who have done this. I would not care to be in a sexual relationship with them, but apart from that many of them have been generally trustworthy.

There are people who have said or done things I considered significantly dishonest, and I have in the future refrained from working with them. The act of attempting to conceal their sexual affairs has generally not been such a trigger for me. (Discovering they physically or emotionally abused their partner would be such a trigger, whether they attempted to conceal it or not.)

If attempting to conceal an affair is the kind of example you have to resort to to show Democrats are dishonest, that again indicates to me a problem finding significant examples.

II. Lies, Republican

(a) George W. Bush: "Read my lips -- no new taxes."

George Bush did say this -- indicating he would stand firm against any attempt to pressure him to raise taxes -- and later did give in to that pressure. I don't see this as a deliberate effort to deceive, I see it as evidence that he was a poor judge of what the future would bring.

In Johnson's case, I find it conceivable that he knew, even as he was indicating he would not escalate the war, that he really would. In Bush's case, I find it difficult to believe that he actually had plans to raise taxes at the time he made that convention speech. If this is the best example of a Bush misstatement, then I'd have to rate him as a fairly honest person.

(b) Richard Nixon: "Im no crook." <== sic! sic! sic!!!

Are those Nixon's actual words? The quote as I've seen it is "I am not a crook." (I raise this to illustrate the difference between a lie and what I see as a minor mistake of little consequence. I think you got the quote wrong, but I don't think that makes you a liar.) It's also possible Nixon said both, and you're quoting a version I'm not familiar with.)

Although you may have gotten the words wrong, your basic point here is correct. Nixon was a liar, and his lies were significant. So you have provided an example of significant lying by a Republican 30 years ago. Your failure to provide more recent serious examples, or to provide examples of Republicans in recent years supporting or defending Nixon's lies, speaks well for modern Republicans. (Actually there were several defenses of Nixon's lies and misdeeds written in recent years which you could have used to attempt to strengthen your case. If you want to dig them up and use them, I'll argue that point then.)

III. Racism, Democratic

(a) Jimmy Carter You provide a statement by Carter, as excerpted and interpreted by the National Review (which frequently -- often with a clear humorous intent -- takes comments out of context in order to make people they disagree with look bad).

Have you actually read the full Carter statement being referred to, in context, and can you personally vouch for it having been racist as spoken? If so, please let me know where the full statement is and I will read it for myself to see if I agree with your assessment.

My impression of Carter is that he is a decent, generally non-racist, person. If this is the best example you can find of racism among Democrats, it speaks highly for modern Democrats.

IV. Dunces, Republican

(a) Gerald Ford: "There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe." Gerald Ford made a serious misstatement, close to 30 years ago. Wow! I don't consider myself a dunce, but I'd be happy with a record like that.

V. Extremism, Republican

(a) Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice..."

In English, words often have a variety of meanings, some with positive connotations and some with negative. "Extremist" and "extremism" are such words.

When the word "extremism" is meant to mean fanatical, excessive belief, to the point it overrides common sense and is used to justify actions that otherwise would be considered morally inappropriate most of us would consider extremism a bad thing. There are people in the world who exemplify that. Barry Goldwater does not strike me as a good example. The kind of extremism he is speaking of in the quote -- strong commitment and dedication, a willingness to act in according with one's convictions -- is something I agree with and support.

If Barry Goldwater, in a speech 40 years ago, is the best example of Republican extremism you can come up with, that speaks well for modern Republicans.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Major Billy


John Kerry never said this. I know it's hard to believe, but U.S. Congressional staffers do make mistakes.

...and even if he did say that... so what?

[DavidJames]

NL: I think you are missing R2's point. In this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870498033#post1870498033) thread, R2 is defending the Libertarian presidential candidate from accusations he is a look and a liar. He clearly started this thread trying to show that liars and kooks are elected president all the time. It should follow then that Badnarik is eminently (if not over) qualified for the job. :)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Rouser2

"I'd hardly rate the thread on Libertarians as a "nuanced" discussion.
That's because Badnarik is farcical.

Nuanced discussion in a Badnarik thread is, almost by definition, a derailment.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Rouser2

''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …" -- John Kerry (Congressional Record, March 18, 1986

("The records show that his (Jewish) grandfather, Frederick Kerry, was born as Fritz Kohn. He changed his name to Kerry in 1902, immigrated to the United States in 1905 — and committed suicide in a Boston hotel in 1921") http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Kerry%B4s+Jewish+ro ots&intcategoryid=3


Doofus (R2):

He made this statement in 1986 - 18 years ago. At the time - 18 years ago - he did not know his grandfather's patriation or religious affinity. He is now - 18 years later - aware of this trivial peice of political insight - thanks to people like you who think it is a mark of deceit to make a claim out of honest ignorance. I can only hope you hold yourself to the same strict level of moral discipline you expect from Mr. Kerry.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Wasn't there a thread here a while back about a libertarian candidate who turned a distinct shade of blue?

I actually saw Blue Guy at the convention. Didn't get a chance to speak to him, though. For the record, pretty much everyone I talked to there considered him laughable.

I think Rouser2's point is, EVERY party and EVERY movement has extremists. This is combatting things said in other threads, such as getting on Michael Badnarik's case because his campaign team is revamping his website after getting the nomination (accusing him of "yanking" "embarassing" claims, when everything from the old site got yanked and the new one is still being built), but letting Kerry swing by without comment when he most certainly yanked a claim favoring mandatory military service from his website, after it was exposed to the press (by a Libertarian).

So, why do Demopublicans get a free ride on completely crappy behavior while Libertarians get slammed for behavior that is perfectly understandable, just twisted into appearing crappy?

[NightG1]

Originally posted by DavidJames
NL: I think you are missing R2's point. In this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870498033#post1870498033) thread, R2 is defending the Libertarian presidential candidate from accusations he is a look and a liar. He clearly started this thread trying to show that liars and kooks are elected president all the time. It should follow then that Badnarik is eminently (if not over) qualified for the job. :)
Ooops. Thanks David. It might have been helpful if Rouser had made this agruement in the other thread rather than start a different thread without context.

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche

That's because Badnarik is farcical.

Nuanced discussion in a Badnarik thread is, almost by definition, a derailment.

Varwoche, answer these questions:

Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"?
How would a President doing so "violate" the law?
Why is the President required to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititon"?
What does the Constitution mean by "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
How would Badnarik's refusal to use the powers of the Presidency to execute unconstitutional laws constitute "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under their Common Law meaning in effect at the time of the Constitution's ratification?
Why is Badnarik bad and instigating a coverup because his campaign team is revamping his entire site after getting the nomination, but Kerry is apparently okay for covering up and removing a statement on his site where he would make national service MANDATORY for young adults the DAY AFTER the press getting wind of it (thanks to Libertarian Aaron Russo)?

[Skeptic]

II think Rouser2's point is, EVERY party and EVERY movement has extremists.

Yes, but only the Libertarian party has them available in light blue.

Another benefit of the free market, I suppose.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quite a fine entry a few posts above by Nova Land.

[varwoche]

It's the oddest thing. This post keeps appearing over on the new forum. Like here, it's out of context.

At first I attributed it to a software snafu, thinking that the server was stuck in a loop, spewing the same post over and over. Clearly it's not SC's fault; it must be a virus.
Originally posted by shanek

Varwoche, answer these questions:
<snip>

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, but only the Libertarian party has them available in light blue.

Another benefit of the free market, I suppose.

Every single person whose skin turned blue after taking colloidal silver was a Libertarian? None of them were Democrats and Republicans? Give me a f*cking break...

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
It's the oddest thing. This post keeps appearing over on the new forum.

And the answers somehow keep getting deleted. Truly amazing... :rolleyes:

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


Every single person whose skin turned blue after taking colloidal silver was a Libertarian? None of them were Democrats and Republicans? Give me a f*cking break...

Please tell me this response was a joke, just like Skeptic's remark was (and a good one at that).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
Please tell me this response was a joke, just like Skeptic's remark was (and a good one at that).

Yeah, pretty much.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


Yeah, pretty much.

Wheww :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
Wheww :)

I'd hoped that my sarcasm would have been as obvious as his, and that therefore the people who took my comment seriously would have taken his seriously as well. Either way.

[Dancing David]

Any party has a long and varied history. Any particular candidate has there better and worse moments in context and out of context.

Goldwater was a flaming conservative in his era, now he is some sort of leftist.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


I'd hoped that my sarcasm would have been as obvious as his, and that therefore the people who took my comment seriously would have taken his seriously as well. Either way.

Cool. I took Skeptic's as a joke and only that, but in yours, the humor was lost on me with the f-bomb. That's why I asked.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by shanek


Varwoche, answer these questions:

Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"?
How would a President doing so "violate" the law?
Why is the President required to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?
What does the Constitution mean by "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?


May I take a shot?

1) The executive branch ( read president ) cannot decide which laws are constitutional or not , that is a power of solely the judicial branch. The office holder may not choose which laws to enforce or which not. The remedy is to file with the courts and in extreme circumstances petition for an emergency court order to suspend on appeal.

2) See above , remember Nixon.

3) The executive branch is responsible to carry out the execution of established laws, subject to overview by the SCOTUS , that prevail at the time.

You will please excuse me from not answering the last two questions as the are obvious points of contention based on a political point of view and not constitutional law.

[odorousrex]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Wasn't there a thread here a while back about a libertarian candidate who turned a distinct shade of blue?

I remember this. A quick google:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/offbeat.blue.candidate/


From colloidal silver which is a whole 'nother thread.

On topic, if the candidiate I want to support for has never lied, fibbed, or made a mistake, then I'm not going to vote for him - because obviously he is a robot.

Seriously though - i'd be worried about an honest politian. The lying just makes them so much more human. I can relate to them.

Luckily, I haven't seen a honest politian in any party - yet.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by NightG1 [/i]

>>Doofus (R2):He made this statement in 1986 - 18 years ago. At the time - 18 years ago - he did not know his grandfather's patriation or religious affinity. He is now - 18 years later - aware of this trivial peice of political insight - thanks to people like you who think it is a mark of deceit to make a claim out of honest ignorance. I can only hope you hold yourself to the same strict level of moral discipline you expect from Mr. Kerry.


In Cook (Crook) County, Illinois, people running for the obscure office of "judge" in certain locales routinely change their names to one that appears to be of Irish descent and the great unwashed voters of such locales routinely award such familiar sounding Irish names with judgeships, while in Washinton, apparently one simply is ignorant of one's heritage a la Madaleine Albright and John Kerry. So he didn't know his grandfather;s name was Kohn??? Pure dumb luck. And perhaps he really does have some Irish blood coming from somewhere, but neither he nor you can point to it??? Doofus, yourself.

-- Rouser

[Whoracle]

The correct answer is both of them.

[Art Vandelay]

As much as I do not wish to give the impression that I agree with Rouser2, I take exception at this:

Thanz:
He takes a stand against government intrusion into people's lives - which is a fine principle to stand on - but makes exceptions for things like guns. Why allow people the freedom to sue a gun manufacturer? No, we can't allow them to do that!
That seems rather Orwellian to me. Not allowing suits is government intrusion? You don't seem to understand what a filing of a civil suit is. It is a formal request by one person for the government to intrude in the life of another person. Saying that suits of this nature will not be allowed is just saying that the government will not honor such requests. If you ask me to paint your house, and I refuse, am I "intruding" in your life? The government has the right to not exercise its powers in ways that it does not wish to. You are free to engage in whatever activities you wish against gun makers, as long as you don't violate their rights. You have the right to ask for assistance from any party you wish, including the government. And any of those parties, including the government, have the right to decline. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't arguments to be made against such a ban. I'm just saying that this one is not valid.

Nova Land
Nor does being Jewish exclude being Irish, so I fail to see why Jewishness was brought up.
And from watching Buffy, apparently being Jewish, Irish, lesbian, and a witch aren't mutually exclusive, either. :)

BTW, Shanek replied, apparently in response to my insistence (while discussing a physics issue) that an exit wound is not a force:
but I'm not going to put up with the incredible dishonesty exhibited by others (insisting that we must use the physics definition of "force"? Come on!)
So fair warning to anyone trying to debate this guy: apparently he considers it "dishonest" to insist on the correct definitions of words.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

And from watching Buffy, apparently being Jewish, Irish, lesbian, and a witch aren't mutually exclusive, either. :)
And from the same source, we can see that Jews are prone to go on killing sprees, and try to destroy the world, so even if Kerry isn't a liar he's still an extremist, so there! :p

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
BTW, Shanek replied, apparently in response to my insistence (while discussing a physics issue) that an exit wound is not a force:
I don't know exactly what qualifies as a "force", but if you fire a gun, there will be a counter-force" that propels you backwards, to compensate for the forward momentum of the bullet, similarly if a lot of melon/brain matter is thrown one way by a bullet, and the total forward "momentum" of all this matter, is greater than that of the bullet on impact then the head/melon will be propelled the other way.

[Skeptic]

Every single person whose skin turned blue after taking colloidal silver was a Libertarian? None of them were Democrats and Republicans?

"Them"? Except for Blue Man Politician, who else is there?

But, yes, I'd argue that they were all libertarians. You see, blue guy's color is a direct result of his libertarian policies.

Like you, he ranted and raved how the evil FDA is just there to stop the free trade, how people are smart enough to decide for themselves if some drug might be dangerous, that they need no stinkin' eggheads from the eeeeeevil gubirmint telling them what drugs to take and what drugs not to, that the risk of quacks selling ignorant dolts dangerous medicines is highly exagerrated...

...and then the ignorant dolt falls for a quack who sold him stuff that turned him permenantly blue despite the fact that the FDA had been warning about the worthlessness of this treatment for years.

So, yes, he's blue because he is a libertarian, I'd wager. All I can say is, luckily he didn't try to make a personal example of the worthlessness and nanny-state silliness of government regulations concerning the handling of explosives, instead: "No egghead beurocrat is going to tell ME where to store MY dynamite! My friend told me it's perfectly safe, and I don't CARE that there's an open barbecue fire next to..."

(BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!)

[Kilted_Canuck]

And here I thought the OP would be about the Canadian Liberals.

[Rimshot]:p

[Art Vandelay]

A further comment on this Jewish thing: Republicans have in the past said that Democrats are "pandering" by talking about their Jewish heritage. So now they're being criticized for not talking about it?

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't know exactly what qualifies as a "force", but if you fire a gun, there will be a counter-force" that propels you backwards, to compensate for the forward momentum of the bullet, similarly if a lot of melon/brain matter is thrown one way by a bullet, and the total forward "momentum" of all this matter, is greater than that of the bullet on impact then the head/melon will be propelled the other way.
If the brain matter is thrown by the bullet then the "equal and opposite" principle will apply to the bullet, not the rest of the brain. The bullet will slow down because it is transferring its momentum to the brain. For the rest of the brain to be thrown the other way, there must be some force pushing it. It's true that if the momentum (I'm not quite sure why you put this in quotes) of the expelled brain matter is greater than that of the bullet, then something (not necessarily the rest of the brain) must be pushed back. But that stills leaves the question of why the momentum of the expelled brain would be larger. The only thing I can think of is if the bullet hits part of the brain, pushes that part of the brain forward, the bullet then bounces back in the opposite direction, and pulls the rest of the brain with it. I don't see how one part of the brain would push another part directly, unless there's some sort of elasticity going on.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

If the brain matter is thrown by the bullet then the "equal and opposite" principle will apply to the bullet, not the rest of the brain. The bullet will slow down because it is transferring its momentum to the brain. For the rest of the brain to be thrown the other way, there must be some force pushing it. It's true that if the momentum (I'm not quite sure why you put this in quotes) of the expelled brain matter is greater than that of the bullet, then something (not necessarily the rest of the brain) must be pushed back. But that stills leaves the question of why the momentum of the expelled brain would be larger.
I think I've identified the core of your misunderstanding (very confusing attemp of explanation coming up, if there’s anything you don’t understand I’ll try to clarify, but I’m not an expert). I think you're confusing energy(E) and momentum(M). Energy equals weight*v^2 and is non-directional, but momentum is weight*v and is directional. Both must remain constant thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_conservation_law or this one for more information on the conversation of momentum http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/conmo.html

let me give you an example a projectile weighting 0,5 kg hits an object weighting 10,5 kg with a speed of 100 m/s and takes 0,5 kg of matter with it, when it exits the other way (the weights and speed is chosen to make calculation easy, and I'll presume for the sake of simplicity that no energy is lost as heat, and that the matter that the bullet takes with it exits with the same speed as the bullet)

E=0,5kg*(100m/s)^2=5000J
M=0,5kg*100m/s= 50kg*m/s

Since energy is non-directional the weight of the bullet and the matter it takes with it (1 kg), times it's exit velocity (V2)^2 plus the weight of the remaining object (10kg) * velocity (V3)^2 must equal 5000J

Since momentum is directional the weight of the bullet, and the matter it takes with it times it's exit velocity + the weight of the remaining object, times it's directional velocity must equal 50kg*m/s So:

1*(V2)^2+10*(V3)^2=5000 and 1*(V2)+10*(V3)=50
If you calculate this you’ll find that V2=70,42m/s and V3=-2,04 that is, it goes in the opposite direction of the bullet. Now if enough energy is converted into heat, then this won’t happen, but you can’t assume this a priori

The only thing I can think of is if the bullet hits part of the brain, pushes that part of the brain forward, the bullet then bounces back in the opposite direction, and pulls the rest of the brain with it. I don't see how one part of the brain would push another part directly, unless there's some sort of elasticity going on.
That’s not how it happens since as I showed above there is no need for the bullet, to ever reverse direction for this to happen. I think that what happens is that the brain mass taking off from the rest of the head, and thereby pushing it backwards the same way as a surface is bushed back if I jump off it. Even if this explanation is incorrect (and it might be) it doesn’t change the fact that it can happen, it’s counter-intuitional. but the math shows it, unless you want to challenge fundamental laws of nature.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
As much as I do not wish to give the impression that I agree with Rouser2, I take exception at this:

Thanz:

That seems rather Orwellian to me. Not allowing suits is government intrusion? You don't seem to understand what a filing of a civil suit is. It is a formal request by one person for the government to intrude in the life of another person. Saying that suits of this nature will not be allowed is just saying that the government will not honor such requests. If you ask me to paint your house, and I refuse, am I "intruding" in your life? The government has the right to not exercise its powers in ways that it does not wish to. You are free to engage in whatever activities you wish against gun makers, as long as you don't violate their rights. You have the right to ask for assistance from any party you wish, including the government. And any of those parties, including the government, have the right to decline. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't arguments to be made against such a ban. I'm just saying that this one is not valid.
I think that it is you who doesn't understand what the filing of a civil suit is. It is not the plaintiff saying "gov't - help me please" It is saying - "X did me wrong, and I need you to arbitrate our dispute". It is the use of gov't services, paid for by all through taxes, to arbitrate disputes between other parties that they cannot work out themselves. The idea presented by you that the gov't is allowed to pick sides without ever hearing the dispute as fine and dandy is bizarre. Let's say that the gov't passed a law saying that no one can ever sue Microsoft, for any reason. It doesn't matter if they didn't pay your invoice, or they launched a virus onto your network. you just can't sue them. Is that okay? Can the gov't just say - we are not going to intrude on Microsoft's business?

The court system is supposed to be there for anyone to settle their disputes. If you deny access to a particular group of people, you are denying their rights. It's that simple.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I think I've identified the core of your misunderstanding (very confusing attemp of explanation coming up, if there’s anything you don’t understand I’ll try to clarify, but I’m not an expert). I think you're confusing energy(E) and momentum(M).
I really don't see where you got that idea. Can you refer to anything that I've said that indicates a misunderstanding?

Energy equals weight*v^2 and is non-directional, but momentum is weight*v and is directional.
Actually, energy equals .5*mass*v^2. Mass and weight are not the same thing. And to confuse matters even more, energy and momentum are part of the same quantity; momentum is basically the spatial component of a 4-vector, while energy is the temporal component. Energy squared minus momentum squared is mass squared. Assuming, of course, that c=1. And BTW, momentum is usually represented by the Greek letter rho, or p. And as long as I'm being a nitpicking jerk, it's spelled "its", and the phrase you're looking for is "counter-intuitive" :) .

and I'll presume for the sake of simplicity that no energy is lost as heat, and that the matter that the bullet takes with it exits with the same speed as the bullet)
Those are some rather bizarre assumptions. Why would kinetic energy by conserved? Why would the bullet exit at the same speed as the brain matter? Your numbers are also quite odd. A 500 gram projectile? What is this, an anti-tank round? 100 m/s? That’s pretty slow.

. Now if enough energy is converted into heat, then this won’t happen, but you can’t assume this a priori
I don't know it's true a priori, but it does seem like the logical default.

That’s not how it happens since as I showed above there is no need for the bullet, to ever reverse direction for this to happen.
I don't see how, even if you have presented an alternate explanation, that proves that mine is incorrect. And I'm not convinced that you have presented a valid alternate explanation. When the bullet hits the part of the brain that is expelled, those are the bodies that should be considered. I still question the validity of introducing a third body into the equations. While it’s true that when you look at the situation before the collision, and then look at the situation after the collision, everything checks out, that still leaves the question of what happens during the collision. What mechanism ensures that this happens?

I think that what happens is that the brain mass taking off from the rest of the head, and thereby pushing it backwards the same way as a surface is bushed back if I jump off it.
No, that analogy doesn't work. First of all, you're pushing against the surface. Your muscles are producing a force. There are no muscles in the brain, and even if there were, why would they react to being shot by ejecting another part of the brain? That's just bizarre. And even if they did do so, then they would be producing a force independent of the collision itself. Which in turn means two things: this would not refute my earlier claim that there must be a force pushing them apart, and it still wouldn't explain how the collision would cause this effect (it would instead by positing a completely different cause).

Even if this explanation is incorrect (and it might be) it doesn’t change the fact that it can happen, it’s counter-intuitional. but the math shows it, unless you want to challenge fundamental laws of nature.
That's quite a lapse of logic. The conservation of energy says that everything which can happen must follow the law, not that everything which follows the law can happen. Merely showing that the math works out is hardly sufficient. After all, suppose a 500 gram projectile travelling 100m/s hits a 500 gram object, and both of them travel away at 70.42 m/s. At the same time, a 10 kg object several meters away starts travelling 2.04 m/s in the opposite direction. Don’t the conservation of energy and momentum work out? But wouldn’t you wonder how this could happen? (Actually, there’s a third quantitiy that isn’t conserved. Do you know what it is?) Similarly, I accept that the equations work out. And I’m not saying that I’m 100% certain that this wouldn’t happen. But I really do wonder why it would happen.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that it is you who doesn't understand what the filing of a civil suit is. It is not the plaintiff saying "gov't - help me please" It is saying - "X did me wrong, and I need you to arbitrate our dispute".
It's both. Can you seriously say that filing a suit is not a request for help from the government?

The idea presented by you that the gov't is allowed to pick sides without ever hearing the dispute as fine and dandy is bizarre.
What? I never said that. In fact, I specifically said "I'm not saying that there aren't arguments to be made against such a ban." You even quoted it. Did you not read it? Not that banning certain types of lawsuits is necessarily "taking sides".

If you deny access to a particular group of people, you are denying their rights. It's that simple.
So is the Good Samaritan Law a violation of rights (restricts suits against people providing emergency medical care)? What about press shield laws? Judgment caps? SLAPP laws? Statute of limitations? What about Constitutional restrictions on suits, rather than statuatory?

[BillyTK]

Art & Kerberos–
Can we forget the science stuff and get back to partisan sniping, please? It's not like this is an educational forum or anything... oh wait... never mind...

;)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

That's quite a lapse of logic. The conservation of energy says that everything which can happen must follow the law, not that everything which follows the law can happen. Merely showing that the math works out is hardly sufficient. After all, suppose a 500 gram projectile travelling 100m/s hits a 500 gram object, and both of them travel away at 70.42 m/s. At the same time, a 10 kg object several meters away starts travelling 2.04 m/s in the opposite direction. Don’t the conservation of energy and momentum work out? But wouldn’t you wonder how this could happen?
I'm afraid you're right, my argument doesn't really work (damn!). Actually, there’s a third quantitiy that isn’t conserved. Do you know what it is?
No.
Similarly, I accept that the equations work out. And I’m not saying that I’m 100% certain that this wouldn’t happen. But I really do wonder why it would happen.
As I (reluctantly) admitted above, it does seem that my argument doesn't work (double damn!!), but I did think of another explanation which I think actually makes sense. Since the bullet compresses the matter in the melon/head it creates a over-pressure that pressure would push both back and forward (and up and down), but since some of the pressure forward will be used to propel brain/melon mass going out of the head/melon, there will be some surplus pressure to propel the head backwards.

P.S. I did some searching on the internet, and there was a claim that the motion of Kennedy's head had absolutely nothing to do with bullets and conservation of energy or momentum, but was a muscle spasm.


P.P.S As requested by BillyTK: Your dumb uneducated iliterate dysleksic morron! I'm right and you're wrong!!!! So there! :p

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Art & Kerberos–
Can we forget the science stuff and get back to partisan sniping, please? It's not like this is an educational forum or anything... oh wait... never mind...

;)
Are you calling me a 3%er? We may have to take this outside...
:p

Kerberos:
That's certainly a very gracious response. Your new hypothesis is promising. If the brain has some elasticity, it might compress from the bullet, then spring back, pushing the expelled part away.

And as for my parenthical question:
If two objects are separated by a displacement vector v, then they can share forces parallel to v. For instance, one could emit a photon, while the one absorbs it, and as a result they could accelerate away from each other. Or they could exert a gravitational force on each other, pulling them together. However, they cannot share a force perpindicular to v, or a force which has a component perpindicular to v. To do so would be a violation of the conservation of angular momentum. So unless the objects in my question are lined up in one line, the situation I describe cannot occur.

One other question: when you were figuring out v2 and v3, and came up with 70 and -2, you should have gotten a quadratic equation, and quadratic equations have two solutions. Did you find another solution and discard it, or did you find one solution and stop there?