SIMBERG: No, it is a fact. I do have zero confidence that …

This is the logical equivalent of a Christian, Jew or Muslim who says “No, it is a fact. I do believe in God.” Confidence and belief lie in the mind, not in the material world where they can be objectively measured.

But since you admitted in the next posting that you were hyperbolic, and that the correlation is non-zero, you have now separated yourself from somebody who is making an assertion based purely upon belief. I am satisfied.

– Al

Then you firmly “adhere” to your position (call it your “cause” or “faction”)

You can call a tail a leg, but it doesn’t make it one. It is not a “cause” or a “faction.” It is an opinion, based on observation. If it will make you happier for me to admit that I was hyperbolic, and that the correlation is non-zero, I’m happy to do that. But it remains small, nonetheless.

No, it is a fact. I do have zero confidence that there will be any correlation between words now and deeds (and words) later, because there seems to be none between words now and words past. And as I noted previously, it’s particularly insidious with Senator Obama, because he doesn’t even attempt to explain the discrepancy–he simply pretends it doesn’t exist. And that statement remains unpartisan.

It is important to note that I did not use the word “partisan” first, you did.

Well, it might be important to note that, if it were actually correct.

The first use of that word was in your post to me, in which you wrote: “Rather than get into a partisan tit-for-tat yelling match, can we keep this discussion focused on the substance of space policy & politics?”

I was annoyed by that because a) my comment wasn’t partisan and b) I was not “yelling.” Nor was I engaging in tit for tat.

If you can find a previous usage by me, perhaps you could point it out.

It is important to note that I did not use the word “partisan” first, you did.

I only observed that “You can spin a story around your “beliefs” as much as you want, but this fact is clear.”

– Al

Your statement here:

it doesn’t matter what he says (today) on space (or any other) policy, because I have zero confidence that there is any correlation between what he says during a campaign and what he’ll do in office.

… is purely a matter of belief.

Words matter.

Yes, you have some “data” to support your assertion, but there is counter-vailing data too, and too leap to your conclusion is a matter of belief, not fact.

This is not a “cold, clinical (unpartisan) observation.”

To observe that Obama “changes his mind” to “fit the political winds” is one thing. He is a politician. So is McCain. I don’t know of a single professional politician who has not changed their minds at some time — however some do so less.

But you take it further — where the data does not (yet) support it — by asserting suggesting there is not ANY correlation between what Obama says and does.

To take it this far, to a statement of belief, when there is opposing data demonstrating there is some (greater than zero) correlation between what he says and does, is “unreasoning”.

Then you firmly “adhere” to your position (call it your “cause” or “faction”), showing no doubt, and then to “blindly” assert that you are just exhibiting a “cold, clinical … observation”, puts you pretty darn close to the definition of “partisan”.

FWIW,

– Al

OK, I did that. Merriam-Webster doesn’t seem to support you.

1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines

I don’t see how either of those definitions pertains to my criticism of Barack Obama. Even if one broadens the definition to the negative–an antipathy to a party, faction, cause or person, my antipathy to Obama is neither blind, prejudiced, or unreasoning. It’s a cold, clinical (unpartisan) observation.

Because most of the discussion and posts, at least recently, have been about one of the two presidential candidates, and not the other. Again, when McCain says something about space policy, I will critique it.

My recollection is that you have stated that you will probably vote for McCain.

I don’t recall saying that, but I’m certainly not going to vote for Obama. It’s quite possible that I won’t cast a vote for president. And, either way, that has nothing to do with space policy. I think that there are much more important issues on which to cast a vote than space policy.

But rather than give this politician credit for taking a nuanced and smarter (from our point-of-view) position that is heading in a useful direction on space policy, again a direction which has similarities to your views, you still attack him.

I didn’t “attack” him. As I said, I simply made an observation. As I’ve said previously, it doesn’t matter what he says (today) on space (or any other) policy, because I have zero confidence that there is any correlation between what he says during a campaign and what he’ll do in office. The fact that this may be true for Senator McCain as well is completely irrelevant (though I do think that it’s at least somewhat less true). So I still fail to see how I’m being “partisan.” Unless by “partisan,” you mean I don’t relish the thought of a President Obama.

I think that it’s quite possible to be uncomfortable with that concept without being “partisan.” Most people think that “partisan” means that you oppose someone or support another simply because they are a member of a political party. I have many other reasons for not wanting Senator Obama to be president, regardless of how it “appears” to you.

Rand,

Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse?

I am not now saying, nor have I ever said, you are a Republican. (Strawman).

If you look up the definition of partisan, it does not require that you be a member of a party. (Strawman).

But by content analysis alone, recently you have spent the vast majority of your time — of that which you spend commenting on the two presidential candidates — attacking & criticizing one of the two presidential candidates. My recollection is that you have stated that you will probably vote for McCain.

To the present — Senator Obama makes space policy statements that are more consistent with your views on space policy than those of the standard politician. Obama clearly is stating he will revisit the implementation plan of the Constellation program (dare I say “change” it), and he favors private space. Both are consistent with your views. But rather than give this politician credit for taking a nuanced and smarter (from our point-of-view) position that is heading in a useful direction on space policy, again a direction which has similarities to your views, you still attack him.

By observation, you are clearly appear to be partisan.

– Al

Maybe. This week.

When Senator McCain — the presumptive nominee of the party that talks about being more pro-private enterprise — actually supports the private space industry in his stated policy, then I will give him due credit.

I’ve never seen much indication that Senator McCain has much interest in private enterprise. He thinks that profits are obscene, that business is a base calling, and that only service to country is “noble.”

I’m still scratching my head to determine why you think that my comments are “partisan,” since I don’t favor McCain, and am not now and have never been a Republican. What party is it that I’m being a “partisan” of?

This thread is about Barack Obama. I made some observations about Barack Obama, based on…observing him. I fail to see the relevance of John McCain. When John McCain makes some comments about space, then we’ll discuss the implications of that.

Mr. Obama, if he is elected, will presumably want to be re-elected, and I see no reason to think that Florida would be any less important then. This is especially so if that State is in the midst of a depression caused by an extended stand-down in human spaceflight.

— Donald