I don't really understand why you think the search for intelligent life outside of Homo sapiens means globalism, environmentalism, and atheism. You do have a point on government spending though. Sulgran 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Because aliens aren't mentioned in the Bible, so they don't exist. I mean, DUH. (Ignore the fact that germs, subatomic particles, and any planets further out than Saturn aren't mentioned in the Bible, either.)
- And what's so evil about wanting NOT to trash the planet? It isn't like we've got a spare in the trunk. --BobD 04:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, the SETI program, over 14 years of government funding, only got about 600 million dollars, total.  I suspect the FBI spends more than that on paperclips every year. --BobD 05:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The first people that Hitler put in concentration camps were liberals and communists. This is a true fact - neither conservative nor liberal.
Since when was Carl Sagan a leader? And what has SETI to do with nuclear disarmament?Chrysogonus 10:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's another one of Andy, Conservative, et al's favorite thing to do - argue that liberals were connected with the ideology of the holocaust. This is the third time I've heard it. The first one was how the Enlightenment & rationalism lead to the holocaust... now the search for extraterrestrial life does... I guess the link is pretty clear...? :-P -AmesGyo! 10:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you have a cite for Hitler? Or do you just like including his name next to liberals' names, to be purposefully inflammatory?-AmesGyo! 10:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ames, I would have thought you'd oppose this on the "falsehood" grounds. Perhaps you should ask them to prove that the assertion that "there must be life on other planets" is false. (Also, I'd say the whole thing misrepresents the position on this matter, I think it would be better rendered "in all probability there is life on other planets" --Abrown 10:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
All in due time, Abrown. But good catches, on all parts. Andy, cross-apply, please - can you prove that intelligent life doesn't exist in the universe? Let's have a thought experiment - I have faith that extraterrestrials exist.-AmesGyo! 11:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Leaving aside the claim that ET is responsible for nuclear disarmament and environmentalism, which seems frankly bizarre, it seems that those things are included as Bad Things in that list. Am I reading that right? Chrysogonus 15:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I get the point that Hitler was a political leader and already know that he wasn't an atheist. But what connection did he have to extra-terrestrial exploration or a belief that aliens existed? Also, I don't understand how he could be considered a liberal. CPlantin 17:16, 3 April, 2008 (CDT)
Extraterrestrial life must exist?
First of all, since when are extraterrestrials a "liberal falsehood"? I can understand claiming that they don't exist (although no conclusive evidence in support of any camp on the issue has been proffered), and that they are thus a "falsehood", but liberal? In addition, who has made the claim that such life must exist? --Hacker
(Write some code) 08:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Please read up on what people thought in the 1970s. Watch "E.T.", which broke all box office records.--Aschlafly 10:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that E.T was a documentary, was it? Chrysogonus 10:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Careful - someone on this site (seriously) claimed that Godzilla was a documentary that proved that dinosaurs were still alive today. And, Andy, E.T. wasn't a liberal flick.-AmesGyo! 10:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Jimmy Carter has never been any kind of UFO "nut" and this incident in his life is incredibly unimportant, compared with everything else. He admits to having seen something he didn't recognize (which is the definition of a UFO), to to haveing seen something definitely from outer space. He supported efforts to investigate such sitings, but is not in the Sagan camp about having said that extraterrestrial life "must" exist statistically. For this reason and because Carter is an active and self-described Southern Baptist and not an atheist, I removed his name from the list. If there is supporting documentation about a Carter statement to the contrary, then by all means use it and add his name back to the list.
- You, like many people, are exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. While "U.F.O." originally meant a flying "object" that was merely "unidentified", it common parlance it has become synonymous with extraterrestrial spaceships and so forth. --Ed Poor Talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- Carter saw something in 1969, even before becoming Gov of Georgia. He was being completely honest about his experience, wanting to later express his full support of a better understanding of mysterious phenomona. As President, he, like presidents since, have supported missions (he even placed a message on a Voyager expedition) to places far beyond the Moon. I know of no place he, like Sagan, said that there "must" be life out there. His message on the Voyager was really symbolic more than an actual "message" to LGMs. If you have supporting documentation, then please post it and I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, this article unjustly ridicules Carter for his desire to be honest about seeing something and trying to keep the government open and honest in its investigations of other sightings.
- It is incorrect to imply that support of the space program, including exploratory missions, constituted an opinion that LGM "must" exist and we must spend billions to find them. There are plenty of legit reasons to explore space, the oceans, and other areas we don't know much about, and many believe that much of that is worthy of government support.
- And lastly, there is nothing inherently "liberal" about UFO sightings or their investigations.CPlantin 17:16, 3 April, 2008 (CDT)
- OK, I did't feel I was censoring the article and am happy to work toward a rational outcome. I had never removed much before (maybe punctuation or things from one list to another) and didn't realize that it would be understood to be an effort at censorship. I did try to justify it in the talk section, though. Next time I'll wait for input from interested parties and we could arrive at a decision to take something out together. CPlantin 17:16, 3 April, 2008 (CDT)
Under the definition we give for global warming in our article (we give the "non controversial definition"), we would be hard pressed to label it like this... see my comment on Talk: Global warming DanH 16:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)