To Be A Democrat, You Must Believe....

[gprime]

I was torn on where to post this. But I thought it might stir up some good political debate, hence my decision to place it in the Three Things Forum. This list is not mine, but I came across it when browsing a political forum I was looking at to see if I ought to join or not. Without further delay:

1. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host.
2. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.
3. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because of the potential for abuse.
4. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution."
5. "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.
6. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.
7. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD.
8. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't Christianity.
9. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often.
10. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the United States.
11. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.
12. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.
13. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.
14. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions."
15. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.
16. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide.
17. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.
18. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America").
19. Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature.
22. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Ninth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).
23. You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but don't believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the children she bears.
24. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security.
25. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS's "The Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.

Let the mudslinging begin.

[swivel]

*hides under the bed*

[Kathy]

*hides under the bed*

Make room for me!

[swivel]

I think it would be interesting for us to list the peculiar habits of Democrats and Republicans, and then do the same thing for Liberalism and Conservatism. Just so R's and D's can finally realize that they are not "Liberal" or "Conservative". They are just "Democrats" or "Republicans".

[Mr_Vindictive]

This sadly just seems to me like a shot below the belt. Just a bitch-fest. A "Hey, look at me! I believe in something better than you do! We do nothing wrong!".

No thanks. I will not rebut any points you made.

[gprime]

This sadly just seems to me like a shot below the belt. Just a bitch-fest. A "Hey, look at me! I believe in something better than you do! We do nothing wrong!".

No thanks. I will not rebut any points you made.

As I said in the first post, the list was written by somebody else and intended satirically. That said, the points it raises are exceptionally valid. And as far as I can tell, the only reason to not respond to any of them would be because you can't. Both parties might suck, but a century now, it has been pretty clear which is worse. And I'll give you a hint: it isn't the party of Goldwater and Paul.

[swivel]

And as far as I can tell, the only reason to not respond to any of them would be because you can't.

Give me some time. I'm trying to work up the nerve to get out from underneath the bed.

[I am Legend]

to me, the entire thing is a bad joke. (not the original post, just the democrat/republican thing). since i have a small bit of sense and just a tad bit of self reliance i am proud to say i dont need to, nor do i even give a fuck to, align myself with either of these two retarded groups of jackasses. both groups in the end turn out to be liars and criminals who hide behind their status and rank. Both sides appear to me to have the same goal in the end, which is to basically take as much money as they can from the "people", who seem to be just dense enough to buy in to the entire "political" scene, like any of them actually give a fuck about this country or its people. the best thing that could happen to this country is a complete hostile takeover through utterly violent means.and on the backside, years of anarchy and unstability so that EVERYONE can spend some good quality time in contemplation thinking about just how we let it get so fucked up in the first place.

[gprime]

to me, the entire thing is a bad joke. (not the original post, just the democrat/republican thing). since i have a small bit of sense and just a tad bit of self reliance i am proud to say i dont need to, nor do i even give a fuck to, align myself with either of these two retarded groups of jackasses. both groups in the end turn out to be liars and criminals who hide behind their status and rank. Both sides appear to me to have the same goal in the end, which is to basically take as much money as they can from the "people", who seem to be just dense enough to buy in to the entire "political" scene, like any of them actually give a fuck about this country or its people. the best thing that could happen to this country is a complete hostile takeover through utterly violent means.and on the backside, years of anarchy and unstability so that EVERYONE can spend some good quality time in contemplation thinking about just how we let it get so fucked up in the first place.

I would never deny that both parties suck. The closest I've found to an appealing party is the Libertarian Party, and there are still a number of issues where their views do not mesh with mine, particularly on matters of defense and foreign relations. But, as I realize we no longer have the means for violent revolution needed to restore basic liberty usurped by popularly elected tyrants, I am content to give my bregrudging support to the party that ever so rarely advances a good candidate. And by good candidate, I mean one who trys to shrink government and return greater liberty to the individual. To that effort, the Republicans have given us Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, and Calvin Coolidge in the past century. And yet, the last great Democrat fell from power in the 1890's. So it isn't that I'm willing to back the party of scumbags like Pat Robertson and John McCain. Rather, I'm unwilling to back the party of Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton.

[swivel]

1. There is enough evidence for a genetic component of addiction to treat these people as if they suffer from an in-born disorder. The argument against Rush is one of hypocrisy on Rush's part, not one on the Democrat's part. During the very time that Rush was bashing drug users, he WAS a drug user. Besides, Democrats are smart enough to reserve their pity and efforts on those who are seeking help. Rush wasn't.

2. That is correct. God is no authority in the United States at all. And the United States should absolutely care what the rest of the globe thinks. Failing to do so is costing the US billions of dollars and dozens of lives a week right now.

3. Correct. Drug-use is a self-inflicted "crime". There is no unwilling victim. We should decriminalize all drugs and start clamping down on guns, which cause needless deaths and serve no good. They are not enough to protect us from a runaway military, and you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun, than you are to protect yourself with it.

4. Of course. There are periods of increased opportunity after a major terrorism strike. The danger for copy-cat crimes is high, and extra vigilance is required. For the same reason, after a major gun-shooting incident, we need increased gun restrictions to prevent the next attack. These are givens.

5. The default societal unit for which mankind is evolutionarily evolved is the "village". It only makes sense to ensure that we continue to co-exist in a tightly, intertwined manner. Children, in particular, exhibit healthier emotional and intellectual development when raised in tight packs of varying ages. In other words: A Village!

6. It does. Guns kept in-home are more likely to harm their owners than intruders.

7. An unborn fetus is not an "innocent". It isn't even a person. It is an unwanted growth, like a cyst. Starving someone to death is much different than killing a person. One is an evil by inaction, the other is an evil by direct action. Every ethical theory distinguishes between these two, and accords the former much less blame. Meanwhile, killing "bad" people is something that cannot be "un-done", and we often make mistakes. There is nothing wrong with this Democratic philosophy either.

8. Extra care must be made to afford minority viewpoints extra representation. Christianity gets an inordinate amount of exposure. It is on our money, it is in our pledge of allegiance, it is in many of our political documents, the churches are everywhere with their billboards and placards, Christian TV commercials are everywhere, our popular media is dripping with the religion. That means we must promote diversity by teaching our students about OTHER religions. This promotes tolerance and makes us safer, as a country.

9. The most beautiful asset of a Democracy is its intolerance of unjust military action. If an action is for the good, it is begrudgingly tolerated. However, when a military finds itself engaged in a morally-questionable engagement, it is the duty of a Democracy's people to harshly criticize that action, thereby ending it.

10. This is an unfair comparison. Arnold was certainly guilty of sexual harassment, Clinton was only ever accused. His tryst with Monica was consensual.

[swivel]

11. Correct. Sex education has obviously caused the downturn in teen pregnancies, so it is working. Gun education, however, would only teach impulsive teens that guns are something they can control. Look at vehicular accident rates for this age group indicates that this is a valid concern.

12. This is correct as well. The victims of racism and rape are not previously hostile towards the abuser. This is not the case for America and the Middle East, where past transgressions indeed exist.

13. The leaders of any group will be the most educated members. Education costs money. These are variable that follow one another. What cannot be argued is the prevalent tendency for poor, out-of-work men, to be enticed by the promise of hurting those who have what they do not.

14. Once again, this is an entirely valid viewpoint. The "Patriot Act" denies innocent citizens the right to privacy. Contrast this to the crazy gun-culture created by a mis-reading of the 2nd amendment.

15. Tradition and loyalty must count for something, otherwise our stock of "goodwill", built up after so many years of sacrafice for the rest of the world, could go ignored tomorrow.

16. Providing above-average care for everyone is much preferred to providing exorbitant care for just the rich. With advancements in medicine, and the lowering-cost of technology, advancements would still be made with a slightly-reduced quality of care. But meanwhile, we would be able to carry along all of society together, rather than fostering the class-warfare we promote with the current system.

17. 100% correct. You are comparing some of the greatest minds in human history (especially Noam, who is a pioneer in language, which is the key to understanding human nature, which is the foundation of all political systems) with a movie-star, a comedian, and a muscle-builder. This is a no-brainer.

18. It is a logical fallacy to choose one study on either side to prove an issue. Numerous studies have shown that more guns = more crime, including statistical analyses between countries with varying rates of gun ownership. Meanwhile, there is a paucity of research that shows that owning guns keeps people safe. Picking and choosing does not prove a point like a meta-analysis would.

19. Another true statement. Saddam was obviously not involved in the 9/11 attack. And the money spent there means we still haven't caught the actual person involved! The Clinton argument is fallacious. There was almost always a foreign military skirmish ongoing under his watch. There is no coincidence when two things are guaranteed to overlap.

20. Look at what two things are being lied about. One is a private affair. The other is an international disaster.

[swivel]

21. 100% correct. If the government wants more rights than these, they need to begin the amendment process.

22. Actually, "The People" means "The States" in all accounts. The founders were relying on the States to take a more-active role in the governance of their occupants. Leaving the implementation of these rights up to the superior vantage that comes from local governments.

23. Absolutely. Any person is qualified to make a subjective decision, such as "Do you want this fetus to be born?". However, only qualified experts know the answers to such objective questions as, "Why is pi considered an irrational number?" and "Why is the theory of evolution the most successful and airtight theories every devised by any field of science?".

24. No Democrat thought this AFTER the case of AWOL was proven to be a forgery. The issue went away. However, they were correct to treat draft-dodging as a minor offense and going AWOL as something severe. The first is a cowardly act performed by a citizen, who has not taken a vow of service. The latter is an act of cowardice and treason performed by someone who has agreed to defend his or her country. There is a reason that has previously been an offense rewarded with death.

25. This is a comparison between news programs and entertainment. Between a medium people rely on for the truth, and one that is for shit and giggles. When the far-right piled on a show made for entertainment, they were attempting to deny the right to free speech to a network which has the right to fictionalize a story for extra entertainment value. When people threaten to boycott Rush's advertisers, they are exercising their right to protest the spreading of disinformation and the harmful effects that horrid program has on the fabric of our society.

[gprime]

First off Swivel, thanks alot for replying. It is nice to see that there is somebody interested in talking about this topic seriously. I will respond, but in multiple posts, some of which will be later in the day, time permitting.

So, to get started:

There is enough evidence for a genetic component of addiction to treat these people as if they suffer from an in-born disorder. The argument against Rush is one of hypocrisy on Rush's part, not one on the Democrat's part. During the very time that Rush was bashing drug users, he WAS a drug user. Besides, Democrats are smart enough to reserve their pity and efforts on those who are seeking help. Rush wasn't.

But it isn't true that the sympathy only extends to those seeking help. Otherwise, Dems wouldn't be such strong advocates (on the whole) of treatment over incarceration. They used it because he was an attractive target, and it was the biggest ***** in his armor.

That is correct. God is no authority in the United States at all. And the United States should absolutely care what the rest of the globe thinks. Failing to do so is costing the US billions of dollars and dozens of lives a week right now.

Naturally I agree with you on God, but the Constitution? That outlines the way in which we are supposed to function as a nation in fairly explicit detail. There is only so much room for interpretation. The fact is, government long ago decided to ignore it, and we're living with the consequences of that. So many things now, from sex toy bans of current to the Great Depression were caused by the US government deciding to do that which was not its right. And so why apply that to a foreign sphere? Do we want our government to continue living by crackpot policies, and following absurd international agreements that infringe on even more liberty?


Correct. Drug-use is a self-inflicted "crime". There is no unwilling victim. We should decriminalize all drugs and start clamping down on guns, which cause needless deaths and serve no good. They are not enough to protect us from a runaway military, and you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun, than you are to protect yourself with it.

Drug use often impacts more than just the user. It hurts the people they steal from to get drug money, the family members they neglect and abuse, and the general population who needs to pay for the ER visit after an overdose. Besides, Democrats were the ones pushing for seatbelt laws. So clearly self-infliction is not a valid line of reasoning.

Of course. There are periods of increased opportunity after a major terrorism strike. The danger for copy-cat crimes is high, and extra vigilance is required. For the same reason, after a major gun-shooting incident, we need increased gun restrictions to prevent the next attack. These are givens.

But they aren't. Guns have legitimate uses. Terrorism does not. Therefore, to restrict one which is otherwise illegal, is illogical. The point though is that Democrats called Bush a reactionary for his new security measures, but use shootings as a chance to get on the pulpit and fight for more repressive gun legislation.

The default societal unit for which mankind is evolutionarily evolved is the "village". It only makes sense to ensure that we continue to co-exist in a tightly, intertwined manner. Children, in particular, exhibit healthier emotional and intellectual development when raised in tight packs of varying ages. In other words: A Village!

As we're talking about children, personal responsibility is a footnote at best. But what about the role of the parents? If they cannot raise the child on their own, why are they reproducing? It is unfair to shift the burden to the innocent.

It does. Guns kept in-home are more likely to harm their owners than intruders.

This is because the majority of gun owners buy a gun, keep it loaded, and do nothing else. They never practice with it, clean it, or master it. Those who do can often find it a critical life saver. I personally know people who have benefited from the right to concealed carry.

An unborn fetus is not an "innocent". It isn't even a person. It is an unwanted growth, like a cyst. Starving someone to death is much different than killing a person. One is an evil by inaction, the other is an evil by direct action. Every ethical theory distinguishes between these two, and accords the former much less blame. Meanwhile, killing "bad" people is something that cannot be "un-done", and we often make mistakes. There is nothing wrong with this Democratic philosophy either.
(I agree with you on part of this, so I'll play devil's advocate.) Except in the case of rape or incest, things which most pro-lifers make exceptions for, a mother chooses to have sex, and in doing so, assumes certain risks. With all the contracpetive methods and morning after pills for sale in this country, there is no excuse. Combine multiple methods, and then use a Morning After pill if need be. But there becomes a certain point where what is inside is more than a ball of cells, as cannot be punished for the ineptitude of the mother. As per the feeding tube, it was removed via court order. Therefore, it was direct action, and clearly evil. They killed her through torture.

As for the bad guys, that is not something we tend to mistake. After 9/11, there were only so many suspects. There are often clues as to who is at fault. For our own security, it makes sense to act on it. At the end of the day, we have our own citizenry to protect.

Extra care must be made to afford minority viewpoints extra representation. Christianity gets an inordinate amount of exposure. It is on our money, it is in our pledge of allegiance, it is in many of our political documents, the churches are everywhere with their billboards and placards, Christian TV commercials are everywhere, our popular media is dripping with the religion. That means we must promote diversity by teaching our students about OTHER religions. This promotes tolerance and makes us safer, as a country.

(Again, I agree with you on parts (like the currency) , but will play devil's advocate.) Currency and the pledge are not "Christian" oriented. God is not specific to one faith. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and most other religions can say that without having been in the wrong. It is just a general acknowledgement of faith. And, the only reason Christian advocacy is now vocal and widespread is because of efforts to supress it. You can't punish a religion for being popular.

The most beautiful asset of a Democracy is its intolerance of unjust military action. If an action is for the good, it is begrudgingly tolerated. However, when a military finds itself engaged in a morally-questionable engagement, it is the duty of a Democracy's people to harshly criticize that action, thereby ending it.

Interesting you should say that. I'm sure alot of people in, as an example, find it quite liberating to know they won't be put it rape rooms or exposed to mustard gas for expressing their opinions or coming from the wrong ethnic background. Funny thing that happens when you remove a brutal tyrant from power, but more people get liberty and eventually even democracy.

This is an unfair comparison. Arnold was certainly guilty of sexual harassment, Clinton was only ever accused. His tryst with Monica was consensual.

Clinton used his position of power to take advantage of a young woman. That seems as bad, if not worse, than some mild groping.

Parts 2 and 3 coming later.

[dop]

Clinton used his position of power to take advantage of a young woman. That seems as bad, if not worse, than some mild groping.


Ohhh come on man, you dont really belive this do you?

I think its obious it wasnt an "I can make or break your carrer" kind of thing but a simple afair between two consenting adults, The "young woman" was an intern in the white house way over legal age(22), she was hardly an inocent and gulible kind of woman. Of course his power was a huge factor but it was in a power its a turn on kind of way not a treat to her job. Saying thats worse than unwanted groping? come on.

[gprime]

Correct. Sex education has obviously caused the downturn in teen pregnancies, so it is working. Gun education, however, would only teach impulsive teens that guns are something they can control. Look at vehicular accident rates for this age group indicates that this is a valid concern.

Guns, like sex, serve an important purpose. Approaching either with a lack of understanding introduces an unwarrented level of danger to the situation. Therefore, if we believe it is the function of government to educate the citizens, as Democrats do, then we cannot ignore such a significant topic.

This is correct as well. The victims of racism and rape are not previously hostile towards the abuser. This is not the case for America and the Middle East, where past transgressions indeed exist.

The point was not to blame minorities for racism, or rape victims for the attack, as you well know. Rather, it is to illuminate that we cannot treat the Islamist threat differently. There are times where our foreign policy has inspired hatred and threats of violence. But, with respect to the Middle East, it is their religions, not our actions, that cause the problem.

The leaders of any group will be the most educated members. Education costs money. These are variable that follow one another. What cannot be argued is the prevalent tendency for poor, out-of-work men, to be enticed by the promise of hurting those who have what they do not.

Almost every single Lebanese suicide bomber in the 1980's was middle class or higher. Many were well educated. So it isn't just the leadership that takes action based on non-monitary factors. Thus, blaming terrorism on poverty is without base.

Once again, this is an entirely valid viewpoint. The "Patriot Act" denies innocent citizens the right to privacy. Contrast this to the crazy gun-culture created by a mis-reading of the 2nd amendment.

This is no room for it to be misread. The intent of the amendment was to give people the power to overthrow a tyrannical government if needed. Laws limiting gun ownership rights prevent that, and are clearly in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law. Therefore, it is hypocritical to make allowances for one and not the other.

Tradition and loyalty must count for something, otherwise our stock of "goodwill", built up after so many years of sacrafice for the rest of the world, could go ignored tomorrow.

But they aren't loyal. So what is gained by pretending otherwise?

Providing above-average care for everyone is much preferred to providing exorbitant care for just the rich. With advancements in medicine, and the lowering-cost of technology, advancements would still be made with a slightly-reduced quality of care. But meanwhile, we would be able to carry along all of society together, rather than fostering the class-warfare we promote with the current system.

Government and the economy do not mix. This has been shown throughout American and world history. So, with that in mind, how can we entrust them with such a critical function? The solution is deregulation, not increased socialization.

100% correct. You are comparing some of the greatest minds in human history (especially Noam, who is a pioneer in language, which is the key to understanding human nature, which is the foundation of all political systems) with a movie-star, a comedian, and a muscle-builder. This is a no-brainer.

Bullshit. Being a linguistics expert does not make you politically informed. And frankly, is far less informed than Dennis Miller, who you've branded as a hack. Last I checked, he has a politically themed radio show, and before that, had a show on CNBC also focused on the subject. He is a respected political commentator. The fact that he can do so while still being entertaining is a good thing.

It is a logical fallacy to choose one study on either side to prove an issue. Numerous studies have shown that more guns = more crime, including statistical analyses between countries with varying rates of gun ownership. Meanwhile, there is a paucity of research that shows that owning guns keeps people safe. Picking and choosing does not prove a point like a meta-analysis would.

But there is no need to defend gun rights...the Constitution is supposed to protect them. Therefore, the onus is on the anti-gun lobby to provide a compelling case to change the laws through Constitutional amendments.

Another true statement. Saddam was obviously not involved in the 9/11 attack. And the money spent there means we still haven't caught the actual person involved! The Clinton argument is fallacious. There was almost always a foreign military skirmish ongoing under his watch. There is no coincidence when two things are guaranteed to overlap.

So we can only target one man? Granted, Saddam was not enemy number one. But there were legitimate reasons to overthrow his government. And if we had wanted a diversion, there would have been easier, safer choices like Libya or Syria, both of which were making WMDs at the time. The truth is, his removal was long overdue. Clinton made a half-hearted effort because he knew it would get media coverage without forcing the nation to assume any real obligations.

Look at what two things are being lied about. One is a private affair. The other is an international disaster.

In this country, an oath has legal standing. And our leaders are supposed to set a good example. So, if the president cannot tell the truth on a non-classified matter after swearing before a court, there is a big trust issue. And it means that the American people cannot sustain faith in government.

[gprime]

Ohhh come on man, you dont really belive this do you?

I think its obious it wasnt an "I can make or break your carrer" kind of thing but a simple afair between two consenting adults, The "young woman" was an intern in the white house way over legal age(22), she was hardly an inocent and gulible kind of woman. Of course his power was a huge factor but it was in a power its a turn on kind of way not a treat to her job. Saying thats worse than unwanted groping? come on.

No, I don't. I played a bit of devil's advocate where appropriate. I guess I forgot to note that before said claim.

[gprime]

And lastly...

100% correct. If the government wants more rights than these, they need to begin the amendment process.

Huh? There is no right to restrict gun ownership though...yet it remains an issue to this day. Our government should follow the Constitution, but it doesn't. Democrats don't want that, as then they would be without a platform.

Actually, "The People" means "The States" in all accounts. The founders were relying on the States to take a more-active role in the governance of their occupants. Leaving the implementation of these rights up to the superior vantage that comes from local governments.

The Federal system of government is designed to allow local oversight of certain issues. But it does not mean that in the context of rights, "the people" are states. States cannot have a functional right to bear arms, as they are intangible. People can...and do according to the Bill of Rights.

Absolutely. Any person is qualified to make a subjective decision, such as "Do you want this fetus to be born?". However, only qualified experts know the answers to such objective questions as, "Why is pi considered an irrational number?" and "Why is the theory of evolution the most successful and airtight theories every devised by any field of science?".

Our public education system is a joke. We have ever-worsening results compared to the rest of the world, even with great increases in spending. The fact is, the system is broken. It therefore makes sense for parents to consider other options, including home schooling. And, for clarification, most "home schooled" children still get exposure to standardized, scientifically accurate curriculums. There are an abundance of resources for home schooling parents to design a solid curriculum. Add to that online AP courses, EGPY and similar courses, and local community college courses, and the option makes alot of sense, becausen there is so much flexibility and access to advanced material.

No Democrat thought this AFTER the case of AWOL was proven to be a forgery. The issue went away. However, they were correct to treat draft-dodging as a minor offense and going AWOL as something severe. The first is a cowardly act performed by a citizen, who has not taken a vow of service. The latter is an act of cowardice and treason performed by someone who has agreed to defend his or her country. There is a reason that has previously been an offense rewarded with death.

Military service has not been compulsary throughout much of American history. And many people enlist rather than being drafted, knowing that the outcome will be the same. What this essentially means is that enlisting does not suggest they are there willingly. Thus, they are no better or worse than draft dodgers if they go AWOL.

This is a comparison between news programs and entertainment. Between a medium people rely on for the truth, and one that is for shit and giggles. When the far-right piled on a show made for entertainment, they were attempting to deny the right to free speech to a network which has the right to fictionalize a story for extra entertainment value. When people threaten to boycott Rush's advertisers, they are exercising their right to protest the spreading of disinformation and the harmful effects that horrid program has on the fabric of our society.

Sorry, but boycotting is not censorship. It is an expression of distaste towards a producer for one of their products. In a free market, it is a legitimate means of airing one's grievances. It is thus fair to boycott both Rush and The Reagans from CBS.

[swivel]

Good show, old chap.

Now I wish we had a panel that could come and tally our arguments and give us a score.


You want to know the scary thing about this exercise? How EASY it was for me to find arguments that ran counter to my actual philosophy. This would be an excellent exercise for young fanatics. I think that many of them would come away with an understanding of how people can have opposite views, but still mean well.