So the first amendment shouldn't allow shouting "Marxism" in a crowded election...

Stan Shannon wrote:

The correct analogy would be that if a fire continues to burn, you probably need more water.

Your analogy comprehension skills need a little work.

Stan Shannon wrote:

That is prcisely why I support the president's politices and reject those of the left. What you propose is an essentially defensive response to terrorism, allowing it to be proactive while we are reactive, and treating it as a law enforcement issue, but at the same time tieing up the government's law enforcement abilities by crying about 'police state' and loss of civil rights everytime they do something to deal with the problem. So, to be blunt, you have no solutions at all.

No, I'm saying that the President's policies aren't doing jack to protect us. I've said before that targeted action overseas -- perhaps against actual terrorists and the countries that produce them -- would make more sense than what this jackass is doing. As for his actions at home, this borrow-and-spend "conservative" administration has run the deficit up while building a giant, ineffective, undertrained bureaucracy implementing a host of nonsensical policies (searching grandmothers and toddlers, shoe inspections!!?!) that don't address the problem, and overlooking simple things like hardening access to the flight deck and beefing up the sky marshal program. Much money spent, with what results? USA PATRIOT is being used to nab minor drug dealers, while we have the government's unverifiable, undocumented word that they have stopped some suspected terrorists, somewhere, from maybe doing something? Gee, I feel so much safer.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If the basic political principles of the left, including the US democratic party, are not fundamentally predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, then would you be so kind as to educate me on the intellectual foundation which the modern left is building upon. Give me some names, principles, ideas and ideals from which modern liberalism receives its nourishment.

I'm not a leftist -- certainly not as you would define the term -- but as for the political principles of the left in the US, they're the same as the right, with just a bit more social conservatism (the non-panderers among them do not want to turn the USA into a Christian religious state), and, at the moment a bit more fiscal conservatism as well. But I don't give a major

espeir wrote:

Of course they would lose sales, and they would never do that because it's a huge market. But the fact of the matter is that companies avoid doing business in countries that are hostile to them (the same goes to US states). It's bad for the country (or state or whatever) when the government is not business-friendly, because it eventually reaches a point where the efforts are not worth the return. That's what is happening in much of Latin America.

So what you're saying is that they would never pull out of the European market, or maybe they would. I applaud your reasoning skills [golf clap]!

espeir wrote:

If they switch to open source or Apple (), they would suffer. Microsoft offers more than just "software" by existing. They offer a common platform that has become very high quality in recent years. That's extremely valuable from a business perspective.

Whether or not businesses decide to stick with the Microsoft platform depends on cost/benefit, keeping in mind that cost includes licensing and maintenance. Countries have to be business-friendly, but so does Microsoft. The home user has other considerations as well, such as malware, DRM trampling on fair use, and out-of-pocket cost. Other platforms address these concerns in different ways, and to differing degrees. Overall, for most businesses, Microsoft still has the advantage, but that could change. Most home users are better off buying a Mac.

espeir wrote:

And yes...if not for American technology, Europe would be 100 years behind what it is now. It's not our fault they've lost their intellectual edge.

I'm guessing you're not big on history, research, rational thought, or the right of neurons to assemble. Google "European inventions" sometime.

Or at least it would be if subsidies actually went to the poor.

Corporate farm interests have powerful lobbyists, and make substantial campaign contributions.

You're absolutely right! If not for Microsoft, I'm sure the people of Europe would all be writing their programs on cave walls in berry juice. As usual, your post reflects the views of a xenophobic, reactionary crack-monkey. If Microsoft pulled their sales and support from Europe -- which is all they could do at the moment -- European companies would live with third-party support while they suffered the inconvenience and expense of transitioning to open source or Apple solutions. Probably open source. And Microsoft would lose a buttload -- metric buttload, in most countries -- of sales.

Yes, in an ideal system, companies would make and sell their products (and services), the market would judge them on merit, and the company with the best product would survive. However, in the real world, some companies use methods available only to those who are already successful to stomp on competitors before the marketplace has the chance to judge. This makes the barrier for market entry higher than it should be, and is where regulation should come in (and pretty much where it should stop). I guess what I'm saying is that I mostly agree with you, but believe that limited government regulation is ever so slightly more an assurance of fair competition than normal market regulation. I also recognize that, where the government is involved, "limited regulation" will always eventually become an oxymoron. By the way, I thought the creative name changes were great fun, and don't think you should stop just because someone wants to filter your messages. My wife especially liked "Stanta Claws" :).

"There is no need to provide evidence" is an interesting and entertaining statement to insert into this particular debate, especially by a person trying to argue for scientific acceptance of a theory. I'm beginning to believe that you're just a skillful and persistent troll, but I'll continue to play... You seem to be confusing a complete lack of faith in the existence of a supreme being, with a faith that there is no supreme being. One is faith, the other is the lack thereof. One is atheism, the other is a theism. Theism is belief in a god or gods. Atheism is "without theism" (actually from the Greek "a theos", or "without God"). *BONK*, *BONK* goes the big clue stick... Do you just lack the quorum of neurons that would allow you to make this distinction, or are you so blinded by your faith that you truly cannot comprehend that someone might simply not believe? Either way, you're leaving my third assertion in my last post completely unchallenged.

The court is not forcing any beliefs on Christians. They are supporting the teaching of facts, and a scientific theory supported by these facts, as part of a science curriculum. The standards for acceptance of a scientific theory are entirely different that that of a religious belief (I think it was The Onion that did the "Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling" story); and, when all is said and done, some Christians, like their brethren in the Flat Earth Society, can choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Feynman said, "religion is based on a culture of faith; science is based on a culture of doubt." The theory of evolution can be falsified, and anyone with the inclination and ability is encouraged to do so. ID cannot. Evolution can gain supporting evidence; short of bolts of lightning chiseling words into stone tablets proclaiming it to be the truth, ID cannot. "Science can't explain it, therefore it must be God/Magic/Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not display a standard of reason that would be accepted by any recognized scientific body. Philosophical body, maybe, but not scientific. ID belongs in comparative religion or philosophy class, not science.

espeir wrote:

Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.

Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.

espeir wrote:

Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools.

Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you? As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here[^].

At least you're admitting that ID constitutes exercise of religion rather than a legitimate scientific theory... In any case, it would be establishing a religion because, as much as they might try to scrub it clean of overt references to Christianity, ID is still being pushed as a part of the Christian belief system. Requiring a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanist, Jedi, atheist -- whatever -- to learn Christian mythology as part of a science curriculum in a public school would certainly send the message that, to our government, Christian beliefs are held equal to scientific theory. I think this might be considered state-sponsorship of a religion, if not a specific denomination. All the sane among us are asking -- a group, incidentally, that includes a significant percentage of the devoutly religious, as well as my fellow raving, foaming-at-the-mouth secularist, Marxist, leftist (did I leave any "-ist"s out?) bastards -- is that our public school science teachers be allowed to actually teach science, and that the teaching of religion is left to parents, churches, and private schools. In my opinion, that is the free exercise that our constitution guarantees.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

an oxymoron (left and intellectual honesty). Comrade Pelosi, hic Teddy the murderer, Hillary I can't find my billing records, Bill I never had sex with that woman and Bush is wrong on Kyoto although I did the same thing, Carter validating every f***ed up election held anywhere.

The best you can come up with is billing records and BJs? On the Republican side, let's start with the draft-dodging, illiterate, inarticulate, bumbling dumb-ass at the top lying us into an unnecessary war, continue with a list of actual, verifiable, not-just-accusations, legally indicted members of his staff, congress, and the rest of the party, and end with the kind of jackass that is *still* fighting the commies. I will give you Ted Kennedy, however. The man is a tribute to riding on name recognition, and an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Also, thank you for providing me, through your stellar comparisons, with a contrast between an oxymoron and a regular moron.

Have you considered making the switch to decaf?

And at the cost of only a few lives (well, only a few - 2,154 - of ours, anyway, and those are the only ones that count), and some inventory depletion. And the trust of the rest of the world. And the loss of civil liberties here at home. And a skyrocketing deficit. Oh, and that's a new democratic Muslim government (I guess we've at least stopped that secularism in its tracks, right Stan?). So, with the Iraqis self-governing, we can move on and do the rest of the world now.

Actually, I was referring to the individual asses that Fox News tries to pass off as journalists, not all of whom are fat. But my statement was ambiguous, so I accept and enjoy your pedantry :).

At least the left still has a tiny shred of intellectual honesty. The Republican party tries to convince people that they're the religious conservative response to an increasingly liberal and secular America, when they're less conservative in every respect -- but especially fiscally -- and more corrupt than any administration in my memory. Enjoy yours as well.

The red state population -- you know, the kind of people that do all their shopping at Wal-Mart and consider Waffle House to be fine dining -- is always going to opt for the sleazy mud-slinging and name-calling tabloid entertainment that Fox tries to pass off as news over actual information. And while the major news media panders to the bottom-feeders in the genetic aquarium, the rest of the country starts turning to other sources for their news. That's why they're losing numbers.

I keep telling you, the major press, like the networks, is a reflection of society's desires. They have to be in order to keep the ratings/page views/subscriptions up. There was plenty of republican bias showing over the last few years when public sentiment leaned that way. Now, not so much. So, a victory for democracy abroad being not nearly the Springer show drama of political bitch-slapping at home, guess which one gets more ink.

As opposed to where the right pulls all of its "news" - out of Fox's fair and balanced asses.

Just apply historical hindsight to see that military meddling in the area (or any area, one could say) is almost always a bad idea. The Soviets wouldn't have had any better luck "controlling" the Middle East than we've had. Our involvement in Afghanistan was minimal, and yet Soviet ass was thoroughly kicked (just like ours in Viet Nam). The only controls any nation can exert on another that seem to have any lasting power or positive effect are economic and cultural, and the Soviets had neither deep pockets, nor a culture of personal freedom. We have both, although both are currently being depleted at an alarming rate.