Guard Dog

My apologies DN. I took: out of context because I did not see: . Mea Culpa. It was not intentional.

Because some will take the opportunity to spread harmful misinformation and dogma. The arrogance of that statement is nothing short of astounding. And more than a little scary. Its one thing to discuss what is taught in a public school. It is another all together to bring that into the privacy of the home. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children, no one has the right to tell them how to do it. The funny thing about freedom is everyone must have it or no one does.

No I won't; I'll spend two days partying in Canberra and reply when I get back if I ever remember. Ciao! Hmmm, argue with me or go partying. Choices don't come much easier than that one! Have fun.

Unless you spoke old english you would never know. Besides, the first edition of Beowulf was most likely told by word of mouth. Wiki is useless for contemporary topics like politics religion or philosophy (or anything open to interpretation). For history or hard facts it's pretty reliable. It's interesting that you bring up Huckelberry Finn. It was pointed out to me by someone else that the word count of the 1949 edition and the 1968 edition (next reissue) were different. The newer issue was short by some 7000 or so words if I remember correctly. I never researched it but the one who pointed it out was my Techical Writing instructor in college. It was either Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer. I'm pretty sure it was the former.

The battle of Midway in WW2 made battleships obsolete. In modern war ships don't close with each other to the point where the big guns mean anything. Sorry Wals, no more Trafalgars. The USS Missouri was the last US Battleship in service and all it was used for was off shore artillery. Besides a single Harpoon Class ship to ship missle fired from a tiny destroyer will sink an 800 ton battleship a surely a seventy gun broadside with armor piericing ammo.

I paid off my cedit card.

Looks like Nick will need to change his pants!

Looks line Nick will need to change his pants!

I can see it now! It would be hillary until 2016, Jeb Bush until 2024, Chelsea until 2032, George P Bush (Jebs son) up to 2040, by then Chelsea will have a child old enough! I think i'd move to Canada first!

Heh, I googled each of those countries and the word population. i pulled the numbers off the google synopsis without even opening the web pages. Except the part about Scandnavia, I read that is the Miami Herald a few weeks ago. Sorry for the sloppy research but I did all of that while stopped at traffic lights!

Oh boy, where do I even begin here. At first I had to recheck who wrote this. I thought Gorgon might have stolen Krecack's password or something. First off there is no "right" against higher taxes at the federal level in the US. There are some states that do have tax caps by law but most do not. If congress wanted to raise taxes by 90% today they could. Of course the next election would see them all run out of office, those that were not recalled before that. You need to realize, the US economy is far more consumer based than any other I can think of. Even Great Britan and Germany. For the economy to survive, the citizens need to spend money. Raising taxes has to double bad effect. 1) It raises the costs of production because income is hardly the only thing taxed here. 2) If the citizens have less money they spend less. You seem to be under the impression that libertarianisim and religious conservatisim have some kind of alliance (based on this and your previous post). Believe me on this one, the two cannot peacefully coexist. A religious conservative believes in a moral and "just" sociiety as they define those terms. They try to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of differing views. A social democrat believes in a moral and "fair" society and they attempt to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of those with differing views. Social democrats seek to supress economic liberty (they call it greed) religious conservatives seek to supress personal freedom (they call it license). Yes I know that is a pretty broad brush for a VERY complex subject, but bear with me here. Libertarianisim rejects both and seeks to keep both in check by keeping the government as small as possible, ensuring maximum freedom for all. Once again that is a pretty broad brush but of you boil it down to basics, that is all completely true. Comparing the social welfare in other nations to the US is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons. First off the population of the US is just shy of 500 million. The population of Iceland is 2.1 million, Canada is 11 million, Austrialia is 40 million. all of Scandanavia together has less people than New York, California, Florida and Texas alone. To paraphrase Ross Perot "You can't take the same business practices used to run a mom and pop country store and and extrapolate them to run Wal Mart (a major department store chain in the US)" You guys need to understand something here. and I know I say this over and over but I really think it's not sinking in. The US might look similar to the rest of the western world, we might be very similar culturally but we are governed and organized in a very different way. The federal government cannot tell those opposed to social welfare to take a hike because they are voters who put people who think like them into federal power. If Obama (easily the more liberal of the two) becomes President and has a fillibuster proof majority in congress you will not see the US magicly turn into a European style social welfare state. After 4 years you will barely notice any real changes in domestic policy. The seperation between state local and federal powers simply won't permit it to happen. There are too many limitation on federal power to make such a radical change. In no other nation does the individual states hold so much political power for self governance as the US. We started as a union of sovreign states. I've always said there could be government managed healthcare one day but it would NOT be done at the federal level. It would be done at the state level. And indeed it has been. Wisconson and Oregon are already working on providing health care for state residents. It is coming, just not in the way that you think. Sorry for any typos.I wrote this while driving to work.

Not a thing. Unless one candidate or the other wins a crushing victory (75% or better) it will go all the way to the convention in a dead heat. The superdelegates will decide this no matter how the next six primaries go anyway. The convention is in August.

How can teaching this be a good thing? Abstinence doesn't even really prevent getting so called STDs like AIDS or certain forms of Hepatitis (via contaminated drug injections, public toilets etc.), nor does it enable anyone to become a happy individual (unless said individual is a very spiritual monk or something). Jeez samm we're not talking abstinence for life here, just until marriage. Of course I can count on one hand all the people I know who actually did that. There are two good thing about abstinence, if you practice it you won't get a STD. That requires sex, therefore no sex no STD. The other good thing is that once you do get married if your spouse is no good in bed you won't know the difference anyway! Oh yes there is one other thing thats good about it, it provides an excuse for those who are... shall we say unlucky?

Neither of those were funny. This one is funny, it was sent to me by one of my friends in Dennmark. Evidently it's been making the e-mail rounds there.

You are completly correct on this one. I will agree that a free market economy works best with some controls in place. Particularly those that encourage competition like anti-trust laws. However, US history has many examples of too much government control crushing economic growth and crippling the economy. The attempts at price controls springs to mind. I am no anarchist and laissez-faire capitalisim without some regulation usually leads to exploitation but that regulation must be minimal, clearly defined and equally applied. I do raise a lot of points of concern at government expansion but for the most part the US strikes a good balance between control and free enterprise. But I get very nervous when I hear them talking about nationalizing private business such as health care. Too much government intervention got us where we are. How can the answer be more? We are wandering a little OT here so let me get back on topic by saying teaching abstinance from sex to teenagers is a good thing. Teaching ONLY abstinance is just nuts.

hehe, my god... and i'm an atheist. it is patient, indeed. taks Are you one of the people who thinks socialism on any form and in any way is a bad thing? You can count me in that group with the following caveat: modern socialisim (that weird capitialist/socialist hybrid that is common now) as an economic system is not bad or evil. I just don't want to see my country. The problem is it is inevitable, both political factions in the US are leaning towards it, one faster than the other. I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading before anyone in Congress takes office.

No we should not. And you will find I differ with most "libertarians" on that one. A society with no limits on human behavior will descend into chaos. There must be some law and it should be minimal, clearly defined, and applied equally to all. By and large the US has that. Crack cocaine (heroin, PCP, and all other hallucinogenic drugs) will turn a regular human into a danger to himself and everyone around him. I don't think you could say the same about non-hallucinogenic substances like marijuana. Additionally it is entirely appropriate that federal law enforcement is used to enforce drug laws because 99% of all illegal narcotics originates from outside the US. Going back to your "iron fisted" comment. One of the reasons people like me want the federal government as small as possible is because it could be used to enforce a social agenda. You wanted the government to "mercilessly eradicate" any semblance of Christian/religious thought from education. Where does that end Gorgon? Next will you start closing private religious schools and universities? Or closing churches? Imprisoning pastors? All of these institutions teach Christian/religious thought and all are either protected of funded by the state to one degree or another. Using the government to enforce a social idea is all fine and good so long as you agree with that idea. What happens if the next thing they want to "mercilessly eradicate" affects you? There is a great little saying about the Holocaust by Martin Niemoller: When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Granted what happened in Germany will never happen in the US or probably anywhere else, but you see what I'm getting at here.

I'm painting the kitchen and dining room today. I've got Bob Marlys Legend CD playing over and over. This one never gets old!

Well I tried to load BG and BG2 on my 90's retro computer but they won't load,. The discs are damaged. So I bought them again on ebay. The 4 disc collectors edition is up to $40 US for new. They aren't making any more so I just did it. I may buy another just to sell later. Have you guys seen what Alpha Centari and Alien Crossfire are going for these days? $130 US! Birth of the Federation is going for $100 used! I also ordered Arcanum since I missed that one becuase on NWN. Now playing Icewind Dale for the first time since 2001. I've forgotten a lot of it.

People are responsible for their own actions, their own health, and their own lives. No more and no less. Getting the US government involved in the personal dealings of its citizens is a slippery slope. Why stop at disease? Why not go a step further in order to maintain "safety?" A well intention tyranny is still tyranny. You are truly beyond logic. Have you ever heard the old saying about wrestling a pig?

Of course because a godless police state where an "iron fisted" government "mercilessly eradicates" all thought that does not conform to that sanctioned by the body politic is just what we want here in the US. I'm curious Gorgon, would it be enough for you to expel christians from school or would you go all the way to feeding us to lions too?

They are making Tory out to be really evil aren't they.

Unlimited educational opporunities, paid college tuition, interesting work, a solid resume addition, veterans benefits like VA home loans, travel, camradie, a career with unlimited potential for advancement if you choose, all that good stuff. Yep it's a real bummer. Calax in the Navy there will be good time and bad times just like college, work, or whatever else you do. You have no control over that. But being happy or miserable is a choice you make. Sand chose the latter.

Do we really need to turn this into another one of these threads? The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. It doesn't say that Congress can buy ICBMs or fighter jets or vaccinations for enlisted personnel going overseas, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the common Defence ... of the United States." It doesn't say that Congress can spend money on education or health care, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Yeah, you and the 5% of Americans who agree with you get offended by all this, but does it really have to be a part of every discussion of national policy? And, yes, the abstinence-only conditions on federal education grants are a silly idea. What can I say, I'm a one-trick-pony!