Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Illiberal Statism
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



For years, conservatives have been claiming that conservatism is dying in America. That isn’t true. Actually, liberalism is dying in America. But, unfortunately, it is being replaced by another ideology far more dangerous than liberalism. After you consider the following issues, I hope you will join me in an act of self-censorship that will culminate in a lifetime commitment to refrain from calling Democrats “liberals.” Instead, I would urge the use of the more appropriate term “statist.”

Abortion. For years, many have mistakenly dubbed the pro-choice position as a “liberal” position. Clearly, it is not. It is certainly true that pro-choicers applaud a 1973 decision extending a new constitutional right to choose – oddly by saying that the constitution is living and breathing but the fetus is not. But that right only applies to half the population.

What Roe really said is that we no longer may enjoy the liberty of voting on the issue of abortion. Since this applies to both men and women, it can be viewed as producing a net loss of liberty. It is not even necessary to take into account the fact that the fetus will never have an opportunity to vote or to abort another fetus.

That this mass infringement of voting rights (read: disenfranchisement) is accomplished by counting only nine votes is significant. It is an example of statism, not liberalism.

Gun Control. During the 2000 Presidential campaign I was approached by a Bush supporter who calls herself a “socially liberal” Republican. She had just seen a debate between Bush and Gore and had concluded that a national photo ID – for all gun owners, not just concealed carriers - would be a good idea. She thought the state needed to keep better records on every gun purchase.

I responded to her support for greater state-level gun documentation by asking: “Should I fill out a form every time I remove a gun from one of my gun safes”?

Since this “liberal” did not respond with an emphatic “no,” I was forced to conclude that she is really not a liberal. She is a statist. And if you cannot answer simple questions about gun control, you may be a statist, too.

Health Care. This issue really requires no significant elaboration. A Canadian-style health care system in America would obviously grow the government and impede the ability of Americans to make important health care choices. Furthermore, it will impede the ability of Canadians to make important health care choices. Rather than suffer needlessly for months as they await an MRI or an appendectomy, many “choose” to come to the United States for better health care.

If we go the route of Canadian health care, where will countless suffering Canadians go? Mexico?

If you don’t care then you aren’t a liberal. You are a statist.

Religious Association/Expression. There are public universities in America that actually charge $500, $600, and even $700 per semester to students for activity fees ostensibly collected in order to fund First Amendment activities. Of course, many poor and minority students are unable to go to college because they cannot afford to pay these fees.

Students often form groups so they can be eligible to get back some of the money the government took from them in the form of these activity fees. When they do, the government-employed college administrators often tell them they must modify their groups. For example, they may be told that the formation of a group that “believes in God” is intolerant, exclusive, and discriminatory. They may also be told that a group comprised only of Christians would be wrong – that instead it should be open to Muslims (yes, even those who might think Christians should be killed). Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Where to begin?
This is an excellent article, and I will try (no promises) to modify my speech habits.


Agreed
I particularly like Sowell's remarks because the notion of "giving back" uses the unspoken assumption that those that succeed in capitalism do so at the expense of the less fortunate. And so donating to charity then is a way to be absolved of the sins of profiting. Its pernicious and dishonest language.

Not many things mean the same
as they used to, but only liberals, oops, STATISTS can turn them completely on their heads!

Another
Great column from Dr. Adams. Thanks for the clarity.

Individualist
is the opposite of statist, and that's what liberal used to mean, heck, if you go back to the beginnings of the conservative intellectual movement in America, beginning in the late 30s, it's what conservatism used to mean. Individualists like Mises and Hayek and even Friedman who called themselves liberals and put protecting liberty as the only purpose of government, not the statist promotion of virtue, be that fideist or socialist.

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."
--Murray Rothbard

Fred Thompson Would Not Ban Abortions

I agree with Fred Thompson this is a State issue not a federal issue. Does Fred have a point about what should be the penalty?


WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fred-thompson-woul d-not-ban-abortions



lonestar ...
Great quote. Thanks for sharing.

Yes,the very act of...
...having five citizens (not nine)determine what the Constitution says (even though it was written in English),leads to "penumbra emanations" over a 230 year history.This is why,in the end,it is a good thing that different generations have to fight (mostly political)battles to maintain it.I suspect that it is that system mostly that has enabled the United States to become the oldest unchanged form of government in the world.All the great empires in our history books have changed their form of government since the United States adopted it's constitution.

We should be proud of that.

John Kanop...
...the only point Fred Thompson has is on the top of his head.It is the constitution that bans the killing of children through abortion.What part of the 14th Amendment doesn't that candidate understand?

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life,liberty,or propery,without due process of law;"

The last time I checked,the States were under our Constitution.They can no more determine life and death than they can determine slavery,unless it passes constitutional muster.

"Vouchers Go Down in Flames"
The above was the google headline I found this morning introducing the following report: "Salt Lake City Tribune Wednesday Nov 7: In a crushing defeat, Utah voters decisively rejected the will of the Utah legislature and governor defeating what would have been the nation's most comprehensive educational voucher program. With 95% of precincts reporting, 60% voted against the referendum, which failed in every county including the conservative bastion Utah County. It would have cost taxpayers $430 million over its 13-year phase-in, diverting money to private academies. There would have been no family income ceiling for pupil availability." (The article is much longer; google "Utah vouchers" for full story in Salt Lake Tribune.)

Well, what can you say. Utah is a conservative state, this vote was handled on the state level, all the things conservatives like. And the voters said NO. Sounds to me like the will of the people. Is this some kind of evil "statism" or just the people accepting that a free, neighborhood-based public school system is an accepted and basic American value?

jagr721 writes: 06, 2007 3:37 PM


I particularly like Sowell's remarks because the notion of "giving back" uses the unspoken assumption that those that succeed in capitalism do so at the expense of the less fortunate. And so donating to charity then is a way to be absolved of the sins of profiting. Its pernicious and dishonest language.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

For many years I have always responded to folks claiming they are giving back, with the question, “how much did you steal”? Without fail I always get a blank stare of confusion, they expecting praise. I then have to explain what I said.

lilly writes: 07, 2007 7:33 AM


"Vouchers Go Down in Flames"

..Utah is a conservative state, ...the voters said NO. ...Is this some kind of evil "statism" or just the people accepting that a free, neighborhood-based public school system is an accepted and basic American value?

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

With due respect to Milton Friedman claiming giver-ment is going to be involved in education no matter what therefore we need vouchers, chain saw conservatives are against vouchers because it is merely another appendage of the totalitarian giver-ment to expand into private education and corrupt that also. Then the kids will have only homeschooling as a means to education.

Here is the conservative view of education, “you breed ‘em, you feed ‘em”. If you can’t pay for your kids, don’t have them. We are suppose to be against slavery. However, we don't mind it if the slavemasters merely use giver-ment as the collection agent instead of being bad mouthed for taking direct responsibility for their slaves.

Liberalism vs. Statism
I agree completely with the points Mike Adams makes. However, the term "liberal" has come to be associated with Democrats in such a concrete way that changing the adjective to "statist," while accurate, would not help the conservative cause, because, sadly, the electorate is too ignorant and uninformed (and unwilling to become informed) to comprehend and apply the new label.

As for "giving back," I have long expressed my distaste for that term. Giving back implies that something was taken in the first place, or that but for those to whom one is "giving back" one would not be in the position to give back. I reject these notions as false and contrary to the conservative principal of individualism. I do NOT, however, object to assisting others and giving to social causes one agrees with, provided that such giving is voluntarily, and not at the point of an IRS agent's gun.

Statism?
Is "statism" the new pejorative? Along with "liberal" and "progressive" and "Democrat"? Human beings do not live as isolated units; they are social animals. When they form a group, that group has rules and behavioral norms and societal expectations and all kinds of things. A three year-old child alone at home with Mama can do pretty much as he likes, but the minute he joins a nursery school class he learns that, in exchange for receiving the benefits of group life, sometimes he must function cooperatively as part of a group.

If you don't want any state rules, then you favor the Westboro Baptist Church attending military funerals with their message of hate. You want chaos at every traffic intersection because a red light might interfere with your progress. You were delighted when a mentally ill student committed the Virginia Tech massacre. You long for the days before compulsory (which now has weakened to "recommended") vaccination when one & all could enjoy getting smallpox and polio. And you cheer when a rich guy screws society by evading income tax and a poor guy pays his tax.

The last I heard, "statism" was called "civilization".

it's too late

"liberal" in modern usage has become automatically understood as one who believes in bigger, more intrusive gov't.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle--or hide it as liberals attempt to do when they call themselves "progressives."

thought provoking
I'll have to stew over this one for a while. Which is the sign of a well written article. Good case examples, easy to follow, already those who would disagree are ignoring the main idea and heading off on tangents..... 5 stars.

lilly
It sounds to me like the conservatives won that one. Since conservatives tend to not like to spend money and $430 million is a sizable amount(it amounts to nearly $200 per person - not per student, not per household - in Utah). I would hazard a guess that the cost was the primary reason the voucher system was voted down.

To Deskjockey
So Utah conservatives voted down the vouchers referendum because they were afraid that putting public money into private schools would turn the private schools into public schools?

The issue is more complicated. A poster to another townhall thread counted the existing private schools in Utah and pointed out that there aren't nearly enough to absorb all the vouchered children. Obviously, many more would have to be established. So the next question is, would they have to meet state credentialing standards? The homeschooling-and-vouchers folks don't want standards. If you look at the HSLDA website you will see that many states already don't have any: homeschooling parents need have no education, kids don't have to be tested, parents don't have to make any sort of report, and no state curriculum is imposed. It's a do-your-own-thing festival beyond the wildest dreams of 1960's hippies. Should the state allow tax money to be spent for such? That is, suppose I am a Wiccan parent who does not want my child instructed in anything but witchcraft---no reading and writing, just casting spells and such. Are you offering to pay?

All True, But Too Subtle
So many Americans get their information (knowledge) in the form of sound-bites that this concept has little chance of being communicated to the masses. The instantiation of this label would require significant context as Mike has demonstrated in this article. It is great grist for the blog mill, but will be lost on the public at large. It is very much like Coulter’s thorough, documented and grounded defense of Joe McCarthy. The facts are indisputable (i.e., the Senator could not participate in the House Committee) yet the public image has been set in concrete by demigods.

Thanks anyway Mike, it is a good read.

Al
May I point out that conservatives champion a very intrusive government---one that comes between a patient and his doctor. They don't want a woman and her doctor deciding whether abortion is the least-bad alternative available to her---they want government to decide. Even whether abortion is medically indicated---they want government deciding that. They don't want a family and the doctor deciding when it's time to discontinue Grandfather's life support and let him go---they want government to decide.

Conservatives also want government going into people's intimate lives. They don't want same-sex lovers deciding to commit legally to one another---they want government to decide. In some cases they want the state to forbid lovemaking or to specify what acts may and may not be performed. In Texas, one of our most conservative states, the police stormed into a house and arrested a pair of adults having consensual sex in their own bedroom. It's hard to think of any government more intrusive than that.

lilly
in answer to your challenge pt 1

Some time in June you posted this challenge and I took you up on it. You will note the results.

"Why don't you take a poll: ask your townspeople whether they would rather be given a new plasma TV, one per household, or have the same amount of money go to fund a program for universal free measles shots for children and flu shots for elders in your community. My guess is that they would choose the TV, and yet controlling contagious disease would be the wiser choice in terms of the public good. Or the choice might be between a per-household cash grant vs cleaning up that swamp on the edge of town where mosquitoes breed---I say they'll choose the money. No, andrews, people cannot be trusted always to make wise decisions. That's one reason we have governments."


I took you up on your suggestion and went to 20 of my neighbors and asked them: "If you had the choice between a free plasma tv or having the same amount of money go to an immunization program for the children and the elderly in town which would you chose?"
Cont.

lilly pt 2
After they answered I asked them to tell me why they made that choice. After the primary poll was done I also asked them if they felt they were more conservative or more liberal. I made it a point to let them know I didn't want their party affiliation just their philosophy. The results were: 6 felt they were more liberal and 5 of those wanted the television. Those 5 all reasoned that the government would pay for the program if we needed it. The 1 who chose to donate the money felt it was the right thing to do. There were 2 who wouldn't or couldn't state a philosophy (though knowing them for years I can say they tend toward social liberalism a little but are fairly moderate otherwise). They both chose to donate. The other 12 said they were conservatives of various levels and 2 chose the tv. They reasoned in a similar vein to the liberals but with a different attitude. They were resigned to the idea that the government would run the program whether we wanted it or not so they might as well enjoy the tv. The other 10 conservatives would donate the money. 3 said that if the government did it they would raise our taxes and that would cost much more but the rest said it was the right thing to do. BTW I did this on a Saturday morning by walking around my neighborhood and asking people as I found them. I did not go looking for anyone in particular. Looks like you guessed wrong. Oh, and you are right that people don't always make wise decisions but that is called active evolution and if the choice made is unwise enough then removal from the gene pool is a likely result.

Ridiculous Lilly
Nice stupid strawman "argument" you came up with for your distorted concept of statism. Your attempt to equate conservatism and libertarianism with anarchy convinces only the uninformed, statist liberals such as yourself. The Jeffersonian concept of LIMITED government is the exact opposite of the Big Brother statism you get so orgiastic over. In short, statism is a synonym for rot; statist societies decay from within. Please, keep your leprosy to yourself.

lilly
"Statism" is in fact that form of government in which all decisions are made at the top level, i.e., the Platonic ideal of rule by an "enlightened elite" without reference to or input from those being ruled. Plato, in The Republic, advocated this form of government on the grounds that all decisions were too complex to be made by individuals, either in their personal lives or by societal consensus, because he believed that individuals not of the "philosopher class were fundamentally stupid, over-emotional, and violent.

To achieve this level of control, Plato called for an all-powerful State, with vast enforcement capability, as well as the sole privilege of lying to, achieve its ends;

"It will be for the rulers of our city, then, if anyone, to use falsehood in dealing with citizen or enemy for the good of the State; no one else must do so. And if any citizen lies to our rulers, we shall regard it as a still graver offense than it is for a patient to lie to his doctor, or for ant athlete to lie to his trainers about his physical condition, or for a sailor to misrepresent to his captain any matter concerning the ship or crew, or the state of himself or his fellow sailors."

-Plato, The Republic, pt. 3, 389c.

This accurately defines modern "liberalism". Or as I prefer to call it, "Progressivist elitist-statism".

cheers

eon

Lilly

Lilly wrote at 7:49
--The last I heard, "statism" was called "civilization".--

Maybe you skipped over lonestar's 6:31 post. Please read it, especially the quote by Rothbard.


oops
Strike the "," after "to" in the second paragraph.

Hit the comma key while hitting the spacebar.

I need another cup of coffee.

cheers

eon

staism/individualism
Lilly is correct that, if we want the benefits of the group, we must accept the limitations the group imposes. So, if my child goes to nursery school, he must learn to accept the rules that go with being in that group. But when the state says that I must pay for the nursery school whether or not I send my child to it, or worse yet, says I have not choice in whether I send my child - that is statism.

In other words, statism not only imposes rules, but insists that each person be a part of the group under the jurisdiction of the rules whether or not he wants to. By doing so, they deny the right of free association by requiring association.

Statism also deceives the masses by acting as though the state pays for anything. They rule public education through the claim that "they" pay for it. It is provided to us "free." Of course, that is bunk. WE pay for it; why then shouldn't we have the primary control of it. And if we opt out of it, why don't we get to keep our money.

I live in an area with very local control of the public schools, and because of that, we have a good school. I don't like everything they do, but at least I have the privilege of going to the meetings where decisions are made and expressing my opinion. It is a small community, so I am acquainted with every board member...they cannot go back to their home and hide from the decisions they have imposed on us. It is a good system.

Lilly
You write that conservatives want the government to decide when it's time to discontinue Grandfather's life support.
What is your basis for that statement?

5 stars, Mike! Statism = Communism
Lilly obviously knows better than everyone what is best for them, so stop arguing with her. She is god (notice little g) and will make all decisions for everyone. If you don't agree with her, you are mentally deranged and must report to the re-education center for treatments.

Well said!
Unhappily, we find ourselves in a situation where the Republican party is also largely advocating for statism. What's a freedom-lover to do?

Rich L
You are 100% correct--Statist is Communism. Mike is making a huge mistake in my opinion by labeling Communism as other than what it is. Here are some titles we already have to shield the Communist among us: Liberal/Socialist/Progressives and now Statist. The "serpents of semantics" are laughing all over their faces.

Lynching is a good example
Dear Knight,

You are completely correct that rights are not to be voted on. It would be abhorrent to think that we would presume to vote on whether it is legal to lynch blacks - or anyone else for that matter.

It is equally abhorrent that we - or 9 men in black robes - should ever be able to vote on the legality of lynching little children - little human beings utterly dependent on us adults.

Roe V. Wade was a travesty of justice, an overthrow of constitutional principles, and presumption of the right of adult humans to decide the whether young humans live or die.

Thanks for your insightful commentary.

Anarchy vs Statism
That government which governs less governs best. However, this Does not mean Anarchy is prefered. We need laws and limits in order to be civil.

Now some people can engage in rational debate about where that governing power should be, whether the lower level or Federal level. And the level of involvement and what is correct involvement and what is not.

For the most part I believe that it should be at the lower levels but sometimes Federal Gov has to step in to protect individual rights like the Republican party backed Civil Rights laws of the 60s.

I want a Federal Gov FDA to declare medicines and food safe. It is beyond the scope of any state to do so. Does this mean I am a statist? I dont believe so.

Dr. Adams makes a good case on national health care, speech codes, gun control and a need for states to vote on vouchers.
(Lily makes an exc point on vouchers being voted on and denied but it was Voted on thats the great thing, the State had the right and took it to the people of THAT state)

Those things Dr Adams mentions are all things the Far left wants to big a gov involved in.

There are many issues that some religious conservatives want to legislate also to the point of being statist.
Bottom line is same as top, Anarchy is bad, Big Gov involvement in life is bad, but some Gov is necessary.

Tinsldr2@yahoo.com

lilly
Do you know anything about how Utah taxes its citizens or funds schools? Do you know that students at public schools are released from classes once a week to attend religious (LDS) education?

Dr. Adams did not recommend that taxes be increased to pay for private education.

Lilly, Lilly, Lilly
You must still be living in the '50s if you rhink that what we have in this country is a, "free, neighborhood-based public school system".
What we have is a costly failing government-controlled school system run by Marxist-socialists.

you know
I actually agree with Dr. Adams here. These issues are a matter of statism, not liberalism. In our political struggles, we have a tendency to lump everything together into one group or the other. The way the system is designed plays a big part in that. This election cycle is going to de a time of self defining for the conservative movement. I’m sure the liberal movement will eventually crack and be forced into a period of self observation. I hope they will see their flaws for what they really are.

Liberal or Progressive/Statist
Doesn't matter anymore what appellation we, or they, use to identify those who are certain they have the answers needed to ensure reaching the goal of utopian living here on earth. Busybodies will still be poking around in everyone else's lives to see what they can do to "improve" society. As civilization improves and people are free to take time away from pure survival they seem bound to look around for something to do...and the temptation toward "helping" seems too great for certain types, liberal/statist types, to pass up. Like the poor, they seem always to lurk around the edges of any affluent society.

Darling lilly - ''statism'' is hardly...
--
...a *new* pejorative.

Only a dead-from-the-neck-up, blind-from-the-retina-out "Liberal" could have a political education so narrow, so strained, so constipated that she/he could have thought-blocked the word (and its odious connotations) out of her/his consciousness.

After all, the concept was early extolled by someone you obviously revere.

Karl Marx.

Yep. Communitarian sentiment at gunpoint.

Just your style.



--
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

..-- Alexis de Tocqueville

for lilly (& Mike Adams too)
lilly writes: "The last I heard, 'statism' was called 'civilization'."

You need a dictionary.
As does Mike Adams.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "statism" as:
"Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government, often extending to government ownership of industry"

Most of the examples Mr. Adams cites don't fit that definition.

Mr. Adams' column, and your response to it, are a common form of sophistry: Ignore the dictionary definitions of words; redefine them arbitrarily to mean whatever you want them to mean; and then wave the resulting meaninglessness around as if it says something truly profound.

In my field (engineering), we always start out by precisely defining our terms. It avoids a lot of useless philosophical mental masturbation.

Like this column.
And the resulting discussion.

Lilly. lilly,lilly,
Lilly, Lilly, Lilly, Lilly, La, la, la ti dah

What a waste of an other wise good cerebrum.

Lilly, you did not get a GOOD education. You were brain washed. Other than a DNA accident there is no other acceptable explanation. And you want more of the same for every ones children. What ever happened to free choice.

Public education is sick. It's a malarial swamp. Some of us want something better for our progeny. You can have an armed revolution or you can have unimpeded access to separate but equal private education. Take your choice, but make one that is wise for "civilization". Oh, and don't forget to be liberal instead of statist.


Lilly
..Did I say separate but equal, oh no, I meant separate but better. Thank you for your consideration. Now go back to stroke yourself.

Cold War
I grew up during the Cold War. Liberals are sounding and acting more and more like communists.

SteveL
Here is a more complete definition for you since you chose a dictionary that has a tendency toward truncated definitions.

statism

Statism (or Etatism) is a term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.

Snake0311
Snake I like your definition of Statism as posted above but do you have a source?

I would like to use the definition as you defined but always like to be able to back up my assertions.

thanks

And did someone over the age of 24 really assert that Anarchy is the way to go above? I can't imagine anything more childish. I usually try not to feed trolls but sheesh..

Tinsldr2
That definition is from wikipedia and has a fairly detailed explanation after the definition.
This definition is from the Oxford University Press

statism

In development studies, statism means the direction and control of economic and social affairs by the state. The practices included: investment in public enterprises; centralized economic planning; the regulation of employment; and other price-distorting interventions in the market. The economic aims are to promote industrialization and protection against foreign competition; politically, the state and the government might gain in domestic legitimacy. Inspired more by nationalism than by socialism, statism is compatible with state capitalism. Since 1980 statism has been challenged by economic liberalism and structural adjustment reforms. Statism is also referred to as dirigisme and étatisme. France and Japan were classic statist examples.

Hope this helps.

snake0311
You took Lilly's challenge seriously?

Now you will probably be ignored. But if she responds, I am sure it will be to advise you that you missunderstood the results of your little survey.

I for one found it very interesting.

Lily says
That the decision for abortion should only be between the woman and her doctor.That would be true if the woman could make the baby without a man.Why isn't the husband or boyfriend be consulted.He is as responsible for the child as she is.

We talkin' about John Edwards here?
Lilly - "And you cheer when a rich guy screws society by evading income tax"

Oh, come on Lilly, leave John Edwards alone. I'm sure he means well in sheltering HIS ill-gotten gain from the income tax us non-incorporated types have to.

Come to think of it, by not paying income tax, he's better able to idenitify with that "other America" he seems so concerned about.

skiddles
Thank you for the comment. I wonder how I could've misunderstood my results though, they are fairly straightforward. I always take challenges like hers seriously, besides, it gave me an excuse to walk around the neighborhood.

I actually agree with Dr. Adams here
MikeR - "you know I actually agree with Dr. Adams here."

Whoa, MikeR, this is getting a little spooky here... You're agreeing with Mike Adams, and I find myself agreeing with you that both liberals and conservatives need some serious introspection.

Did we take a wrong turn some where back there and end up in the Twilight Zone?

Really jagr721 & deskjockey?
I can't believe your view of giving back is so shallow. When I "give back" it is because God has blessed me with much (not money) and I want to share my blessings when I can.

Opinions Here There and Everywhere
Every conservative issue doesn't carry the same weight with individual conservatives and it's ludicrous to think they all should or that every conservative is somehow less of a conservative if they are not equally conversant on all things conservative. For example, I am neither gay nor married. I have no dog in that hunt even though I recognize the conservative position. I say, let married conservatives, gay conservatives and religious conservatives duke it out in public forums on the issue of gay marriage. I'd rather talk about taxes, national security and illegal immigration. Do I think my top conservative issues are more important than your top conservative issues? No, I just think I should let you do the talking on issues that impact you, personally, and on those issues for which you presumably have more knowledge than I do. So if Mike Adams asks, "Are you against gay marriage?" I'd give him a yes or no answer and want to move on to an issue I'd rather elaborate on. It's the candidates that have to be the "Be Alls" not the voters.

On Public Education
A Free Public Education is an important part of an advanced civilized society. It ensures that all of a society's members have a basic level of education necessary for that society to continue to enjoy progress.

To argue that a member of a society should not have to contribute to provide a free public education on the basis of not receiving a direct benefit is ignorant in that the argument fails to recognize the secondary and tertiary benefits from having a society in which a free public education is available.

Advanced civilized societies are built on the notion that certain services such as police, fire, sanitation, and maintenance are a necessary part of that society. It is common for advanced societies to agree that all will contribute to pay for the cost of these services for the good of the society.

These service workers are usually paid low salaries and/or work long hours that prevent either paying for private education or homeschooling. Therefore, these workers depend upon a free and public education to be provided for their offspring.

Private Sector Service workers also depend on this free public education so that they can continue to provide services to all members of the advanced society.

Therefore, one can conclude that all members of a society do receive benefits from a free public education.

/continued


snake0311
Loved the survey--lilly won't respond though--it flies in the face of her beliefs. And if she does it will be complete nensense. Since we are all jumping on lilly today I thought I would take a shot too.

lilly--you mentioned homeschool and HSLDA. Quite frankly you ignorance of the subject is astounding. We homeschool our children and before we did, my son went to private school(kindergarden and first grade). Now when he went to private school the state didn't even know he existed and was not in a public school. To be in comformity with the law I had to provide a letter called a "Notice of Intent" with my school district informing them who I was, who my child was our address and our social security numbers, and how many hours of school time we had planned for the year. I can be subject to an inspection of my home at any time and it is recommended that I keep previous work for up to three years in order to provide a backround for the inspectors if they come. I must also have my child tested in grade 3,5,7,9,11. This can be done by attending public school for the days they are administering tests such as the Otis Lennin, or by hiring a private company to come and administer the tests. After testing I must file our records with the school district no later than June of the year of testing. If our scores fall below certain marks we will be subject to inspection. So the choas you forsee isn't going to happen.
You are right--I am not told what curriculum to teach and I do not have a degree in education. But my child reads 4 years beyond his grade level, he also performs in math and science 4-5 years beyond his grade, my four year old can read, my oldest just scored a 100% on his forth unit of Latin, both children take swimming and music lessons, and have regular field trips and play groups. So you will excuse me if I chortle at your assumsion that homeschool children are worse off than public school children.

Conclusion
All of that being said, what exists in the United States currently IS NOT the quality free public education that it needs to be. Special Interest Groups have been allowed to interfere too much for public education to accomplish the goals an advanced society should desire.

The solution is to remove the Federal Government from public education and severely restrict the involvement of State Government in what should essentially be a local matter.

Scrapping the entire public education system is not a real solution and would be considered the "nuclear option" argument in a policy debate.

eon
Your posts are always a delight.

I thought
the survey was interesting too.
I always love it when the lilly's of the world
start to slam homeschooling using some specious
arguments about how bad it is for the chillrun
because how DARE the parent think they are as
or more intelligent than those who have been
shuttled through the previous generation of public schooling? I (o I know I'm going to regret this admission) came up through the 50's
didn't attend college; had the grades but math
was always my stumblingblock. I had some
really good, well educated teachers in those days, and some who got their degrees from Sears Roebuck. When my kids began schooling, in parochial and later public the teachers had to prove themselves to me..the good ones got 100% backing, the bad..had to contend with me. My
youngest was homeschooled from third through high school. We don't get any interference in my state, but I chose to enroll him in an accredited school because of mistrust of the
politicians. I did all but his jr. to sr high
math, got a tutor from a local U. ext. When
he went to college he was totally disgusted at
having to repeat what he'd already had in h.s.
because of the failure of the public schools to
educate his classmates and was amazed at their inability to think critically. He's a broken
glass conservative, and young business owner today.

Knight
You are correct in stating TANSTAAFL but you miss the point of my posting. Paying taxes to provide a "Free" public education is in essence offering bonus pay to those who do not have the means to provide an education to their offspring in any other manner.

The whole notion of society and civilization requires that its members give up some measure of freedom and autonomy in exchange for greater benefits and protections.

BTW - Ben Franklin had it wrong and was a hypocrite when he spoke on the subject since he help formulate the very instrument that codified the rights AND responsibilities of the American Society.

Mike D. Adams is clueless
Chickens, cows, and pigs are living and breathing things, Mike. Do you eat them because they can't vote? Or are you a vegetarian?

A free society doen't vote away the right to privacy, Mike. It's a Constitutional right. Rights aren't subject to votes. We don't vote away a woman's freedom to not have an internal part of her body controlled and regulated by the state. A free society does not subject that freedom to a vote.

Criminalization of abortion is an example of the most extreme form of statism possible. Anytime a state can control the womb then women live under a statist tyranny. Control of the womb is control over the woman. It is a totalitarian desire.

The fact is, Mike, that you are a statist. You want the state to control reproduction, the most private, intimate aspect of a person's existence.

DEMOCRAT/STATISTS

.....Dr. Adams ...

.....Even the Dems know the term "Liberal" has become perjorative ...now they call themselves "Progressives" ...they are always trying to hide and obfuscate who they are ...

.....I stopped using the term Liberal to describe the Dems a long time ago ...I have been calling them Socialists but I think Statist is more accurate ...it describes the totalitarianism that will result from their ideology ...so from now on it is DEMOCRAT/STATISTS .....COLOSSUS

Can We Handle The Truth
Auh! Public education, we are really turning out a superior breed of highly trained citizens, aren’t we.

Liberals, statists, what ever you call them, need to step back and take a look at what is really happening to our society.

There’s no question that this nation has gone through an evolution, and it hasn’t evolved for the good of society.

I could go on to state many of the changes that have hurt our society, but I’ve don’t it before and no one listens anyway.

Does Mike Adams think that anyone cares what he says or thinks?

We all think that we know better than the next fellow.

Social changes are taking all of us down a path to ruin, but the liberals, statist, humanist, communists, socialists; all think that it’s the best path for America.

We are headed in the direction of a one world ideology. We all need to think the same if we are to evolve into a more orderly society.

All religion, philosophies, must be replaced with one ideology, and that is humanism.

Am I wrong?
Isn’t that the apparent direction that the current trend is taking us?
One world government is the god of the future. We must all think alike if we are to have peace and prosperity.

Needless to say that we all will be enslaved to someone for this to come about, but we apparently think that it’s the way to go.

wwsword writes:
"A free society doen't vote away the right to privacy, Mike. It's a Constitutional right."

I don't mean to sound confused but I haven't been able to find the "Right to Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution. Could you tell me which Article or Amendment it is in?

Oh, knight_of_baawa
What is a 'right' and from where do they come?

Lilly, Lilly, Lilly!
You bring your confused mind to the table and attempt to convince those who are already eating red meat that they are eating mush. Please go back to your hole. You bring a brand new meaning to lack of cognizant reasoning.

FOXFIRE22

.....It is better to die on your feet fighting as a free man ...than to live on your knees in servitude .....COLOSSUS

Great column
An earlier poster made the point (Larry). No one's hands are clean when it comes to Statism. The Republicans in various instances are just as guilty as Dems (although the Dem's scope is much larger). Look no further than the National ID card non-sense! It's supposed to make us "safer." Not hardly! It's just going to make it easier for the feds to keep track of us and take away even more state's rights. If that's not statism. I don't know what is.

It's amazing.....A LOT of great men (and women) sacrificed their very lives to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of property (happieness), and look at us now. We're just letting it slip through our fingers little by little.

The right to privacy is
not absolute. By implication, the 4th Ammendment only protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." If the right to privacy was absolute as proposed by wwsword, then there would be no need for the 4th Ammendment.

Since we have the 4th Ammendment, it is implied that there are occasions when the right privacy can be subjegated to the right of the People to ensure the rule of law is secured.

The interpretation of the 4th is left to elected representatives and ultimately appointed judges.

That the right to privacy extends to a woman's right to choose, rests solely on the ruling of the Suppreme Court. As we are all aware, SCOTUS membership changes and prior decisions can be overturned. Thus the right claimed is only a right as long as the SCOTUS judges it such.


I don't care what you call them
, statists democrats, liberals, progressives or whatever, but government from the left constantly means a limit on our freedom in a direction THEY think is acceptable, good for us, bad for us, and controlled by government. Take care of our security, maintain the infrastructure, provide a safety net for the truly needy, conduct foreigh affairs, and then leave us alone. (Oh, and by the way, abolish the department of education, and heaven forbid stay out of my health decisions.

baseballdoc



I agree, I hope that I didn't give the impression that I had given up.

As a Christian, I know the rest of the story and the out come.

I live in two worlds. I live in one, where God is enthroned and another, being subject to its evils of this world.

I do what I can as an individual to promote Christian values in this world, but at the same time realizing that God has a plan which is on schedule.

Sometimes when posting you walk a line where you post as an ordinary citizen, while at the same time realizing that these things must come to pass.

As a citizen I use what ever influence that I have as a citizen to make a difference. At times it may look like you are loosing ground, but ultimately I realize that God is in control.

Beyond the Pale
Virtually everything I know about homeschooling comes from the HSLDA and other homeschooling websites and from townhall postings so if you don't believe HSLDA etc and your fellow conservative posters, take the matter up with them and not with me. You may live in a state that calls you to account as a homeschooling parent, but if you bother to google a bit you will learn that this is not true of every state. Some states have no educational background requirement for the homeschooling parent, no reporting requirement, no testing requirement, and no curriculum requirement.

Incidentally, I don't have a degree in education either, nor did any of the senior high school teachers I ever worked with---they had at least a Master's Degree (and usually at least 30 hours beyond that) in the subject they taught and which they were accredited to teach. My complaint about homeschooling has to do not with pedagogy but with knowledge of content. Teachers with advanced preparation in their field know a LOT about language and literature or math and science or history and geography or chemistry and physics. I agree with you that the tutorial situation at the elementary level (one or two kids to teach and everybody, socially, on the same page) speaks favorably of homeschooling even if Mama happens to be an 8th grade dropout. But there is no way that any parent can be as well-prepared in six academic subjects per year every year for four year s as a faculty of teachers in a high school. If your kid went to school to a teacher with no background in the subject who had to read one page ahead of the student to keep up, you would (with reason) complain. I do not believe that education of our young should be Amateur Night.

loco
I understand that you want the government out of your health decisions. Does that extend to abortion and removing feeding tubes?

And how do you feel about Corporate America making your health decisions? Insurance companies, for some years now, have been telling doctors what drugs they may prescribe, what tests they may order, whether chemotherapy will be covered, what mental health treatments they may set in motion, how long they may spend with a patient, and whether their diagnoses are accurate (eg cost-effective). (I once saw an ad in the Washington Post for insurance company reviewers to make these decisions, second-guessing physicians; the ad was recruiting practical nurses for the job.) It was insurance companies that decided we patients had to climb off the operating table and go whistle down a taxi to go straight home. Do you really trust a profit-driven company to make your health decisions? I do not.

Lilly writes:
If your kid went to school to a teacher with no background in the subject who had to read one page ahead of the student to keep up, you would (with reason) complain. I do not believe that education of our young should be Amateur Night.
=====================================
I think she is complaining about the common practice of the "Coach" "teaching" history, math, or whatever subject there is a shortage of qualified teachers.

BTW Lilly, how long were you a teacher and when? If I remember correctly you have been "retired" 30+ years.

To snake
If your informal survey had been designed by a person trained in test design, you would have read aloud the instructions to your subjects so that all would receive identical information, and this would have been done in an identical situation. Otherwise, your own bias (which clearly is pro-conservative) would very likely influence their responses.

Townhall folks, if we are to believe their posts, are not usually altruistic. They often express personal greed. They blame others less fortunate for their own misfortune. And they greatly resent being told what they must do, whether it's follow helmet laws or enroll their children in school or submit to vaccination; authority (state, academic, social) drives them absolutely nuts. So I don't trust your data. Clean up your study and go again.

Some other terms
that could be more liberally and inclusively defined are these:

ISLAMISM: the religion of Mohammed
SEXISM: the religion that does away with children, freedom of speech, and any other hindrance to sexual obsession

rationale: every ISM is bad except CATECHISM

To wwwsword:
Your comment has highlighted the two main problems with the "pro-choice" side of the abortion debate.
1) You equate "Chickens, cows, and pigs" with humans. You can't really be serious! and,

2) You talk about controlling the "womb" as if there were not a living breathing human being in that womb.

Lilly writes:
And how do you feel about Corporate America making your health decisions?
==========================
All the objections you raise with Corporate America are equally valid when applied to Government making the decisions.

Few people care to remove every single regulation regarding health care. But clearly what we have is not deemed to be cost effective. What many people want is a judicious review of existing laws and regulations to remove those that contribute to the problem as opposed to the solution. Most people think that it is possible that new laws and regulations may also be necessary as well.

But I for one don't think it is wise to let the government set the rules and then be subject to the rules they set.

lilly
Oh Lilly! So, we are going such a fine job in public education.

The homeschooler can do in 2 hours what the public school takes 8 to do. Public school is nothing more than one colossal daycare center, and they do that poorly at that.

This is not meant to put down all public school teachers. We have created this problem as a society and the only logical answer is to dismantle the public school system or give vouchers to parents to allow them to put there children where they want.

You would probably find more unqualified home schooling parents putting there children in private schools, problem solved.

You just can’t defend the public school system, so you should quit trying.

I for one do not want the social agenda that is being pushed on children in public school being pushed on my grand children, coprende! Understand!

lilly
Actually my study was designed by "a person trained in test design". My wife does that kind of work for a large corporation. I did exactly what you assumed I didn't. I did read the questions to them from a prepared script that had been written to eliminate any appearance of bias. I checked off the answers from a multiple choice list so it was objective as opposed to subjective. Even though the poll only comprised 20 people the data is valid and my study was "clean".
Your characterization of TH posters is your opinion and from my observations is far from the truth and your dismissal of my poll shows a prejudice severely tilted to the left.

snake0311
What? You even did a pretty good job of making the survey fair. Wow.

Still no analysis from lilly. Only criticism.

But just wait. Those awful conservatives who thought that taxes would be worse than the charity. They are the really depraved, selfish individuals that need to be re-educated in the glorious public education system, or at least their kids.

To Lilly:
Your last post made me laugh outloud. (And I am in the middle of a math class!) So, one needs to be "trained in test design" and "read instructions aloud" in order to ask a simple question? It is ideas like this that cause me to need 20 extra minutes to administer a standardized test to my students because of the pages of instructions I have to read lest any of my darling students can't figure out how to bubble in answers on a multiple choice test. No wonder we turn out kids who can't think.

Well, that's why!
lilly writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 7:49 AM
"If you don't want any state rules" and "The last I heard, "statism" was called 'civilization'."

No rules is called anarchy, not conservatism.

Civilization is to protect individual rights, not invade them, which is statism.

There is no arguement that your terms are impropely appllied because of a misunderstanding. You alter reality out of a desire to alter society.



ET1 writes:
There is no arguement that your terms are impropely appllied because of a misunderstanding. You alter reality out of a desire to alter society.
======================================
How dare you question the motives and logic of the inventor of the cure for cancer, oops, someone whose career peaked in high school chemistry.

lilly
"Human beings do not live as isolated units; they are social animals."

Man by nature is both individual and social. Statists tend to deny man's nature. The individual, the smallest unit of society, has unalienable rights, that cannot be voted away. Society is an abstraction and has no rights.

"The last I heard, 'statism' was called 'civilization'."

Last I heard, socialism.

"May I point out that conservatives champion a very intrusive government...."

Now here I will partially agree, some conservatives do favor big government. Many social cons and many neo cons do as big government conservatives. The only difference between them and liberals is the virtues they want the state to promote over individual liberty.

That is not an argument against virtue, but an argument against the state making virtue it's business. The only business of the state--if it has any at all--it protection of individual rights.

Call 'em what they are: Marxists
Mike's suggestion to call Democrats "statists" is an interesting one, but since many Republicans are also in favor of government solutions to society's questions, it is not accurate to restrict using the label only for Democrats.

We must consider the goals to which they want to apply the machinery of the state, and in so doing, we can only conclude that they are Marxists. By definition, Marxist already implies using the state as the bludgeon to push capitalism into the Communist utopia, and as a definition, it also covers the goals.

No, not just statist, they are Marxists (whether they recognize it or not).

Hillary delenda est.

Tinsldr2
"That government which governs less governs best. However, this Does not mean Anarchy is prefered. We need laws and limits in order to be civil."

Right, but that does not imply we need government. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is law and order without government.

snake0311
you have a hard time finding privacy in the constitution.

An assignment for you:

The state passes a law outlawing oral sex and condoms and earings and long hair and ipods and blue suede shoes.

Your assignment: Can you think of a constitutional arugment to oppose such

knight_of_baawa writes:
no one has the right to force one group to support another.
====================
Tell that to the Democrats.

Oops, statists.

Can you say Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP?

Quick edit - LAST paragraph!
You wrote, "If you are like me and you oppose them, maybe you are a liberal."

My edit would have read, "If you are like I am and you oppose them, maybe you are a liberal."

skiddles
Thank you again. I did the survey in that manner because I have experience with how the liberal mind operates and you have just seen a perfect example of that operation in lilly's post to me. She denied its validity because it didn't come out the way she would've liked and criticized my methodology without knowing what it was. One other thing she did was to label me as pro-conservative without knowing anything about my views which tend toward the conservative side but are tempered with some liberal (in the original sense of liberal) ideas.

Dr. Adams
I agree with what your article says with the caveat that 'statist' sounds so nice.

Easily twisted to States Rights (an actual Constitutional principle that has been eroded away to a large degree).

I don't care if you'd like to come up with a new word for people that believe in suppression of our Constitutional rights AS Enumerated in the Constitution. But, Statist? No.

It just doesn't have the right sound, and is entirely too PC.

I'm open to hear other suggestions.


lonestarblues
From Wiki:
Anarchy - Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to beliefs that people are inherently good and can organize themselves without government or bureaucracies; another type of political order.
============================
Herein lies the problem with anarchy. It assumes that "people are inherently good." and so when people are not "good", like a pedophile, what is the recourse? Anything is permissible from doing nothing to lynching to murder.

And what of an overreaction to perceived offenses? I cheat you out of $50, so you are free to respond by executing me as a thief with no perceived value to society?

knight_of_baawa writes:
Anarchism assumes no such thing
It does not assume that people are inherently good.
==============================
Take it up with Wiki.

KOB: And punishment must be proportional to the crime,
===============================
Or else what? And who determines "proportional"
Sooner or later, people must come together to decide these things, and we call this gathering "government."

I am hoping that since you do not believe in government, you will not be voting any more.

Knight
You are dodging the issue with semantic tricks and forensic obsfucation.

Having a quality public education freely available to all members of a society can only benefit that society. Once one chooses to be a member of a society, he or she agrees to be bound by whatever laws and requirements that society has...including paying taxes.

You seem to advocate a policy of anarchy. Is that your intent?

The King of Redundancy strikes again.
What a strange, childish view. It's very childish, you know. It's desiring a parental figure to take care of things. It's quite childish. ---KOB

skiddles
"Herein lies the problem with anarchy...."

Therein lie the problem with relying on dictionary definitions that describe common usage and rarely if ever technical terminology.

Knight has already answered your questions.

I would only add that if government were the solution we wouldn't be faced with those questions as issue today. Government doesn't solve problems, it creates them. Example, gun crime rises, government restricts law-abiding people from protecting themselves.

And let me recommend in addition to Knight's, Robert Murphy's _Chaos Theory_ @ http://www.mises.org/store/Chaos-Theory-P190C1.aspx . In it he explores the privatization of government. He's also the author of the more familiar _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism_ as well.

KOB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy. Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you are as good an editor as you are a philosopher??

No Doubt you will run away and change it, but, I cut and paste straight from wiki BUCKO. No Bluff. Don't care.

And gov't does decide what is proportional. If someone breaks into your house you can assume that they are there to kill you and beat them to the trigger. If someone steals your car you can not hunt them down and kill them.
If a company cheats you out of money they may have to pay back some multiple of that amount in punitive damages.

These are all exercises in proportionality.

And people coming together to decide things is democracy and was invented by the Greeks. We have simply evolved from that point.

knight_of_baawa
If we can have a civil discussion, I would appreciate it if you would clarify one thing for me.

I understand your position on abortion. However, you wrote above that self-ownership is illustrated by being able to look after yourself, all others are slaves (I couldn't find the exact quote, so I hope you know what I mean)

My question is: When does a human become a self-owner? Are infants, who require 24/7 care for their basic needs, self-actualized? And, if not, when does that happen? Are children (you give me the age) slaves?

No difference
Liberal, progressive, statist, socialist -- no difference. Hysterical, irrational, irresponsible, dogmatic, intolerant. Liberal, progressive, statist, socialist -- no difference. Le'Chaim.

Free Ramos and Compean

SJ Doc
Your quote by Alexis de Tocqueville was great.

I have said before that what liberals/statists want to do is reduce all of society to nothing more than "units of production." We will be housed, fed and kept relatively healthy so long as we can produce/work to generate the funds that the elite will collect from us in the form of taxes. Of course, eventually, they will simply stop the pretense that any of our wages belong to us and will just take it all.

This arrangement is actually nothing new. A similar system existed in the Southern United States about 150 years ago. It was outlawed, but those who lost the advantages of that system have been working to find a way to get it reintroduced ever since.

len
You need to answer my question first. Even though it wasn't directed to you I would appreciate hearing your take on it.

Knight
I might as well ask "Since I have not needed the services of the Fire Department, why should I continue to pay for it?"

Apparently my explanation of how all members of a society benefit from having a quality public education was not clear enough for you or you do not see the need to educate the children of those who provide you with public and private services.

If you do not wish to pay for public education in your community, nobody is stopping you from moving to Mexico or Canada.

If you wish to remain in the United States you need to either change the compulsory education laws or pay your taxes....and ensure that special interest groups quit dictating how your community teaches its children.

Stateism needs to be difined also
Our Constitution gives these purposes for government:
establish justice
insure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The promotion of any action by the government beyond these mandates constitutes stateism. Stateism is when the government tells me where or how to raise and educate my children, how to plan my family, how to run my business, how to spend my money, how to provide for my own health, how to worship my God, ...

If you would permit any of these, you are neither liberal nor conservative.

Question??
To the opponents of Public Education - What is your solution? Would you support shutting down every single public school tomorrow? If so, then what? What if a community votes to fund a school for all community members? Will they have to shut it down for not being a private school?
Just who's rights are you favoring here?

no new taxes
By the way, Oregon (alleged liberal state) yesterday rejected a new tax to pay for more state health care "for more children". Maybe we're not as stateist here as I thought.

Leftist vs. Liberal
I stopped using the term "liberal" when referring to Democrats years ago. Lets face it, they are no longer liberal. If they were, they would support Joe Lieberman and hold true to JFK and FDR. Senator Lieberman is the last of the Kennedy Democrats. The current group of Democrats is Leftist, which is a synonym of Dr. Adams term "statist." They support censorship, government control of business, punitive taxes on people who succeed and thus increase the wealth of the nation. Lenin would be proud.

People who opposed a well run
public education system should have choices.

1 Upon graduating from public school, choose to reimburse the full cost of the education received and opt out of future educational costs for ones future generations

Or

2 have the debt canceled, but be obliged to shoulder a share of the cost of educating future generations.

3 If option 1 is chosen, and the person subsequently chooses public education for their child, then the burden to be assumed should be doubled.



Those that graduate from private school should have choices.

1 Upon graduation, pay a small cost for maintaining public schools - the whole benefits to society thing - and opt out of future educational costs.

2 Have the debt canceled, but be obliged to shoulder a share of the cost of educating future generations.

3 If option 1 is chosen, and the person subsequently chooses public education for their child, then the burden to be assumed should be doubled.

Knight
I see no further use in responding to your comments. You are either an anarchist who does not believe in the conventions of society or an elitist that believes only the "haves" should be educated while the have-nots better not move to your community because you have no concern for the education of their children. You are certainly no true conservative nor is your argument logical for the needs of the many (The continuation of society) outweigh the needs of the few or the selfish one like you.

Anarchism like Communism
looks great on paper, but fails as soon as two people are bound ( on not bound in the case of anarchism ) by the system. Ultimately, both are intellectually corrupt.

KnOB
Did you fix wiki yet?

Nope.

Prove that Anarchy does not rely on the assumption that people are basically good.


Lily
Please just STFU.

Looks like I missed ...
an interesting day here. By the way, KOB, rights are not some instrinsic thing that everyone has. If you think that is the case, move to North Korea and try asserting yours there. The United States is unique in its foundational principles based on a living, loving God, which you deny exists. It all started with the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

What part of "..endowed by their Creator ..." don't you understand?

Privacy guaranteed by Constitution
"I don't mean to sound confused but I haven't been able to find the 'Right to Privacy' anywhere in the Constitution."

It's there, all right. It's in the "negative space".

That's because you're looking for the wrong thing.

The Constitution assumes that no government has any powers at all. (Only the indoctrinated would claim that a gov't has any "rights".) Those powers the gov't does have are powers the sovereign people ceded to it. Since the people did not cede the power to invade individuals' privacy, the gov't has no power to do so.

Only on the ratification of the IV, did we acknowledge that the state had the power to search our homes and papers -- to invade our privacy; and even then only on probably cause, etc.

Most powers the state has arrogated to itself are unconstitutional because we, the sovereign people, did not specifically grant them to the gov't. But, since the state has more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than we do, it will always be able to enforce its illegitimate will on us.

All this said, however, RvW was a poorly crafted opinion because it only addressed the primary issue, when is fetus "alive", by saying "we don't know, but we're going to assume it's at birth."

They erred in the wrong direction. If socialists were consistent (unlikely), they would arise in massive indignation because on every other point, they insist that any life is beyond question. E.g., no capital punishment because even murderers are precious, no war because death and suffering are evil.

But because they are, at heart, selfish, they cannot abide any restrictions on their hedonism. Thus, a child is only an irritant, and must fall before their highest ideal: irresponsible pleasure. Thus abortion is the exception to the rule.

No child deserves the 12-year sentence.
Save yours from the state's youth
concentration camps.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

political terms
"conservative" is a meaningless term. people who consider themselves conservatives prefer big government in the lives of individuals but limited government watching corporations.

LS
Lol! I know all that. My posting was intended to see if wwsword knew or if she/he was just parroting. Sarcasm was practically dripping from the words. Thank you for the explanation though as it was right on the money.

t. republicans
Actually, conservatives resent corporations.

Nothing in the Constitution empowered Congress or anyone else to establish corporate "individuals" and to endow them with special rights to sue and be sued.

The existence of corporate "individuals" upsets the balance of liberties, conferring "rights" on an artificial entity that is not entitled to receive them.

Liberals established corporations through a movement in the 1840s. Conservatives have to live with these artificial "creatures" and have proved adept at playing corporate games, better so than the liberals who originally established the "legal" basis for them; but we don't have to like them.

traitorous republicans
Don't even think about telling me what I believe.

knight_of_baawa
knight_of_baawa writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 1:12 PM

If it is slavery for the woman to not have the right over the use of her body, how is not murder and slavery for the fetus to not have the right of the use of it's body, that it has no say in it's destruction?

It's not as simple as you would like to paint it.

patrick
a true conservative would resent corporations. but todays "conservative" resents gay rights and personal choice concerning abortion, drug use, etc.
you think liberals invented corporations in the 1840's? ha. tell me what you think you know and then i'll explain the origin of corporations (much older) and the origins of corprate personhood (a little bit newer)

Deornwulf
Deornwulf writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 2:19 PM
Question??
To the opponents of Public Education - What is your solution? Would you support shutting down every single public school tomorrow? If so, then what? What if a community votes to fund a school for all community members? Will they have to shut it down for not being a private school?
Just who's rights are you favoring here?

Foxfire:

A real solution for starters is to allow vouchers to those who want to put there children in private or religious schools. The schools primary objective would be to educate, so you wouldn’t be getting a religious indoctrination like many fear with Islam.

It’s obvious that all public school children will not be able to attend private schools.
But, I assume that the public school system will get its act together or go the way of the dinosaur.

I would suggest that the public school system do what’s has been advocated to for years.
Use what works and quit trying to turn our children into social robots with a Marxist ideology.

We want our children given the tools to succeed academically, not change our religious, and social ideology.

As has been stated multiple times, it’s time that government gets out of our life, and religion.

If you want to be an atheist, the government doesn’t have a right to be used as a tool to change your beliefs. If you want to be gay, the government does not have a right to infringe upon your right to be gay, but the government also does not have a right to prevent a Christian from sharing his beliefs with you.

What people are saying here is that governments only function should be to protect your liberty, your rights, not take resources from you to promote its social agenda

PRIVATE SCHOOLS ON THE iNTERNET

.....In the future all Government Public schools will become obsolete as private schools move to the Internet ...for a small fee one schools could service thousand of students ...

.....Best of all Teachers Unions would go out of business and Statist indoctrinators would no longer have a forum or a classroom to intoctrinate .....COLOSSUS

KNIGHT

.....If brains were dynamite you would not have enough to mess up your hair-do .....COLOSSUS

To mahatma_mama
Belatedly (I've been out all day), but

Thank You Very Much! :-)

cheers

eon

t. republicans
The conservative non-judicial activist view expressed by the Marshall court in 1809:

A corporation is "certainly not a citizen" under the Constitution.

Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61 (1809) at 86
http://supreme.justia.com/us/9/61/case.html

The liberal, judicial activist view expressed by the 1844 Taney Court:

A corporation is "a person, although an artificial person ... an inhabitant of the same state, for the purposes of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of that state, as much as a natural person."

Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad v. Letson
3 U.S. (2 How.) 497 (1844) at 558
http://supreme.justia.com/us/43/497/case.html

big mick ona street & late to the thread
Hell, those who have encountered me before know that Adams, though admittedly well argued (profoundly so) here, comes late to the "liberal ain't" concept. I've been using the semantically correct "commiequeer" for a couple of years now. And I apply it to the misnomer "leftist" as well. In this, Adams nails the concept I encountered in a Millennial Issue of Time (maybe Newsweek) by Historian Tom Wolfe, who reminded us Hitler and Stalin were Fraternal Socialist Twins--i.e. both STATISTS.
Thus our whole Left-Right continuum is FALSE.

A better model is adapted from L.Neil Smith who got it from somebody I can't remember. Communism and Fascism bend around the base of the cone to meet in a Statist Circle. Individual Liberty is at the apex of the cone of which that circle is the base. Our Republic is on a circle somewhat near, but NOT AT the apex of the cone.

This is why I have no respect for the Pseudolibertinearians who cruise TH. What they are really about is limiting my "free exercise of religion" by means of the power of THE STATE so they don't feel guilty about their perversions. If they would leave me alone, I'd gladly leave them alone. And if they think the Hillery Storm Troopers are going to leave them their porno (though Slick may be drug Czar)they ain't thinking. A TRUE Libertarian with a brain KNOWS Statists are FAR more dangerous to Liberty than Christians. But out of misplaced fear of guilt the Pseudolibertinearains will ally themselves with the Statists in order to put down Christians.
In two words: Way Dumb!

the big mick

the black knight
You have to prove there is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another person.

Good luck proving a negative.

By the way, how would you then define Siamese Twins?

Any idiot knows that a baby fresh out of the womb is a fully functioning human being with rights. You reduce the concept of Human Rights to a SPACIAL LOCATION! Out yes, in No!

Moronic on the face of it.

If I park my car in your garage do you then have complete right of ownership over it?

Half that genetic material DON'T and never did, belong to the woman, slick.

the big mick

FROG
We seem to agree on individualism but....

"What part of '..endowed by their Creator ...' don't you understand?"

It's defined in the previous paragraph as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", a reference to Natural Law Theory, not "a living, loving God"--not an argument against your belief, which you have an unalienable right to, just what it meant at the time.

patrick
it's about time. i was wondering where you went.
1844 taney court?
the supreme court chief justice waite ruled in santa clara county vs. southern pacific railroad co. that corporations were not persons in the same way as humans. the court's reporter and former railroad man jc bancroft davis wrote in the cases head note that they were. even though it was erroneous it has stood as precedent ever since. look it up.

LS
"The Constitution assumes that no government has any powers at all. (Only the indoctrinated would claim that a gov't has any "rights".) Those powers the gov't does have are powers the sovereign people ceded to it. Since the people did not cede the power to invade individuals' privacy, the gov't has no power to do so."

Very well put. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; through it the people, and states, grant limited powers to government.

A trick of the mind?
Patrick writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 4:55 PM "Nothing in the Constitution empowered Congress or anyone else to establish corporate "individuals" and to endow them with special rights to sue and be sued."

Please cite the title of the U.S. Code that regulates corporations.

As to the "anyone else", I cite: Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I studied business in college, but all laws of incorporation were state laws. If the colleges need to cover the "U.S. Code" regarding laws of incorporation, I want a refund.



t. republican
I've got a family and work to do so my posts are in-between.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/394/case.html

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with that case. Letson (1844) made the same claim.

ET1
Better get your refund.

There is no specific US Code title as "corporations", but the US Code is massively full of federal corporate law

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22u.s.+code%22 +corporations&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

patrick
the 1886 case set a different precedent due to the fact that it recognized corporate personhood under the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was not around in 1844.
are you a lawyer? i'm not trying to patronize you by asking, i was only wondering.

ZOOOM! Did someone lose some hair....
or did the issue pass cleanly over your head?

Patrick writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 7:25 PM "Better get your refund."

Was not the point!

The fact that congress has mentioned corporations in legislation subsequent to the states passing laws to provide for incorporation is not a regulation of corporation in the sense of "authorization".

"Authorization and "empowered" are synonyms in this sense. Corporations are legal constructs and not persons, but are still subject to regulation.

I am not going to go back to my colleges and ask for a refund unless someone can cite U.S. Code on rules for incorporation.

A response on the "narrow" legal issue will be appreciated.


There was a time...
That the Republican party was famous for its liberalism- that's precisely why the Northern East is full of Republicans who would take a liberal view (Mrs Snowe, anyone? :D) and it's good to see that hopefully it's beginning to go back to its roots with Mr Thompson, McCain and Mr Guiliani etc.

The question which always has to be asked in this situation is: What is the freedom that is being protected by the state's act?

If you are a pretty hard core lib (as I am) you'd have to consider what you want protected.

1. Education- A person can only make informed choices if they know what they entail! An uninformed choice is worse than no choice at all- because it just confuses people. Education helps people to make those choices. I'm not fussed whether it be private or public or even Home Schooled- but the Government, especially at State Level, certainly has a good reason to fund education. It would be no fun learning in a corporate environment. The "No Child Left Behind" act, while well meaning, is a bit "statist." The Dept. of Education at the Federal Level should really be pared down to providing funding to the various state school systems because the feds have a better revenue system.

2. Things which people should have control over- Much like Mr Thompson, I agree that abortion is an issue that should be decided at state level. In my own country, it IS a state issue- and we all agree that it's legal. I'm fairly against Gay Marriage restrictions at the federal level (Again, it should be legal in my opinion) but since our constitution explicitly states that the federal government has control over marriage, I can't say it's not what we agreed on by becoming citizens of my country.

There was a time... 2

3. What right are you protecting?

A lot of people say that healthcare etc. is not a federal issue. Maybe it isn't a state issue even. But consider that a state's responsibility is to protect its citizens and their rights- and there is no point having the right to not be taxed so much if you are starving, uneducated, and unhealthy because you can't get a job and the ones you can get physically make you sicker. That is the main problem with a minimalist government.

So what in the end does a liberal state do? It really should protect you from the horrors of life- but hopefully in the least intrusive way possible.

Medical care could be easily solved simply by opening a government insurance scheme for all people who want to join it and leaving out others who don't- Thus everyone is covered, but the medical system still operates the way it always has. It is these solutions that ameliorate the market's rather impersonal hand that government should focus on.

Anyways, I'll likely get quite a bit of flaming. But I've always found it irritating that "liberals" end up being socialists. Not that socialists are bad- just that their priorities on liberty vs. protection are skewed compared to ours. And same with Conservatives. You're all pretty cool too.

hehe. Love for all!

Wacky
"That is the main problem with a minimalist government."

Isn't that, by examples like Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, the problem with maximalist governments? China would be on the list as well if they weren't starting to open up to free tade some.

Government-run insurance would hide costs and drive up demand, as is the case already with employer-paid insurance. Government agencies tend to have an attitude of spend it or lose it, and that attitude would pass onto everyone.

Liberalism has been perverted
from promoting the individual to enforcing group politics and propaganda think.

1984 and Brave New World look mildly amusing compared to the oppression the gov't's of DC and the states can bring down on people today.

Healthcare is not a way to help people with their medical problems: it is a way to gain the most intimate information about everyone and use it as a bludgeon against the population.

When you are sick and weak, you aren't a good candidiate for opposition. Famine in Eritrea in the 70s, starvation in the Ukraine in the 30s, now repeated in N. Korea and Darfur are the examples the left used to dominate entire populations in the past two centuries.

National healthcare will just create more sheep among the citizens, less healthcare, more rationing, and more illness. When the libs. really get going and "punish" the pharmaceutical inductry, there will be no new drugs or surgeries to offer. 19th C, medicine will begin to look brand new.

Anyone who votes for the above obscenities deserves to live under the system of repression the "national"-eveything people are cooking up.

lonestarblues
I agree completely! A maximalist government is rife with corruption; the minimalist government does not prevent people from being evil to one another.

You need to find that balance between protecting the liberties of people who wish to work in good faith, and protecting them from abuses of their rights by others or the vicissitudes of fate. And it's perfectly OK to argue what that balance is, whether conservative or liberal.

I don't honestly think liberals or conservatives are trying to destroy the world one way or another. Crazy medieval types, maybe, but not libs or cons.


t. republican
Curiously, the 1886 case makes no reference to the 1844 case. As you mention, it dealt with the 14th A., but the court's precedent for its handling of the case was with 1844.

Here's some legal history on corps by a scholar in the field of corporate legal history. There's a lot more available on the web, too.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Classical%20Corporati on%20in%20American%20Legal%20Thought.doc

-


About me, I'm not a lawyer, although two decades ago I took a three-year detour through the Twilight Zone known as law school.

The Right to Live
Common law allows one to use someone else's property to sustain life until other means are available.

Were I were skiing and broke my leg, I could enter a cabin and use what I need, including food, medical supplies, fuel, until someone rescues me, or I could leave on my own. I would have to repay the owner, but he could not sue me for breaking and entering, burglary, or anything else because in extremis.

With rare exceptions, women voluntarily engage in inherently risky behavior when they become pregnant. Anyone who does must accept the predictable outcome. One might claim that she should be able to mitigate that outcome, but a pregnancy involves, by its very nature, three parties.

The father is involved: the child is his by DNA, and perhaps emotionally. He must have a voice in the child's future. We compel his responsibility in the event the mother determines to bear their baby should he refuse. There are no one-way streets when discussing rights and responsibilities.

The third party is the child. Abortion supporters justify their atrocity by denying the child's humanity. To do so, they ignore the fact that the "tissue mass" will, left to nature, become a human being.

There is no definitive point before which a child is **not** human, but after which, he **is**.

If they choose "birth", they must demonstrate that there is some distinct difference between the pre-born and the born. There is no such difference. Since the frontier of "viability" moving back toward conception, we conclude that any product of human conception is, ipso facto, human.

To kill this being is to commit a homicide. Only where the mother's life is in imminent danger can we call it justifiable. Rare is that case.

I will believe that bureaucrats
should determine what, when, where,
and when a child must learn when
they can tell me his name and his
favorite book.

Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org

PRIVATE SCHOOLS ON THE INTERNET
baseballdoc writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 5:33 PM

The future is here. My daughter just started 9th grade online. This is her second year of distance learning and she is thriving.

It's not cheap, though. The tuition is $4500 for a full year. But they take credit cards.

It's worth every dime.

knight_of_bawaa
"It's inside the woman. There's no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.

It is just that simple."

It exists it is that simple. It is the way we all enter into the world. Are you advocating that none of had the right to exist when we first existed in our mother's womb? If you are, then I disagree with the absurdity of your arguement.

fetus rights
The fetus has the right because it was invited to be there in almost every case. Rape resulting in pregnancy is not a greatly significant percentage of abortions. Most are for convenience. As in most societies an invitation to be somewhere does give you the right to be there.

Hey KnOB
Did you fix wiki yet???

You know, for someone who hates the fact that we have a government you certainly rely a lot on the laws created by said government.

Let me ask this:

If I get a girl pregnant and we live in a town that is ruled by Anarchy, where everyone determines for themself what is fair in every circumstance. Lets say the girl decides that she should abort the baby. What if I think abortion is wrong, and decide that she should be punished, eye-for-an-eye. So I shoot her.

Is this justifiable?

Hey KnOB
You are the one that said wikipedia is wrong. Remember,"I help MAINTAIN that article, bucko". I posted the link. You did not like the definition and accused me of fabricating the definition.

Get onto it.

Based on your comments that it does not need fixing I assume that you have accepted that the definition I posted is at least one definition even if you don't like it.

But you miss the point that whether Anarchy relies on people being good or not, ultimately, a third party is needed to resolve disagreements. Otherwise the one with the most/best/biggest gun wins. Remember the old west? That was as close to Anarchism as we have seen in modern times as far as I can see. Explain how I am wrong.

You write off my question and insult me rather than explain how I got it wrong.

Maybe I have not read every book you have on the subject but I am at least intelligent enough to be able to see the logical conclusion of your argument, if you make them. But you have not made any argument. You just keep spewing insults.

So do this. Find a definition you do like and then explain what would happen in the previous scenario.

I am beginning to think that instead of being intellectually dishonest, that you are intellectually challenged.

Wacky
"You need to find that balance between protecting the liberties of people who wish to work in good faith, and protecting them from abuses of their rights by others or the vicissitudes of fate. And it's perfectly OK to argue what that balance is, whether conservative or liberal."

Assume that's true, and we can agree on specific details of that balance. Question remains, why is government the solution? How can government be the best solution when it's interests are not the individual but it's own power and survival? And without the proper incentive be expected to keep that balance efficiently and effectively? How can government be the best solution when a small number of bureaucrats cannot possibly know enough about the individual specific details of that balance?

lonestarblues
I don't agree with you much but I do find you to be civil in your posts.

I have this question for you.

Do you believe that there should be a judicial entity that anyone can appeal to for equal just treatment?

Speaking as a former fetus...
I'm grateful I was never aborted. My wish for ALL fetuses is that they have the same opportunity for a long life that I have enjoyed.

I'm even grateful that knight_of_baawa was never aborted though, evidently, he probably thinks life would be better if he HAD been aborted. I just wish he would stop trying so hard to convince the rest of us.

And if you read this, knight, go ahead and do that cut-and-paste thing you always do. THAT's fresh!!

knight_of_baawa
By knowingly becoming pregnant a woman effectively agrees to a contract with the fetus to allow that being to reside in her body until it is ready to emerge. She also has agreed to help the father raise said child. The same holds true if the woman engages in unprotected sex willingly and accidentally becomes pregnant. This concept is known as taking responsibility for your actions. The other part of the contract is with the father and that is that he is agreeing to provide for the child until it can take care of itself. In some societies the providing of support to the mother is expected while in others it becomes a communal responsibility.

The fact that you claim I ignore is not germane to this because there is an implicit contract in effect which makes your point moot.

If all you are going to say in rebuttal is "wrong" then don't bother. When you do that it is just like a 3 yr old saying no. They do it because they can not because they are right.

knight_of_baawa
"By knowingly becoming pregnant a woman effectively agrees to a contract"

yes, she does

You are the one who needs to give the backing

KnOB
Actually, I just missed your post explaining why the definition is in the wiki page. But the article does not distinguish the definition as you suggest. Please show me where it makes that distinction. I suspect it could be because we are speaking of different articles. Anarchy vs Anarchism.

I have asked you for a definition you like but you have not provided one, that I have seen.

And after you do, please answer my later question. And maybe you could answer the question I posed to lonestar at the same time.

knight_of_baawa
You are the one who said the fetus has no right to be in the mother.
Since you said that first you need to back that up with facts not what you wish it to be.
I'm waiting.

KnOB
If all you're going to do is make assertions without backing that I can just gainsay: don't bother responding. I don't have time to deal with your childish nonsense. Either provide some evidence or don't post. Period.

knight of baawa is in a hate grp
Guys, google, at your own risk, "baawa." Knight of baawa is part of a small Internet hate group. Some of the things on his groups websites are so vile and hateful I can't link them here, so google them at your own risk. His groups hatred of religious people is remniscent of Hitler's disdain for the Jew's, its that bad.

There's no arguing with this guy. He isn't here to learn or impart his knowledge, he is here to try to earn a higher rank in his hate group, he wants to be a "warlord."

The rules
that KnOB wants you to use do not apply to him. He is obviously an intellectual giant who should not have to back up anything he says. Please don't place any burden on him because he can barely keep it together as it is. And if we lose him, who will show us the way. Lilly?


knight_of_baawa
The contract comes under the laws in my State as an implied contract that becomes active upon the performance of a particular action, in this case the act of becoming pregnant. if you look it up under the common law part of your States RSA code (or whatever they call them there) you will find them under implied contractual obligations. Now it is your turn to pony up.

Oh he'll pony up
in the barnyard.

knight_of_baawa
I just gave you fact and you deny it. You are irrelevant. As I said once before "Since you won't back up your assertions our discussion is over".

KnOB
"That's irrelevant, and there's no such thing as implied consent in this case."

Translation: What you say does not matter because I say so.

Don't you like my sources for that statement?

knight_of_diversion
landofconfusion made a very serious charge that you did not answer. If you fail to address his charge, you prove his point.

Are your words simply the parrotted words of your little "hate club" and are you trying to just score points in a game? Or are you serious about discussing serious issues?

Please prove that you're more than just a "black" sheep... if you can.

snake
Stop feeding the troll.

Sooner
I did. He has nothing but hate. I don't understand people like that.

k_o_b, your hubris is showing
landofconfusion backed up his charge by pointing people to Google. Your very name associates you with vile, hateful people whose only agenda is to make fun of people of faith and people of a conservative political persuasion by spreading vituperative bile all across the internet.

"You're known by the company you keep." Oh, and by the way, my mother's body is not her own. She gave it to my father. Before that, she gave it to God.

Whether you like it or not, "you are not your own; you were bought at a price..." And so was I. And so was all mankind when the Creator became a man and died on a cross in our place. Where will you go when you die, knight? And what will you do with Jesus?

snake
Know what you mean. You can see how it tries to draw me into responding. As if its unfounded assertion means anything...

Persevere, snake.

Sooner
Yep, that is one thing I learned in the Corps, perseverance. Thanks for the words.

kinght, I hope you win your contest
Since you can't win an argument,little man, I hope you win your little contest.

Your pleasures in life must be so few...

I'm out... I hope I see you in the afterlife...