Sorry for the dual post...not sure what happened.

In order for you to write your second sentence, you must go along with the fundamental premise behind RvW and behind Dred Scott: that humans have the right to decide which products of human conception are human, and which are not. This is a binary choice: Either they do, or they don't. If they do, then they do. You will argue that you have controls and limits; I will (a) ask you on what basis you are putting artificial controls in place (because if humans have the right, any limit is artificial), and (b) point out that with a suitable manipulation campaign I can do away with any control you put in place. It's already been done both here and elsewhere. If they don't, then they don't, and the mass murderers were wrong.

In order for you to write your second sentence, you must go along with the fundamental premise behind RvW and behind Dred Scott: that humans have the right to decide which products of human conception are human, and which are not. This is a binary choice: Either they do, or they don't. If they do, then they do. You will argue that you have controls and limits; I will (a) ask you on what basis you are putting artificial controls in place (because if humans have the right, any limit is artificial), and (b) point out that with a suitable manipulation campaign I can do away with any control you put in place. It's already been done both here and elsewhere. If they don't, then they don't, and the mass murderers were wrong.

Like most of what we deal with today, we are still fighting the battles of the 1960s in education. The two sets of partisans need to accept this, and to understand that before we can "make progress" in much of any direction the bad blood and acrimony that has built up over the past 45 years or so is going to have to be bled off. The best thing we could do today is to agree that we have to (a) keep the lights on and (b) pay our bills, and otherwise stop trying to make "great moves forward". Of course, we won't learn this, and will keep fighting and trying to "win", not having the wisdom to realize that while there can't be two winners there can most certainly be (and IS) two losers.

That's disrespectful to geeks. Most geeks aren't this silly.

You will undoubtedly drive public prayer from the public square in the not-distant-future, and you will go on imposing on the people of faith and swear to yourself you are not. There is nothing more tragic that someone who is self-deluded. God loves you nevertheless, and desires with all His heart for you to know Him. Why don't you ask God straight-up to show you what He's really like, and then wait and see how He does it?

Will the secularists be just as willing to remove their impositions from the people of faith? Publicly-funded abortions? Public education weaponized in some places to attack faith, particularly that of young children? Increasing political and financial pressure placed on those people and institutions that do not openly embrace homosexuality as "normal"? The issue here is that the secularists believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment makes non-religious thought and action somehow more Constitutionally preferred. It doesn't. --more--

Roy: No news there. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). The news is that the political left, from Marx forward, has claimed to be in favor of "the little guy", and has demonized all who disagree with them as supporting the evil "1 percent" (the latest phrase). The data cited is another refutation of both claims. Similar claims by the right deserve refutation as well. WRT Ivins, or other commentators (including the ones here): Before accepting their claims, do your own research. See if the sources cited really DO exist, and if they really SAY what they are reputed to say.

--cont'd 2-- I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm fed up with "politics" and am really ready for leadership. It's not clear that either party, though, is ready to lead.

--cont'd-- disasters and military actions (anyone who doesn't budget for both nowadays is very shortsighted at best). Add on to this other areas of spending as required. Now show ANY taxation plan that funds all of this. ANY plan. If you haven't done BOTH of these, then you have absolutely NO idea whether this is "sustainable" or not. This is the difference between politics and leadership. Politics plays for the next election, and wages the perpetual political campaign (we've been doing that now for 22 years or longer). Leadership faces the issues, generates the plans, and then follows through. --more--

Define "sustainable". The GAO had the guts to estimate long-term (75-year) results of SS / Medicare / Medicaid programs, putting us about another $43T in debt. If they can do this, then any set of high-schoolers should be able to put together a similar-length estimate of the total $$$ required in ALL major categories of Fed spending. This should include (a) acknowledged Fed debt, (b) unacknowledged Fed debt (all the "off-budget" nonsense), (c) projected costs for SS/M/M from GAO, (d) costs for tech refresh of infrastructure, (e) costs to deal with implacable advance of automation and elimination of limited-skill jobs, (f) costs to completely tear apart and rebuild education to cope with (e), (g) costs of natural --more--