Americans are so uninformed on this issue that it totally depends on the wording of the question. Unfortunately quite true. Those of us who read blogs and detailed magazine articles have a pretty good grasp of the issue (I say only "pretty" good because, as the man said, the devil is in the details, and
Since the thread was so clearly addressed to me, I had to drop in and read. Your test did not do well identifying me -- although I truly do not know any NASCAR drivers, and suspect that Dan Rather did get a bad deal. As the doctors say, I think this test produced a false negative. Maybe I should beg partial credit for agreeing with some of those statements followed b
I think what we have here is a fundamental conflict of values, and freedom of religion is only a tangent. On one hand, we have a traditional view that education should be as broad and deep -- and as widely spread as possible through the population -- as possible. The more people know about the past and the present, our country and the world, the better people live, and the better a democratic society functions. Such people believe in foreign
Really? They can actually have their students read religious texts in public schools? Of course we can, and we do. What we cannot do is tell anyone that one religion or another is the "correct" one. <TD class="mb-B
Happy New Year to all ye trolls of all political stripes.
Is the school publically funded in any way? If so, then to allow them to promote any religious beliefs, even in the guise of education, is intolerable. Please! Teachers (secondary or college) can assign readings from The Bible, and I, for one, do so. Students would often have a good case for objecting
Great article!!! I agree with most and respect the rest as an honest and well-thought-out viewpoint. I think you have it exactly right here: I don't think anyone should get a "free ride," but America's children also should not suffer and pay the price for their parent's poor choices. and here
How do you figure that? GW won by the biggest margin since *before* Ronald Reagan. It is fitting that you would post such a statement in this particular thread. As I said in my article, my conservative acquaintances don't bother me a bit -- because not a one would make such a statement. They might exp
Most of their positions, in my opinion, are based on superficial thinking. For what it is worth, almost all conservative posting I have seen around here has struck me in exactly the same way... The typical formula is go cite "facts" from a right wing spin source and t
Also I've noticed that you like to throw the word "arrogant" around a lot. Why is that? Only because I saw it as one of Draginol's central points that the left is arrogant in their views, and it seems to be that the label would apply just as much to the right.
Actually, I am just ripping off Draginol's title -- I do not have a problem with the American Right in general. Many of the people I know best outside my family would fall somewhere between center-right and right. I have great sympathy for the social right, disagree pretty much with the business right, and think the neocons way, way off -- but none bother me nearly as much as the apathetic, so I am not really complaining. I just argue my point and l
First of all, you do realize that you are citing a conservative think tank for your scientific analysis, right? They may be correct, and they may be grasping at straws for political boilerplate -- but if I were you I would read up on what a variety of scientists without a political axe to grind have to say. There are many books available. From one good book on the subject: <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF39
Just to clarify -- these statistics are based on charitable donations as listed on tax returns. The results are interesting and suggestive, but do keep in mind that: 1) It is an open question whether all groups of people are equally honest in listing contributions, and whether all groups of people are equally thorough in listing contributions. 2) Tax deductible charity is one kind of generosity, but it does not define generosity. People give
Do your homework An arrogant argument that generally translates to "I am the ultimate judge of sources to trust." I hear the phrase a lot around here. <TD class="mb-Body
A similar "Lituracy is Borring" campaign, aimed mainly at children, is expected to be unveiled later in the year. Too close to the truth to be funny.
For instance, red counties on average have a much lower crime rate than blue counties. Even counties that have similar populations. Why is that? Republicans tend to make more money. That's not a surprise. But are they Republicans because they're wealthy or are they wealthy because their life philosophy is more conducive to finan
I think that it is just that you are a conservative and therefore sensitive to the attitudes of liberals. I have exactly the opposite experience. For a quick example, another current thread expressing a liberal perspective was met by this: They are coming to take you away, haha, oh ho, hehe. They are coming to take you away
Just to check -- does non-PC humor usually bother you? If it does, you have every right to object to this. If not, what's the problem?
Calling Moore the "left's answer to Limbaugh" is just nuts. Al Franken, maybe, but even that's a stretch. I don't particularly care for Limbaugh's floss ("half my mind tied behind my back") which I'd be glad for him to lose, but he is a legitimate political analyst with a sound intellectual footing. Moore's a propagandist moviema
Cappy1507, I am not a Republican, so I know that you aren't really asking me... but let me toss my two cents in here. I would tell you that, although Moore is far from a reliable authority, the vehement attacks on him show a lot more about the attackers than they do about Moore. The right has done very well using political information immunized against careful truth checking, through the use of humor. Rush Limbaugh is the poster c
The extreme right negates the extreme left. Only when the size of the two groups is equal. Actually, I think that one of the effects of the media is that we analyze the "horse race" aspect of elections to death, and in doing so, we come
Disown Michael Moore No need. There will be entertainer-polemicists on both sides. Just don't get cozy with him. Let him do his thing, you do yours. (Just the way Bush was with Rush) <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body
The important thing is not what ones ancestors did. (Heck, look at Kennedy, Sr. Or consider some of the viewpoints of your own grandparents. ) The important thing is what the individual does. President Bush has, in some ways, veered far enough right to make one nervous, given the history of the far right in the past century. His administration's viewpoints on prisoners ("L
that would amount to a fatal cancer on our type of government How so? A popular election places the public in the position of making the final determination. If, when the polls close, the real action is just beginning, then the power shifts away from the public. You might wish that there is
Michael Moore is just as likely to go away because of the Democratic loss of 2004 as Rush Limbaugh was after the Republican loss of 1996. Entertainer-polemicists are, for better or worse, a major part of the the current political landscape. I really have no idea how many people they actually convert, nor how many true believers they motivate to vote, nor how many opponents they motivate to vote. However, I do know one thing. Left wi