The Left's Collapse

[Rockie Cantais]

That's my point.... They were a rightist monarchy prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolsheviks were adherents to radical socialism aka Communism. Involving Communism in an argument is akin to calling someone Hitler. It doesn't make any sense 1/2 the time and its impolite discourse.

That I can agree with and have made that point, if not here then at other places.

Especially in arguments about the American Left which is pretty centrist, and even the "Socialists" of which the most "radical" wing in America is usually the Democratic Socialists which believe the only Gov't run businesses should be Education, Health Care, and some housing, (which, whether they know it or not, the vast majority of Americans agree with.) Democratic Socialism doesn't lead to Communism.

I'll agree with some what on this one, I just think the Dem's are going hard left. No way is the Democrats Centrist maybe in the past but not now. Democratic Socialism can lead to Extreme Big Government then! Its more Government that most of us want.

So... Communism shouldn't be in a talk about the left unless your talking about 2nd and 3rd world countries.

Wrong! Communism is Big Government just like Socialism. I understand there is a difference but they are both far left.

Also, if you can't read Marx without gagging, then you really don't have any basis to judge Communism do you? Thats like me arguing about Anabaptism because I read 2 paragraphs of a summary by a Catholic priest. Marx is very relevant even today, even if Communism is a crock. Communism is essentially an overreaction to unfettered industrial capitalism.

All of the greatest conservative minds in America have read at LEAST the Manifesto if not Das Kapital, (ex. Ronald Reagan.)

Not a Catholic I was raised with evangelistic values but I understand your point. I'll get around to Marx.

I don't want the Gov't telling me what to do. A safety net isn't telling us what to do. Google "The Blind Veil" as to why safety nets are the only just form of government.

But anyways... Republicans don't believe in limited Gov't really either. They are Stateists. Thats why "Cars should have seatbelts so people don't die" was fought by republicans because it would make the STATE less healthy because the profits of car companies would take a small dip. Whereas the American Left is INDIVIDUALIST, as in "Even if it costs more for the large companies making the cars, the people driving them, of whom the Gov't is deigned to protect, have a much larger likelihood to survive."

Can't argue the point on the Republicans, why I support the Tea Party and like the Libertarians. The Rep. Party is under reconstruction at this time. I think you need to take another look at the left being individualist! Libertarians yes! Dem's, NO.

Especially in arguments about the American Left which is pretty centrist, and even the "Socialists" of which the most "radical" wing in America is usually the Democratic Socialists which believe the only Gov't run businesses should be Education, Health Care, and some housing, (which, whether they know it or not, the vast majority of Americans agree with.) Democratic Socialism doesn't lead to Communism.

I'll agree with some what on this one, I just think the Dem's are going hard left. No way is the Democrats Centrist maybe in the past but not now. Democratic Socialism can lead to Extreme Big Government then! Its more Government that most of us want.

So... Communism shouldn't be in a talk about the left unless your talking about 2nd and 3rd world countries.

Wrong! Communism is Big Government just like Socialism. I understand there is a difference but they are both far left.

However, when it comes to what INDIVIDUALS want to do, the American Right wants us to: be forced to listen to a specific christian theology, (Kansas School Boards), be forced to go through agony, public ridicule, and financial woe, against the will of the mother, (abortion), up until about 9 years ago they instituted laws about HOW you can have sex, (both gay and straight.. In Florida it was illegal to get Blowjobs or anal, though the most famous case of course is Lawrence vs. Texas), They shut down the Gov't to tell a man he didn't have the right to pull the plug on his wife after 20 years as a vegetable in which time he had gotten a nursing degree specifically to take care of her, (Terri Schaivo)

Your Ranting!

So anyways like my first post said Left vs. Right doesn't really equal small vs. big. Its Individual vs. Social Fabric. Which is more important? Man's dignity? or State's status in the world?

You need to look at the original concept of left and right.

[SnuggleySoft]

I went to a public school, I have been on medicaid, my parent's have been on unemployment insurance (Unemployment checks in America are paid into, just like insurance.), my grandparents are on social security and receive medicaid, I went to a State University which is subsidized by the government, and also received subsidized Stafford loans, as well as State scholarships...

I have a hard time getting pissed off at the government for giving me these opportunities. And I fail to see what fear you have for an educated, healthy populace that has food on their plates. My stafford loan didn't involve an oath of eternal fealty to the president or something. Maybe its BIG as in costly, but its also humane and important for democracy.

Unless your fear is just the debt... In that case blame Reagonomics, and demand your senator put the marginal tax rate 5% higher on those making over $1,000,000 they will survive I promise you. Every Republican president has had higher marginal tax rates on the top income bracket since after Hoover until G.W. Bush.

A militant communist dictatorship, and a center left safety net is so far apart its ridiculous.

And no... as much as Fox News would have you believe, Obama is not a far left president. Obama's presidency is akin to what McCain's would have been in 2000 when he ran as a moderate. Obamacare was first proposed by Bob Dole(R) in opposition to Clinton's proposed health care plan in the 90's. It was implemented by Mitt Romney(R) in Mass. It is a pro business bill. It reduces the national debt, and gets more people covered. I'm trying to think of who else you think is a socialist in the White House or the senate besides harmless Ol' Senator Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont....

Even Eisenhower(R) and Nixon(R) are to the left of Obama.


"Wrong! Communism is Big Government just like Socialism. I understand there is a difference but they are both far left."

Ok. As long as you realize your ideology is defined as "anarcho-fascism". Since you are obviously right wing.

"Can't argue the point on the Republicans, why I support the Tea Party and like the Libertarians. The Rep. Party is under reconstruction at this time. I think you need to take another look at the left being individualist! Libertarians yes! Dem's, NO."

Although ACLU is non-partisan it generally gives the highest marks to Democrats. And Ron Paul...



And what I wrote before wasn't a rant, I just overuse punctuation, and I capitalize letters because its easier than italicizing. If you meant it was long that was to include examples and I used that kind of language to emphasize that those are policies that to ME seem like Gov't intrusion into individual lives, and are thus more worriesome to me than the government giving a single mother free healthcare for her infant.

[Rockie Cantais]

I went to a public school, I have been on medicaid, my parent's have been on unemployment insurance (Unemployment checks in America are paid into, just like insurance.), my grandparents are on social security and receive medicaid, I went to a State University which is subsidized by the government, and also received subsidized Stafford loans, as well as State scholarships...

I went to public school also and some of my family has at times taken government assistance but we get off it as soon a possible. Its hard to argue against social assistance programs that help. Its a very Christian thing to do and having the government do it makes it easy. The thing is Government get out of control and use the Social Programs to keep a whole group on the take like a drug to preserve a voting block that will support them. The goal should be to get people off it as soon as possible not have whole generations on this. I see where it some cases they are up to 3rd and 4th generations on social welfare. In America we are up to what? 50% now or close to it? I used the GI Bill and paid into for my college.
What do they teach you at that college? A system that supports the system you are raised in and the evils of all others?

I have a hard time getting pissed off at the government for giving me these opportunities. And I fail to see what fear you have for an educated, healthy populace that has food on their plates. My stafford loan didn't involve an oath of eternal fealty to the president or something. Maybe its BIG as in costly, but its also humane and important for democracy.

I have no fear of a educated populace but I have a fear of the contents of what is taught. I want the truth taught and some have their own agenda no matter what their stance is. There are more than one way to get money to pay for college but we cannot afford to send everyone for free.

Unless your fear is just the debt... In that case blame Reagonomics, and demand your senator put the marginal tax rate 5% higher on those making over $1,000,000 they will survive I promise you. Every Republican president has had higher marginal tax rates on the top income bracket since after Hoover until G.W. Bush.

Regonomics? there is whole thread by itself, no I don't blame that. You want to tax the 5% who make the jobs that runs the economy? How much are they taxed now? 50-60%? What could they do with that money if they kept it? Not too worried about the super rich (they can just move and take their money too) its the small business I want to protect for they are the true engine that drives our economy. 1 million is not much for a small business, its poor in fact.

A militant communist dictatorship, and a center left safety net is so far apart its ridiculous.

Bottom up, Top Down and inside out! Socialism makes it all too easy. Just listen to the current radicals

And no... as much as Fox News would have you believe, Obama is not a far left president. Obama's presidency is akin to what McCain's would have been in 2000 when he ran as a moderate. Obamacare was first proposed by Bob Dole(R) in opposition to Clinton's proposed health care plan in the 90's. It was implemented by Mitt Romney(R) in Mass. It is a pro business bill. It reduces the national debt, and gets more people covered. I'm trying to think of who else you think is a socialist in the White House or the senate besides harmless Ol' Senator Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont....

Obama is far left and McCain is just left of center. Mitt Romney is a Conservative/Progressive like Mc Cain.

Even Eisenhower(R) and Nixon(R) are to the left of Obama.

Now your just being funny.

"Wrong! Communism is Big Government just like Socialism. I understand there is a difference but they are both far left."

Ok. As long as you realize your ideology is defined as "anarcho-fascism". Since you are obviously right wing.

"Can't argue the point on the Republicans, why I support the Tea Party and like the Libertarians. The Rep. Party is under reconstruction at this time. I think you need to take another look at the left being individualist! Libertarians yes! Dem's, NO."

Although ACLU is non-partisan it generally gives the highest marks to Democrats. And Ron Paul...

Right Wing? I thought you did not think in terms of left and right? As for anarcho-fascism, thats not me you just trying to paint me as someone I'm not to make it easier for you.

And what I wrote before wasn't a rant, I just overuse punctuation, and I capitalize letters because its easier than italicizing. If you meant it was long that was to include examples and I used that kind of language to emphasize that those are policies that to ME seem like Gov't intrusion into individual lives, and are thus more worriesome to me than the government giving a single mother free healthcare for her infant.

OK, Free??? nothing is Free someone has to make it and pay for it. Problem with socialism is that no matter how hard you work you still get paid the same. So why work harder? You don't its not worth the extra effort when others do less and get the same pay. Those who do work get taxed to death to support those who do no work at all. Again why do more? You either move away or do less. Socialism is a death road for civilization.

You can argue for social assistance ideas and win but how long to you leave them on it? Forever? and the next generation too?

[Magn]

I went to public school also and some of my family has at times taken government assistance but we get off it as soon a possible. Its hard to argue against social assistance programs that help. Its a very Christian thing to do and having the government do it makes it easy. The thing is Government get out of control and use the Social Programs to keep a whole group on the take like a drug to preserve a voting block that will support them. The goal should be to get people off it as soon as possible not have whole generations on this. I see where it some cases they are up to 3rd and 4th generations on social welfare. In America we are up to what? 50% now or close to it? I used the GI Bill and paid into for my college.

Actually, last time I checked, 10% unemployement rate was considered very high.

You might want to recheck your 50% figure.

What do they teach you at that college? A system that supports the system you are raised in and the evils of all others?

I have no fear of a educated populace but I have a fear of the contents of what is taught. I want the truth taught and some have their own agenda no matter what their stance is.

Actually, you are taught more social values in high school than in college and last time I checked, most people finish high school.

Once you reach college/university, you are taught things you need to know to integrate the work force or become an academic.

At times, they can get a bit too theoretical for my liking, but you gotta give academics the respect they deserve. On average, they show a lot more intellectual rigor than the vast majority of the far right politicians you adulate.

If you are genuinely interested in the truth, academia is not the end all goal, but its definitely a good place to start.

There are more than one way to get money to pay for college but we cannot afford to send everyone for free.

Well, were I live, university costs something like 1300$ per semester because a fair portion of the fees are paid by the government. Very affordable. We manage it just fine.

Really, what society cannot afford is to have an education infrastructure that is too expensive to attend.

A knowledge based economy is the economy of the future.

Bottom up, Top Down and inside out! Socialism makes it all too easy. Just listen to the current radicals

There's nothing easier than simply raise your hands and give up on the system.

I find its a very lazy and cowardly stance to take.

[Rockie Cantais]

Actually, last time I checked, 10% unemployement rate was considered very high.

You might want to recheck your 50% figure.

Sorry, I was talking about the amount of people who don't pay taxes.

Actually, you are taught more social values in high school than in college and last time I checked, most people finish high school.

True enough but its the higher learning that you should be taught how to think not what to think.

At times, they can get a bit too theoretical for my liking, but you gotta give academics the respect they deserve. On average, they show a lot more intellectual rigor than the vast majority of the far right politicians you adulate.

Yet at times they lack the common sense of someone with a High School diploma. Need more people in government who knows how things really work. I always respected my professors even if I thought they were a little screwy. I just think at times we would be better off listening to them less and listening to those who actually do the work, regardless of their pedigree.

If you are genuinely interested in the truth, academia is not the end all goal, but its definitely a good place to start.

I always look for something that we can agree on and this is one of them.

Well, were I live, university costs something like 1300$ per semester because a fair portion of the fees are paid by the government. Very affordable. We manage it just fine.

Really, what society cannot afford is to have an education infrastructure that is too expensive to attend.

A knowledge based economy is the economy of the future.

Lets start by those pesky Unions! They were good at first but now they have become part of the problem. I would like for everyone to be be able to attend college that wants to. The question is how without cutting off our nose to spite our face?

There's nothing easier than simply raise your hands and give up on the system.

I find its a very lazy and cowardly stance to take.

Did I say that? Not me, I never give up! The system is broken but unlike the radicals I have no desire to 'break what is broken'. Chaos may be the order of life but we are here to arise above that and overcome it.

[Luc]

Don't really feel like getting into it, so i'll just say 3 things:
1. Communism is not about a big state. The ultimate goal is to have no state at all.
2. Rockie, you need to learn the difference between scientific theory and theory as in the every day use of the word. There really is no comparison between Creationism and Evolution, and to say they should be considered on the same level is ridiculous. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been tested and expanded upon for a long time now. Creationism is just BS fundamentalist Christians made up from nothing to support their twisted agendas, and no one with any knowledge of science would ever call it a scientific theory.
3. It's funny that you should mention the EU and debts, when your own country has such huge debts to China that you will never be able to repay them. Also, the EU is not a single country, and cannot be directly compared to the US. Several countries in the EU have handled the global crisis a lot better than the US, just like some have made a complete mess too. Interestingly, the countries who are doing really well are the least religious ones.

[Magn]

Sorry, I was talking about the amount of people who don't pay taxes.

Yeah, well, killing off welfare won't solve this problem.

You'll still have people who don't report a portion or the whole of their income.

True enough but its the higher learning that you should be taught how to think not what to think.

You are... shown how to think for whatever field you chose to study in.

Yet at times they lack the common sense of someone with a High School diploma. Need more people in government who knows how things really work. I always respected my professors even if I thought they were a little screwy. I just think at times we would be better off listening to them less and listening to those who actually do the work, regardless of their pedigree.

Again, you gotta look at the specialty.

You can take whatever an English teacher says about the economy with a grain of salt.

However, when a PHD talks about his field of expertize, you should listen.

Nowadays, you see too many fools dismiss the opinion of experts when its politically or economically convenient.

Lets start by those pesky Unions! They were good at first but now they have become part of the problem. I would like for everyone to be be able to attend college that wants to. The question is how without cutting off our nose to spite our face?

University education is not THAT expensive. It will always be a fraction of what goes in the military.

It could be made even cheaper if those that are studious enough to learn from manuals without the need to attend lectures were allowed to do so.

[Ordray]

Don't really feel like getting into it, so i'll just say 3 things:
1. Communism is not about a big state. The ultimate goal is to have no state at all.
2. Rockie, you need to learn the difference between scientific theory and theory as in the every day use of the word. There really is no comparison between Creationism and Evolution, and to say they should be considered on the same level is ridiculous. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been tested and expanded upon for a long time now. Creationism is just BS fundamentalist Christians made up from nothing to support their twisted agendas, and no one with any knowledge of science would ever call it a scientific theory.
3. It's funny that you should mention the EU and debts, when your own country has such huge debts to China that you will never be able to repay them. Also, the EU is not a single country, and cannot be directly compared to the US. Several countries in the EU have handled the global crisis a lot better than the US, just like some have made a complete mess too. Interestingly, the countries who are doing really well are the least religious ones.

1. You are correct, in theory. But it ends up being a dictatorship where the ruling party has complete control. See Soviet Union.

2. You are completely off base here. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all hold this belief. Even Richard Dawkins who is a professed athiest and evolutionary biologist said that he'd consider an Intelligent Design theory for the origin of life on Earth. The only problem that he has with the ID theory is the designer, for most ID'ers it's Allah or Yahweh for Dawkins it's a higher being that came about by a Darwinian process. >Link to a part of the interview where he says this< As for scientists who believe that the ID theory could be valid, I'll point you to a few articles. >Here's a 20 page PDF file of dissenting scientists.< >How about a list of 480?< >Those others not enough? How about the guy who helped Darwin design the theory of evolution.< Do I need to cite more? I'm sure that I can dig some more up with no problem.

3. You're correct, the EU isn't a single country. It's also funny that you should mention the US's external debt. Well, let's look at the external debts of nations as a percentage of their GDP. US 95%, UK 398%, Germany 143%, France 184%, Italy 109%, Spain 157%, Ireland 1044%, Luxembourg 3609%, Belgium 169%, Sweden 192%, Austria 206%, Denmark 184%, Greece 176%, Portugal 223%, Finland 160%, Bulgaria 76%, Czech Republic 44%, Estonia 131%, Hungary 102%, Latvia 159%, Lithuania 77%, Malta 526%, Poland 58%, Romania 69%, Slovakia 69%, Slovenia 111%. Yes, the US has a huge debt, the most in the world, but it also has the largest GDP. Also note that most of the leaders in the US during the financial crisis are neither conservative nor "religious." If they were religious conservatives, then I doubt that we would be in this situation right now.



*Notes*
Numbers are based on information from June 30, 2010, using the official exchange rate.
All percentages are based on information from the CIA World Factbook found here. Click the country desired to see their GDP and divide yourself if you don't trust me.
All percentages are rounded off the the nearest whole number for easier reading.
The whole Richard Dawkins/Ben Stein interview

[Magn]

2. The debate of whether there is an omniscient entity behind the scenes masterminding it all is beyond the scope of what science can verify. Its more of a religious debate and while it is one that leads to interesting theorizing, it is also one that requires the possession of enough humility to ultimately accept the unknown.

However, whatever the root cause, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the world was not created in seven days and that the species evolved to become the way they are.

Btw, 480 scientists is tiny when you measure it against the entire scientist community.

3. I would be skeptical of whatever the CIA post. They are not neutral on the issue.

Either way, the US, along with many countries in the EU had to bail out their banks. Its sad.

I'd say whichever countries had to resort to such extreme measures would do well to get over themselves, step back and learn a thing or two from those countries that didn't.

[Luc]

1. You are correct, in theory. But it ends up being a dictatorship where the ruling party has complete control. See Soviet Union.

But that isn't the point. The point is that communism is not about a big state. That people use communism for their own ends is just proof that the ideology in itself is extremely naive and not likely to ever work. Either way, the big state is not a consequence of the ideology, but rather power hungry men.

2. You are completely off base here. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all hold this belief. Even Richard Dawkins who is a professed athiest and evolutionary biologist said that he'd consider an Intelligent Design theory for the origin of life on Earth. The only problem that he has with the ID theory is the designer, for most ID'ers it's Allah or Yahweh for Dawkins it's a higher being that came about by a Darwinian process. >Link to a part of the interview where he says this< As for scientists who believe that the ID theory could be valid, I'll point you to a few articles. >Here's a 20 page PDF file of dissenting scientists.< >How about a list of 480?< >Those others not enough? How about the guy who helped Darwin design the theory of evolution.< Do I need to cite more? I'm sure that I can dig some more up with no problem.

Actually, you're the one off base. Why?

Short version:
What people believe and not is irrelevant. Science is about evidence, not faith. Your sources do not support your point at all, because they're either very biased (the video is from a propaganda film and one of the links is from an ID supporting organization) or only confirm that evolution is indeed a theory that is still being tested. ID supporters often make the mistake of thinking that if they can somehow instill doubts about the validity of evolution, their alternative proposition is somehow validated as a consequence. That's a logical fallacy. To argue that I'm off base, you need to actually show that ID should be seen as a scientific theory, and as such qualify to be taught in science class. You've failed completely to do that. I dare you to find any substantial number of actual scientists that support ID or Creationism (saying that they have doubts about the power of some drivers of evolution does not mean they support ID or that evolution is somehow not a scientific theory).

Long version:
For starters, it's very telling that you use the word "belief". Because belief has nothing to do with science. That billions of people believe something doesn't make it true (or in this case a scientific theory).

1. The ID supporters love to take things Dawkins says out of context. Just like they love to edit interviews to make him look bad (proof is all over youtube). Notice that he merely says that life on THIS planet could be the result of some other civilization in the universe planting it here, not that it has anything to do with something supernatural. He is talking about how the first life got here, not how it later became what it is now (i.e. he does not support ID as a theory of how the first life lead to human beings, and what he says is not at all consistent with for example the Bible). It is also common for ID supporters to use straw men arguments and point at how the theory of evolution doesn't explain how the universe began. Most of them of course know that the theory doesn't even attempt to explain such things, but they do everything they can to make it look bad. That Ben Stein movie has been widely criticized btw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelle...igence_Allowed and it's really easy to find google results on what a dishonest piece of propaganda movie it is), and it is not credible at all. Read any of Dawkin's books and you'll see that he in no way believes in ID. You can label his belief in Darwinism a "higher being" if you'd like, but it's only misleading, and does nothing to support ID and Creationism as scientific theories. Note that it really isn't an issue of religion vs science at all. You can believe that God created the universe without being at odds with evolution. That is as long as you believe that God is using evolution is a tool for change, and not that he is actively designing and bringing various life forms into being in a finished state (ID followers do not believe humans descend from previous life forms, as I'm sure you know).

2. Your PDF does not support ID at all. It merely points out that some scientists don't believe natural selection to be the only factor that explains the complexity of life, and that it needs to be investigated further. That they explicitly mention evidence and further research implies that they do believe science can explain things, and that they are not leaving it as a question of faith (i.e. ID).

3. Your link of 480 people is from a source that I have no reason to believe is the least bit unbiased. I very much doubt all those people ever said they doubt everything about Darwinism. There is overwhelming evidence to the existence of evolution, and it is generally seen as fact. As I wrote above, the part that's still being questioned is how changes actually happen, not that evolution exists. Again, the ID supporters interpret things in any way that suits their purposes.

4. Wallace matters how? Because he was associated with Darwin, some current authors view of what he had to say is proof of something? You're aware that Darwin's theories have been changed and expanded upon since they were published, right?

5. If you can actually find some sources where respected scientists profess their support for ID and Creationism (good luck), you might be able to make a point. So far you've only produced questionable sources that only confirm that the theory of evolution keeps evolving, and that parts of it are being questioned (which is exactly the way it should be for scientific theories). None of your links suggest that ID and Creationism is accepted as a scientific theory by the scientific community (meaning the scientists that are actual scientists, and that aren't on the payroll of various ID supporting organizations.

You fail to provide any evidence that ID and Creationism is a scientific theory, which was my whole point. Even if natural selection was to be found wrong, that doesn't mean ID is correct. That's like saying 1+1 is 5, just because you found that it wasn't 3. Also, natural selection is one of the proposed drivers behind evolution, and disproving it (not likely to happen, though it's likely that other drivers that complement it can be found too) does not in any way disprove of the theory of evolution. ID and Creationism should be taught in Religion class, if at all, because they have nothing to do with science. Until it is disproved, evolution is a valid scientific theory, and as such belongs in science class (along with for example the Heliocentric world view, which is also merely a "theory"), as no alternatives exist that are remotely close to as strongly supported.

3. You're correct, the EU isn't a single country. It's also funny that you should mention the US's external debt. Well, let's look at the external debts of nations as a percentage of their GDP. US 95%, UK 398%, Germany 143%, France 184%, Italy 109%, Spain 157%, Ireland 1044%, Luxembourg 3609%, Belgium 169%, Sweden 192%, Austria 206%, Denmark 184%, Greece 176%, Portugal 223%, Finland 160%, Bulgaria 76%, Czech Republic 44%, Estonia 131%, Hungary 102%, Latvia 159%, Lithuania 77%, Malta 526%, Poland 58%, Romania 69%, Slovakia 69%, Slovenia 111%. Yes, the US has a huge debt, the most in the world, but it also has the largest GDP. Also note that most of the leaders in the US during the financial crisis are neither conservative nor "religious." If they were religious conservatives, then I doubt that we would be in this situation right now.



*Notes*
Numbers are based on information from June 30, 2010, using the official exchange rate.
All percentages are based on information from the CIA World Factbook found here. Click the country desired to see their GDP and divide yourself if you don't trust me.
All percentages are rounded off the the nearest whole number for easier reading.
The whole Richard Dawkins/Ben Stein interview

Nothing of what you say disproves any of what I said. It seems to be your strategy to attempt to sidestep everything, or find ambiguous evidence to confuse the issue.

Are you aware that the numbers you're using include private debts as well? Looking at the public debt is more interesting when comparing countries to each other. Debts between corporations and such only cloud the issue. You can find both sets of numbers at wikipedia (at quick glance the external debt numbers are from the same source as yours).

[Hot Rod]

Just opting for principles is the dogmatic simplicity used by people who find the world too complicated. Put everything in boxes with labels, then, no matter how confusing things get, Ill still remember the dogma and understand the world around me!

[VT2]

Ären't you supposed to be dead?

[John Snowstorm]

Dear America,

Obama is far left?

HO HO HO HO!

good one. Almost as good as when ann coulter said the people exposed to radiation in japan will be less likely to get cancer.

Thanks for the laughs, lots of love

Reality.

[Hanoumatoi]

1) Top marginal tax rate for 2010 was 35%, not even close to the 50-60% tossed out there.

2) Intelligent design is nothing like Evolution because it is not falsifiable. It makes no predictions which can be proven false, and thus is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief.

Please note that this does not mean that ID is wrong, simply that it is not scientific, and thus is an inappropriate subject for science class. Could it be mentioned when asked "but what happened BEFORE that?" Certainly, I'd expect someone to say "there are a lot of different ideas about that", but it still should not be called a theory in a science class, since it is not a scientific theory.

[John Snowstorm]

Hold on, ID already got smashed in a court of law, that P.O.S is only barely even a hypothesis, I can't believe anyone is still talking about that garbage barge, I would have thought that its an eternal embarrassment to ever have subscribed to it.

Hooray for false dichotomy arguments!