I did that. I quoted you, and if you still didn't get it, you can click the Parent link. You have, literally, all the background directly in front of you.
The very idea of "overquoting" is itself a judgment call that for some reason you seem to feel yourself qualified to make for both of us
No, only for MY posts. Not for yours.
you seem to neglect that not all of us have fast connections to slashdot.
If by "neglect" you mean "don't care," then yes, I neglect that. I am not going to modify my best practices because anyone else has a slow connection.
Your own opinion says that. I presume others share your opinion. You have not been so kind as to say where that opinion comes from.
Would you like to share why you keep refusing to learn what "equal protection" means?
I have already laid out the problems with your asserting your opinion to be the only correct view on the issue
Yes, and in doing so, you demonstrated that you don't know what "equal protection" means, since what you described is what "equal protection" is precisely about.
Seriously. You say, "there are additional liberties and rights that are currently not automatically extended to homosexual couples but are given freely to heterosexual couples." The 14th Amendment says that everyone gets the "equal protection of the laws." That's what that's talking about: that if someone is being treated unequally by the law -- that "additional liberties and rights" are arbitrarily given to one group and not another -- then that's wrong.
You're not actually disagreeing with me, you just don't understand what "equal protection" means.
Nobody is "forcing evolution".
Obviously false. Most schools are required to teach evolution, and children in most of those schools are required to learn it.
I have already described how you are free to not learn evolution if that is your choice.
Which is exactly equivalent to being free to not learn creationism.
This is very simple: you have to show how one is more, or less, free than the other. If you can't, then I am right.
Maybe your problem, as with equal protection, is that you don't know what's being discussed here. Someone pointed out examples of the "right wing" being anti-liberty. One of those examples was "forcing creationism in the schools." I simply pointed out this is no different, in terms of liberty, from forcing evolution in the schools. Or multiplication. Or William Faulkner.
You could at least be honest enough to say that you do not wish to discuss the topic.
I did. I said, quite clearly, "I just didn't see any point in continuing that tangent." That is obviously saying I don't wish to discuss it right now.
I don't understand why you chose not to quote far enough into the conversation to actually give some context to your assertions
Because context is provided by people hitting the "Parent" button.
Just to figure out what you are trying to assert to be false I had to read back to my previous post.
Good. If you don't remember what you wrote, then it's easy to go back and find out what you wrote. Glad it worked out for you. I sometimes forget what I write, too. I write a lot of short responses, and sometimes people just quote them, and I need to go back and find out what I was responding to. No big deal. Preferable, IMO, than overquoting, as long as it is not difficult to find out that context.
If your own opinion is that the entire problems nests there, then so be it.
It does.
However if you were to actually speak with homosexual life partners who have been denied the full rights afforded to married couples, you would no that your assertion is not accurate.
Um. Except that, again, "being denied the full rights afforded to married couples" is what equal protection is about. Perhaps you should read up on "equal protection."
I mentioned that there are additional liberties and rights that are currently not automatically extended to homosexual couples but are given freely to heterosexual couples.
Exactly: that's an equal protection issue.
I can give you two rights that are afforded to wed spouses upon the death of their partner, which are not afforded to homosexual couples:
That's not what I asked for an example of. I asked for an example of what existing married couples would lose if government stopped recognizing marriage tomorrow. Try again.
forcing "creationism in schools" is completely and utterly different from teaching evolution in schools
I didn't say anything about "teaching evolution." I said "forcing evolution." And in terms of freedom, no, they are precisely equivalent. And that you STILL have not even ATTEMPTED to say how, in terms of freedom, they are in any way different, is prety solid evidence that you have no argument.
Here, your statement is false.
False.
I already showed you the freedoms you have to not learn evolution.
Which are exactly equivalent to the freedoms you have to not learn creationism. You have not drawn any distinction between the two in terms of freedom.
I presume by the 14th amendment you are referring to due process, equal protection, etc.
No. I am talking about equal protection only. That's why I referred to "the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment."
Which is part of the cause but not all of it.
Bzzzzzzt. It's all of it.
Married couples recognized by the government also are automatically afforded certain liberties that gay couples do not automatically have access to.
Yes... that's precisely what the "equal protection" issue is.
However life as we know it for married couples would become more difficult in some important facets as individual groups come up with their own criteria for marriage and spouse's rights (and obligations).
I defy you to come up with an example.
No, it is not at all irrelevant.
False.
You are saying you want it taught
False.
However creation is not, in any way shape or form, science. Hence it does not belong in a science class.
You have not, in any way, described how this is, in any way, related to the issue of "freedom." You talk about the merits of whether it should be taught in a specific context... but that's not about freedom. You haven't even ATTEMPTED to tie the issue to freedom.
I am glad that my argument made sense to you and you now see the important distinction between the government and its people.
No, obviously. I just didn't see any point in continuing that tangent.
Isn't marriage a right that is extended to all straight humans currently?
Odd question. The short answer is no, for several reasons: first because you're talking about government recognition of marriage, which isn't a right. Government could stop recognizing marriage tomorrow, and no one's rights would be violated.
Additionally, of course, gays can marry as much as they want to in the eyes of the law, they just can't necessarily marry WHOM they want to. However -- obviously -- straights can't marry whomever they want to, either: siblings, for example, cannot marry.
So... no, you're just wrong.
The "right" being violated here, if there is one, is not the "right" to marry, but the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Of course, this argument also necessarily applies to incestuous marriages... so at the very least we must admit, if we're honest, that we can only argue about rights if we reject ALL restrictions on marriage between two consenting humans (and maybe even restrictions on the "two" part).
Well, if a parent wants their child to have freedom from the oppression of scientific facts, they can choose to home school them, enroll them in a religious school, or enroll them in a school where the life sciences are not taught.
And if a parent wants their child to have freedom from the oppression of creationism, they can choose to home school them, enroll them in a private atheist school, or enroll them in a school where creationism is not taught.
However the philosophy of of creationism has no place being taught in life (or any) sciences.
Which, again, is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
You're still contending that the AP is less biased. I provided proof of the bias. Therefore, you're still wrong.
Um.
Do you not understand basic principles of English?
I said they are LESS biased. You provided "proof" of bias, but not of MORE or EQUAL bias. Therefore, you did not demonstrate, in any way, that I am wrong.
It's like if I said 2 is less than 3, and you said "every numeral represents a quantity, and therefore '2' represents a quantity, therefore you're wrong that 2 is less than 3."
Tell me more about how little you know about habeas corpus.
I especially think it's funny when you have this grand complaints about how the right takes rights way, and you don't even understand the rights you're complaining about... at all.
Habeas corpus... means prisoners can not be held indefinitely without trial.
False. And your Wikipedia link doesn't say that, at all, anywhere. And in fact, many habeas petitions come after the trial. It is about whether a detention is justified, NOT whether someone has a trial.
Now granted, sometimes a habeas petition can lead to a trial -- such as in the case of AUECs who challenge their status determination and are found to be UECs or simply ECs, or not ECs at all -- but that's not the point. The point is to challenge the grounds of a detention.
Seriously, you're just completely ignorant here, and you're digging your hole deeper.
You are the one who hasn't backed up what they said.
Riiiiiiiight.
But I must ask again
Your question has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything I care in the least bit about, so I won't address it at all.
I'm having fun wasting your time, though.
By proving your ignorance?
Masochist, eh?
Oh, right, we already established you are a liberty-hating liberal, so "masochist" is an essential part of the equation. Unless you're really a supremacist of some kind, like a legislator who puts his own freedom above everyone else's.
Contract law can not compel third parties to honor the contract, therefore, it is not like a marriage.
Um. Marriages, in most cases, cannot compel third parties to anything, either.
And like desegregation
Segregation was mostly about government institutions. Of course the government should not discriminate, or separate people by race (which is why I won't answer any race questions on government forms). Desegregation does not force people, it forces government.
there are some things people should be forced to do
Thank you for admitting I was right all along. You do not "love freedom heartily."
Discrimination is not protected by the constitution
False.
Most drug laws were enacted by Nixon
False.
Show me one conservative governor who has legalized medical marijuana
Show me ANY governor who has legalized marijuana.
Creationism is not science. It is not falsifiable, and therefore should not be taught as a science. That's just not up for debate.
Whether or not that's true, it's entirely irrelevant to the topic: freedom.
Hmm, it's funny. You mention lots of supposed laws the left has enacted, without backing that up with anything but your own say so.
What part of it don't you get? All of it is obvious, but I can provide references for any of it for those who don't know the obvious.
Why don't I believe you?
Good question, but any answer I could give would be insulting to you.
What arms are we allowed to keep and bear? Nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? We all agree we need to draw a line, we just debate where that line is.
No serious person believes that handguns are not protected by the Second Amendment. None at all, anywhere. Everyone who believes they are not is driven to that view by an anti-gun agenda, rather than the history and text of the Second Amendment. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere in the text or history, to support that view.
To compare handguns to "nukes, tanks, and fighter planes" just shows that you can't defend the actual laws we're talking about.
The left is not interested in gun RIGHTS, they are interested in gun CONTROL, outright banning the very guns that most people use for the purposes that led to the Second Amendment.
Congress was not controlled by the Democrats when Bush started taking away due process.
The Senate was. And a majority of Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act.
No, we have never held people indefinitely without trial. Ever. Habeas corpus, look it up.
Wow. Wrong on so many levels.
First, yes, we have held people indefinitely without a trial, in every war. And without habeas corpus being honored.
Second, "habeas corpus" does not mean "trial," nor does it necessarily lead to one. For example, we could set up a law that says alien unlawful enemy combatants (AUECs) do not have the right to a trial. Perfectly constitutional. However, we may have to give them the right to challenge their status as AUECs... and that's habeas corpus: confronting the evidence that led to that status determination. If you're unsuccessful, the status remains, and you get no trial, even though you did get to exercise your habeas corpus rights. If you are successful, you get to be released, or charged with a crime, etc.
Seriously, try to understand the law before being snarky about it.
If they are combatants, they are covered by international convention, and a trial is required.
False. You're just making that up.
And I was right, you do not provide references for most of you wild assertions.
The issue of same-sex marriage, despite popular misunderstanding, is primarily about forcing society to recognize something, not about personal freedom. Every gay couple is free to marry outside of government recognition, and through contract law, to get almost all the rights afforded married couples.
And, when presented with the notion of allowing gay couples to get ALL the same rights as married couples (without forcing societal recognition of them as "married"), support from the right shoots way up. And the number of supporters on the right for such recognition of rights is continually growing.
Drug laws?
Actually, our most aggressive anti-drug laws have come from the left, starting with the Democratic congress in the 80s, and pushed hard by Democratically controlled city governments (predicated in large part on the death of Len Bias, which caused black leaders to scream for tougher drug laws, which they now -- rightfully -- decry). And the greatest push for drug decriminalization (or reduced sentences) today comes from the rightwing libertarians, but also includes many mainstream conservatives.
Further, the remaining opposition to drug legalization is primarily due to the well-founded concern that drug abuse leads to violations of the rights of others, through increased treatment costs and crime. That doesn't justify those laws in my eyes, but it is still, in their minds, all about protecting rights.
Creationism in schools?
Oh please. You can't be that stupid. We're talking about freedom here, and in terms of freedom, forcing "creationism in schools" is no different from forcing "evolution in schools."
So you have two flawed, but reasonable, examples. And one example, creationism, that's completely wrong.
Meanwhile, I can rattle off scores of examples from the left. The "Fairness Doctrine." Drug laws (as noted, the same ones you tack on the right). Forcing doctors and pharmacies to aid in abortions. Anti-gun laws. Confiscatory taxation policies, including the inheritance tax. All manner of enviromental laws, SOME of which protect the environment directly for others, but many of which do not. Anti-property rights laws. Anti-discrimination laws. And so on and so on.
The left has not taken away anyone's gun rights as defined in the constitution.
False, of course. This is obvious from the text and history of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it. There is not a single person who isn't on an anti-gun agenda who thinks that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. (And many anti-gunners even recognize this obvious fact.)
(And, further, I can note that no one has taken away anyone's gay marriage rights, or drug rights, as defined in the Constitution, thereby undermining your other examples.)
Nor the right to free association.
Obviously false. There's many classes of people I am not allowed to discriminate against. In Washington state, I can discriminate against you because you're tall or an asshole, but not because you're gay or Christian. This is an obvious and indisputable violation of my right to association. You may think it is JUSTIFIED, but that doesn't mean it's not a violation. There's no possible argument that it is not such a violation.
It was Bush that put protesters into 'free speech zones.'
Actually, it started at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, implemented by the Democratically controlled city of Atlanta, by mayor Andrew Young. They were used again by the Democrats in 1992, 1996, 2000. That was before it was ever used by the Republicans. It was used again at the DNC in 2004.
The history of these zones is tied far more closely to the left than to the right.
Further, a free speech zone DOES NOT, necessarily, viol
Why? Because it proves bias on the part of Breitbart.
Except that it's an AP story. You forgot that part.
I'm sorry if I hurt your widdle feewings.
I'm sorry you have to resort to lies and ad hominem.
you said that Breitbart is less biased than the NYT and go on to prove it by saying that Bretibart has AP reports, which isn't really an argument since the NYT also carries AP reports, which I already proved.
Yeah, again, as I already pointed out, that's a straw man. I didn't say Breitbart is less biased because it "has AP reports," I was pointing out that it is less biased because its news coverage consists almost entirely of AP (and other wire) reports. Which obviously isn't true of the NYT.
The right simply wants the license to do whatever they please.
False. The right wants EVERYONE to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt the rights of anyone else. The left, on the other hand, only loves "freedoms" that happen to mesh with their ultimate plans for society. So, no gun rights, no rights of association, no rights to due process, no rights to free speech... unless, at the time, the left happens to want to get something for themselves or their agendas out of those rights.
I did give actual arguments. Which you address below.
Sorry, I meant actually VALID arguments. You instead threw out obvious, and total, fallacies. What you said about the editorial pages and the NYT publishing AP stories were straw men, and non sequiturs besides. They had nothing to do with my arguments. And you had no other "arguments."
Wha?? One of the first thing you learn about the media is that all news is biased. Anyone who thinks that something like the AP is completely neutral and without bias is just kidding themselves.
Again, a straw man and a non sequitur. I never said anyone was completely neutral: in fact, I implied precisely the opposite when I said "the AP... is significantly less [biased] than the NYT." "Significantly less" does not necessarily imply not-zero, but in this context, it's the obvious connotation.
You contended that Bretibart is less biased than the NYT, so go ahead and prove it, chucklehead.
I... already did. Unless you believe the AP news stories are as, or more, biased than the NYT news stories. Most people who actually, you know, read news... they know this without me having to demonstrate it. I suppose you could claim that Breitbart is more biased in its story selection, but a. I doubt it, and b. that's a lot less important than the bias in the writing of the stories themselves.
What, anyone that gets wire copy is suddenly a journalist?
I never said or implied such a thing. Once again, you're just making things up. Are you just being dishonest, or are you really that bad at reading? I have a degree in journalism and wrote many stories, conducting many interviews, for various publications before I turned to computer programming.
And here is where the FAIL train arrives at its station.
Oh good. Let's see your point!
I know it takes a bit of research to know these things
Not for me, no. (See the first hit I found in Google, comment #16 1.5 years ago, for example, in which I refer to FY 2007 beginning in October 2006.)
The contention from the headline (and presumably the Bretibart article) was that the Obama Administration denied all the FOIA requests in Fiscal year 2009. Well, for almost 4 months of Fiscal year 2009 (Oct 1, 2008 - Jan 20, 2009), the Obama Administration DID NOT EXIST.
OK. But you threw that fact out as though it was TO ME. Why?
Funny that you say that, considering ever since Reagen Republicans have done far more to increase the size of government and our national debt than Democrats.
What are you smoking? That's not remotely true.
Notice how the debt increases during Republican presidents and decreased during Clinton.
First, note that Clinton had REPUBLICAN Congresses. You do know that Congress controls spending, right?
Second, of course, even if you want to stick with the mostly meaningless "President" angle, everyone concedes that Clinton had the benefit of a tech boom that offset spending increases: the poster said the size of government AND our national debt grew more under Republicans, but the size of government significantly ballooned under Clinton, too.
Third, and most importantly, even if you take away TARP, the size of government AND the debt have skyrocketed massively under Obama already, much more so than any single year under any other President, ever. (And if you want to include TARP, we'll note that two of Obama's appointees were among the three people most responsible for it, other than Bush, and that most Republicans in Congress voted against it.)
At best you could argue the Democrats are no worse than the Republicans, but to argue the Republicans have done "far more" is nonsense.
In the absence of an actual argument, it's tempting to resort to ad hominem, but it really doesn't help your case.
The news pages [of the NYT] are far less slanted
Yes, but slanted they are, and consistently so, in both story selection and in the writing of the stories. And the news pages of Breitbart just aren't biased in terms of the writing of the stories (except insofar as the AP etc. are, which is significantly less than the NYT).
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT
I never implied otherwise, and this does not impact my point in any way. You apparently think I was saying ALL news stories in the NYT are original? Nope. As a former journalist for a daily newspaper who regularly worked with wire copy, that would be foolish.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
Your point? Do you have one? If so I'd enjoy seeing it. But I doubt it.
Let's not forget the fact that under Bush, the top 1 percent, and top 10 percent, and top quintile, all paid a GREATER percentage of the overall tax burden than they did under Clinton.
People who talk about tax breaks "for the wealthy" are liars. EVERY income tax payer got a tax cut, and the rich took on a greater share of the overall burden.
A terrible idea if ever there was one. Denies the whole principle of one man, one vote.
I'll use the best strategy available to me to move the country in a more progressive, civilized, and egalitarian direction: voting Democratic
And I'll use the best strategy to move the country in a more free, truly civilized (instead of fake socialized forced "civilized"), and truly egalitarian (where everyone is ACTUALLY equal before the law, instead of the legalized class warfare you've been preaching): voting Republican.
Funny that you say that, considering ever since Reagen Republicans have done far more to increase the size of government and our national debt than Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't come down off of your high horse
Impossible, since I am not on one.
provide conversational background
I did that. I quoted you, and if you still didn't get it, you can click the Parent link. You have, literally, all the background directly in front of you.
The very idea of "overquoting" is itself a judgment call that for some reason you seem to feel yourself qualified to make for both of us
No, only for MY posts. Not for yours.
you seem to neglect that not all of us have fast connections to slashdot.
If by "neglect" you mean "don't care," then yes, I neglect that. I am not going to modify my best practices because anyone else has a slow connection.
Your own opinion says that. I presume others share your opinion. You have not been so kind as to say where that opinion comes from.
Would you like to share why you keep refusing to learn what "equal protection" means?
I have already laid out the problems with your asserting your opinion to be the only correct view on the issue
Yes, and in doing so, you demonstrated that you don't know what "equal protection" means, since what you described is what "equal protection" is precisely about.
Seriously. You say, "there are additional liberties and rights that are currently not automatically extended to homosexual couples but are given freely to heterosexual couples." The 14th Amendment says that everyone gets the "equal protection of the laws." That's what that's talking about: that if someone is being treated unequally by the law -- that "additional liberties and rights" are arbitrarily given to one group and not another -- then that's wrong.
You're not actually disagreeing with me, you just don't understand what "equal protection" means.
Nobody is "forcing evolution".
Obviously false. Most schools are required to teach evolution, and children in most of those schools are required to learn it.
I have already described how you are free to not learn evolution if that is your choice.
Which is exactly equivalent to being free to not learn creationism.
This is very simple: you have to show how one is more, or less, free than the other. If you can't, then I am right.
Maybe your problem, as with equal protection, is that you don't know what's being discussed here. Someone pointed out examples of the "right wing" being anti-liberty. One of those examples was "forcing creationism in the schools." I simply pointed out this is no different, in terms of liberty, from forcing evolution in the schools. Or multiplication. Or William Faulkner.
You could at least be honest enough to say that you do not wish to discuss the topic.
I did. I said, quite clearly, "I just didn't see any point in continuing that tangent." That is obviously saying I don't wish to discuss it right now.
No, I did not mean the writing itself. Perhaps you'd like to stop jumping to conclusions again.
I did not jump to conclusions at all: I commented on what you SAID. If you meant something different from what you said, that is not my problem.
Contrary to your uninformed belief, publishing of an article on a news site is controlled by the publisher
False. The publisher almost never controls that.
I've worked in publishing, on the editorial side as well as the finance side. I know how it works.
I've worked in journalism for the better part of the last 20 years.
Anything you've argued in this thread that doesn't address my two original points is a straw man.
Wow. You have no idea what "straw man" means, do you?
A straw man is attacking a position or argument that you don't have, while pretending it is your own. I never did that.
I don't understand why you chose not to quote far enough into the conversation to actually give some context to your assertions
Because context is provided by people hitting the "Parent" button.
Just to figure out what you are trying to assert to be false I had to read back to my previous post.
Good. If you don't remember what you wrote, then it's easy to go back and find out what you wrote. Glad it worked out for you. I sometimes forget what I write, too. I write a lot of short responses, and sometimes people just quote them, and I need to go back and find out what I was responding to. No big deal. Preferable, IMO, than overquoting, as long as it is not difficult to find out that context.
If your own opinion is that the entire problems nests there, then so be it.
It does.
However if you were to actually speak with homosexual life partners who have been denied the full rights afforded to married couples, you would no that your assertion is not accurate.
Um. Except that, again, "being denied the full rights afforded to married couples" is what equal protection is about. Perhaps you should read up on "equal protection."
I mentioned that there are additional liberties and rights that are currently not automatically extended to homosexual couples but are given freely to heterosexual couples.
Exactly: that's an equal protection issue.
I can give you two rights that are afforded to wed spouses upon the death of their partner, which are not afforded to homosexual couples:
That's not what I asked for an example of. I asked for an example of what existing married couples would lose if government stopped recognizing marriage tomorrow. Try again.
forcing "creationism in schools" is completely and utterly different from teaching evolution in schools
I didn't say anything about "teaching evolution." I said "forcing evolution." And in terms of freedom, no, they are precisely equivalent. And that you STILL have not even ATTEMPTED to say how, in terms of freedom, they are in any way different, is prety solid evidence that you have no argument.
Here, your statement is false.
False.
I already showed you the freedoms you have to not learn evolution.
Which are exactly equivalent to the freedoms you have to not learn creationism. You have not drawn any distinction between the two in terms of freedom.
That is not tangential.
False.
I presume by the 14th amendment you are referring to due process, equal protection, etc.
No. I am talking about equal protection only. That's why I referred to "the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment."
Which is part of the cause but not all of it.
Bzzzzzzt. It's all of it.
Married couples recognized by the government also are automatically afforded certain liberties that gay couples do not automatically have access to.
Yes ... that's precisely what the "equal protection" issue is.
However life as we know it for married couples would become more difficult in some important facets as individual groups come up with their own criteria for marriage and spouse's rights (and obligations).
I defy you to come up with an example.
No, it is not at all irrelevant.
False.
You are saying you want it taught
False.
However creation is not, in any way shape or form, science. Hence it does not belong in a science class.
You have not, in any way, described how this is, in any way, related to the issue of "freedom." You talk about the merits of whether it should be taught in a specific context ... but that's not about freedom. You haven't even ATTEMPTED to tie the issue to freedom.
I am glad that my argument made sense to you and you now see the important distinction between the government and its people.
No, obviously. I just didn't see any point in continuing that tangent.
Isn't marriage a right that is extended to all straight humans currently?
Odd question. The short answer is no, for several reasons: first because you're talking about government recognition of marriage, which isn't a right. Government could stop recognizing marriage tomorrow, and no one's rights would be violated.
Additionally, of course, gays can marry as much as they want to in the eyes of the law, they just can't necessarily marry WHOM they want to. However -- obviously -- straights can't marry whomever they want to, either: siblings, for example, cannot marry.
So ... no, you're just wrong.
The "right" being violated here, if there is one, is not the "right" to marry, but the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Of course, this argument also necessarily applies to incestuous marriages ... so at the very least we must admit, if we're honest, that we can only argue about rights if we reject ALL restrictions on marriage between two consenting humans (and maybe even restrictions on the "two" part).
Well, if a parent wants their child to have freedom from the oppression of scientific facts, they can choose to home school them, enroll them in a religious school, or enroll them in a school where the life sciences are not taught.
And if a parent wants their child to have freedom from the oppression of creationism, they can choose to home school them, enroll them in a private atheist school, or enroll them in a school where creationism is not taught.
However the philosophy of of creationism has no place being taught in life (or any) sciences.
Which, again, is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
You're still contending that the AP is less biased. I provided proof of the bias. Therefore, you're still wrong.
Um.
Do you not understand basic principles of English?
I said they are LESS biased. You provided "proof" of bias, but not of MORE or EQUAL bias. Therefore, you did not demonstrate, in any way, that I am wrong.
It's like if I said 2 is less than 3, and you said "every numeral represents a quantity, and therefore '2' represents a quantity, therefore you're wrong that 2 is less than 3."
Really? How do you come to that conclusion?
Because that's what it literally is.
The push for same-sex marriage is to get the government to recognize the marriage.
In this case, there's no distinction.
Whether or not every person in society recognizes it ...
... is irrelevant to what I said.
This is not about force as you state
False.
Except that they don't want almost all the rights that are afforded to straight couples.
So? Why not just work on those few rights, instead of "gay marriage"?
Evolution is a scientific principle that can be observed. Creationism is entirely faith-based and cannot be observed or tested.
None of what you said about evolution or creationism is related, in any way, to the issue of freedom.
Tell me more about how little you know about habeas corpus.
I especially think it's funny when you have this grand complaints about how the right takes rights way, and you don't even understand the rights you're complaining about ... at all.
Habeas corpus ... means prisoners can not be held indefinitely without trial.
False. And your Wikipedia link doesn't say that, at all, anywhere. And in fact, many habeas petitions come after the trial. It is about whether a detention is justified, NOT whether someone has a trial.
Now granted, sometimes a habeas petition can lead to a trial -- such as in the case of AUECs who challenge their status determination and are found to be UECs or simply ECs, or not ECs at all -- but that's not the point. The point is to challenge the grounds of a detention.
Seriously, you're just completely ignorant here, and you're digging your hole deeper.
You are the one who hasn't backed up what they said.
Riiiiiiiight.
But I must ask again
Your question has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything I care in the least bit about, so I won't address it at all.
I'm having fun wasting your time, though.
By proving your ignorance?
Masochist, eh?
Oh, right, we already established you are a liberty-hating liberal, so "masochist" is an essential part of the equation. Unless you're really a supremacist of some kind, like a legislator who puts his own freedom above everyone else's.
Boring.
Yes, when you can't back up what you say in the least bit, you are very boring.
Please, tell me again how habeas corpus means you get a trial. *snicker*
That was the most substantive thing you've said yet.
Whatever. You don't know what you're talking about, you got caught in your own ignorance, and you lose.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
False.
Contract law can not compel third parties to honor the contract, therefore, it is not like a marriage.
Um. Marriages, in most cases, cannot compel third parties to anything, either.
And like desegregation
Segregation was mostly about government institutions. Of course the government should not discriminate, or separate people by race (which is why I won't answer any race questions on government forms). Desegregation does not force people, it forces government.
there are some things people should be forced to do
Thank you for admitting I was right all along. You do not "love freedom heartily."
Discrimination is not protected by the constitution
False.
Most drug laws were enacted by Nixon
False.
Show me one conservative governor who has legalized medical marijuana
Show me ANY governor who has legalized marijuana.
Creationism is not science. It is not falsifiable, and therefore should not be taught as a science. That's just not up for debate.
Whether or not that's true, it's entirely irrelevant to the topic: freedom.
Hmm, it's funny. You mention lots of supposed laws the left has enacted, without backing that up with anything but your own say so.
What part of it don't you get? All of it is obvious, but I can provide references for any of it for those who don't know the obvious.
Why don't I believe you?
Good question, but any answer I could give would be insulting to you.
What arms are we allowed to keep and bear? Nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? We all agree we need to draw a line, we just debate where that line is.
No serious person believes that handguns are not protected by the Second Amendment. None at all, anywhere. Everyone who believes they are not is driven to that view by an anti-gun agenda, rather than the history and text of the Second Amendment. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere in the text or history, to support that view.
To compare handguns to "nukes, tanks, and fighter planes" just shows that you can't defend the actual laws we're talking about.
The left is not interested in gun RIGHTS, they are interested in gun CONTROL, outright banning the very guns that most people use for the purposes that led to the Second Amendment.
Congress was not controlled by the Democrats when Bush started taking away due process.
The Senate was. And a majority of Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act.
No, we have never held people indefinitely without trial. Ever. Habeas corpus, look it up.
Wow. Wrong on so many levels.
First, yes, we have held people indefinitely without a trial, in every war. And without habeas corpus being honored.
Second, "habeas corpus" does not mean "trial," nor does it necessarily lead to one. For example, we could set up a law that says alien unlawful enemy combatants (AUECs) do not have the right to a trial. Perfectly constitutional. However, we may have to give them the right to challenge their status as AUECs ... and that's habeas corpus: confronting the evidence that led to that status determination. If you're unsuccessful, the status remains, and you get no trial, even though you did get to exercise your habeas corpus rights. If you are successful, you get to be released, or charged with a crime, etc.
Seriously, try to understand the law before being snarky about it.
If they are combatants, they are covered by international convention, and a trial is required.
False. You're just making that up.
And I was right, you do not provide references for most of you wild assertions.
Everything I
Bullshit. Same sex marriage?
The issue of same-sex marriage, despite popular misunderstanding, is primarily about forcing society to recognize something, not about personal freedom. Every gay couple is free to marry outside of government recognition, and through contract law, to get almost all the rights afforded married couples.
And, when presented with the notion of allowing gay couples to get ALL the same rights as married couples (without forcing societal recognition of them as "married"), support from the right shoots way up. And the number of supporters on the right for such recognition of rights is continually growing.
Drug laws?
Actually, our most aggressive anti-drug laws have come from the left, starting with the Democratic congress in the 80s, and pushed hard by Democratically controlled city governments (predicated in large part on the death of Len Bias, which caused black leaders to scream for tougher drug laws, which they now -- rightfully -- decry). And the greatest push for drug decriminalization (or reduced sentences) today comes from the rightwing libertarians, but also includes many mainstream conservatives.
Further, the remaining opposition to drug legalization is primarily due to the well-founded concern that drug abuse leads to violations of the rights of others, through increased treatment costs and crime. That doesn't justify those laws in my eyes, but it is still, in their minds, all about protecting rights.
Creationism in schools?
Oh please. You can't be that stupid. We're talking about freedom here, and in terms of freedom, forcing "creationism in schools" is no different from forcing "evolution in schools."
So you have two flawed, but reasonable, examples. And one example, creationism, that's completely wrong.
Meanwhile, I can rattle off scores of examples from the left. The "Fairness Doctrine." Drug laws (as noted, the same ones you tack on the right). Forcing doctors and pharmacies to aid in abortions. Anti-gun laws. Confiscatory taxation policies, including the inheritance tax. All manner of enviromental laws, SOME of which protect the environment directly for others, but many of which do not. Anti-property rights laws. Anti-discrimination laws. And so on and so on.
The left has not taken away anyone's gun rights as defined in the constitution.
False, of course. This is obvious from the text and history of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it. There is not a single person who isn't on an anti-gun agenda who thinks that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. (And many anti-gunners even recognize this obvious fact.)
(And, further, I can note that no one has taken away anyone's gay marriage rights, or drug rights, as defined in the Constitution, thereby undermining your other examples.)
Nor the right to free association.
Obviously false. There's many classes of people I am not allowed to discriminate against. In Washington state, I can discriminate against you because you're tall or an asshole, but not because you're gay or Christian. This is an obvious and indisputable violation of my right to association. You may think it is JUSTIFIED, but that doesn't mean it's not a violation. There's no possible argument that it is not such a violation.
It was Bush that put protesters into 'free speech zones.'
Actually, it started at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, implemented by the Democratically controlled city of Atlanta, by mayor Andrew Young. They were used again by the Democrats in 1992, 1996, 2000. That was before it was ever used by the Republicans. It was used again at the DNC in 2004.
The history of these zones is tied far more closely to the left than to the right.
Further, a free speech zone DOES NOT, necessarily, viol
Why? Because it proves bias on the part of Breitbart.
Except that it's an AP story. You forgot that part.
I'm sorry if I hurt your widdle feewings.
I'm sorry you have to resort to lies and ad hominem.
you said that Breitbart is less biased than the NYT and go on to prove it by saying that Bretibart has AP reports, which isn't really an argument since the NYT also carries AP reports, which I already proved.
Yeah, again, as I already pointed out, that's a straw man. I didn't say Breitbart is less biased because it "has AP reports," I was pointing out that it is less biased because its news coverage consists almost entirely of AP (and other wire) reports. Which obviously isn't true of the NYT.
The right simply wants the license to do whatever they please.
False. The right wants EVERYONE to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt the rights of anyone else. The left, on the other hand, only loves "freedoms" that happen to mesh with their ultimate plans for society. So, no gun rights, no rights of association, no rights to due process, no rights to free speech ... unless, at the time, the left happens to want to get something for themselves or their agendas out of those rights.
Insisting you are right convinces no one but yourself.
Shrug. I think my insistence that my words mean what they say is far more convincing than your insistence that they do not.
None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license
What a great pro-Republican quote. Kinda harsh, though, toward the left.
I did give actual arguments. Which you address below.
Sorry, I meant actually VALID arguments. You instead threw out obvious, and total, fallacies. What you said about the editorial pages and the NYT publishing AP stories were straw men, and non sequiturs besides. They had nothing to do with my arguments. And you had no other "arguments."
Wha?? One of the first thing you learn about the media is that all news is biased. Anyone who thinks that something like the AP is completely neutral and without bias is just kidding themselves.
Again, a straw man and a non sequitur. I never said anyone was completely neutral: in fact, I implied precisely the opposite when I said "the AP ... is significantly less [biased] than the NYT." "Significantly less" does not necessarily imply not-zero, but in this context, it's the obvious connotation.
You contended that Bretibart is less biased than the NYT, so go ahead and prove it, chucklehead.
I ... already did. Unless you believe the AP news stories are as, or more, biased than the NYT news stories. Most people who actually, you know, read news ... they know this without me having to demonstrate it. I suppose you could claim that Breitbart is more biased in its story selection, but a. I doubt it, and b. that's a lot less important than the bias in the writing of the stories themselves.
What, anyone that gets wire copy is suddenly a journalist?
I never said or implied such a thing. Once again, you're just making things up. Are you just being dishonest, or are you really that bad at reading? I have a degree in journalism and wrote many stories, conducting many interviews, for various publications before I turned to computer programming.
And here is where the FAIL train arrives at its station.
Oh good. Let's see your point!
I know it takes a bit of research to know these things
Not for me, no. (See the first hit I found in Google, comment #16 1.5 years ago, for example, in which I refer to FY 2007 beginning in October 2006.)
The contention from the headline (and presumably the Bretibart article) was that the Obama Administration denied all the FOIA requests in Fiscal year 2009. Well, for almost 4 months of Fiscal year 2009 (Oct 1, 2008 - Jan 20, 2009), the Obama Administration DID NOT EXIST.
OK. But you threw that fact out as though it was TO ME. Why?
Funny that you say that, considering ever since Reagen Republicans have done far more to increase the size of government and our national debt than Democrats.
What are you smoking? That's not remotely true.
Notice how the debt increases during Republican presidents and decreased during Clinton.
First, note that Clinton had REPUBLICAN Congresses. You do know that Congress controls spending, right?
Second, of course, even if you want to stick with the mostly meaningless "President" angle, everyone concedes that Clinton had the benefit of a tech boom that offset spending increases: the poster said the size of government AND our national debt grew more under Republicans, but the size of government significantly ballooned under Clinton, too.
Third, and most importantly, even if you take away TARP, the size of government AND the debt have skyrocketed massively under Obama already, much more so than any single year under any other President, ever. (And if you want to include TARP, we'll note that two of Obama's appointees were among the three people most responsible for it, other than Bush, and that most Republicans in Congress voted against it.)
At best you could argue the Democrats are no worse than the Republicans, but to argue the Republicans have done "far more" is nonsense.
income inequality and wealth inequality grew
False.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Then you should keep thinking until you get it right.
*pat pat*
You just go on believing that.
In the absence of an actual argument, it's tempting to resort to ad hominem, but it really doesn't help your case.
The news pages [of the NYT] are far less slanted
Yes, but slanted they are, and consistently so, in both story selection and in the writing of the stories. And the news pages of Breitbart just aren't biased in terms of the writing of the stories (except insofar as the AP etc. are, which is significantly less than the NYT).
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT
I never implied otherwise, and this does not impact my point in any way. You apparently think I was saying ALL news stories in the NYT are original? Nope. As a former journalist for a daily newspaper who regularly worked with wire copy, that would be foolish.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
Your point? Do you have one? If so I'd enjoy seeing it. But I doubt it.
Let's not forget the fact that under Bush, the top 1 percent, and top 10 percent, and top quintile, all paid a GREATER percentage of the overall tax burden than they did under Clinton.
People who talk about tax breaks "for the wealthy" are liars. EVERY income tax payer got a tax cut, and the rich took on a greater share of the overall burden.
proportional representation
A terrible idea if ever there was one. Denies the whole principle of one man, one vote.
I'll use the best strategy available to me to move the country in a more progressive, civilized, and egalitarian direction: voting Democratic
And I'll use the best strategy to move the country in a more free, truly civilized (instead of fake socialized forced "civilized"), and truly egalitarian (where everyone is ACTUALLY equal before the law, instead of the legalized class warfare you've been preaching): voting Republican.
Progressive is regressive.
Funny that you say that, considering ever since Reagen Republicans have done far more to increase the size of government and our national debt than Democrats.
What are you smoking? That's not remotely true.