This is not a UN/World issue. My point was that we shouldn't feel ashamed about a simple difference in domestic policy simply because some people in the rest of the world think it's ludicrous. To use my same example again, Swedes shouldn't (and don't) care what American's think of their medical system and American's shouldn't (and don't) care what anyone else thinks of their medical system. Also, as always, my opinion is not indicative of American's opinions as a whole. Many people probably agree with you. Hell, I probably agree with you on a lot of issues (if I wasn't feeling so contrarian at the moment). My point is foreign opinion doesn't, and shouldn't, have influence on domestic policy. Whether you feel Americans should be doing something different is completely irrelevant.
You basically are saying that it is ok to disprove someone's illogical statement by using the exact same type of illogical statement. That is false. An appeal to authority is always false. Always. The founding fathers were not perfect. It doesn't matter one iota whether your ideas are closer to the founding fathers (which they aren't), because the entire premise of that argument is that the founding fathers' ideas are inherently sacred or better than other ideas. They weren't, as any intelligent person would agree. Although you may think that you are right, you are no closer to making a persuasive argument than he is.
I was being sarcastic, so I'll expand on what I meant a little bit. Do you really expect people here to "do things the world could admire" and stop "serving its own interests?" I hate to break it to you, but Americans don't give a shit what the world thinks. This was true when we were doing "admirable" things around WWII and it's true today. The only reason that we were more admired then than we are now is politics. It would've been pretty hard for France or the UK (or Australia) to complain about America selfishly protecting her own interests when those interests included not having Germany and Japan take over the world. Nothing has really changed between then and now.
It's also foolish to claim that we should change because some people in the world disapprove of how we run things. If you're Swedish, do you really care that Americans dislike your social system? Should it bother Australians that most countries don't like their handling of oil rights in the Timor Sea? Of course not, because its *your* system and nobody gets to tell you how to run it. Every country acts in its own self-interest. Every single one without exception. It's just a matter of how much they can get away with politically. Stern disapproval from some parts of the world is not going to change anything, especially on a wholly domestic issue like health care.
Whoa, calm down there Sparky. I never said or even implied that you couldn't talk about the founding fathers in an argument. I have no idea why you would think that. I said specifically "please refrain from using the founders as god-like figures." I think that sums up my point nicely.
When I said make your arguments stand on their own merit, I was specifically referring to two of your comments: "the founding fathers were getting at liberty and freedom... freedom from things like disease and lives shortened by infirmary," and "the fact is, i am more in tune with what the founding fathers wanted than you are." The first one is spurious, the founding fathers were not talking about lives free from disease and infirmary. They were talking about lives free from an oppressive and tyrannical government.
The second one is just completely unnecessary. Don't resort to that fallacy, even if using it to show that the other person is wrong. Your other points are sufficient. It also weakens your overall stance quite a bit. By tying the second part to the first (i.e. because the founders were talking about "life" the government needs to set up socialized medicine to protect life) all I need to do to unravel your argument is criticize that literal interpretation (which is quite easy) and your argument falls apart.
Your first point (think progressive, founders very obviously weren't perfect) is rock solid. Stick with that. The appeal to authority is *always* a fallacy, no matter the authority and no matter the context. By countering and essentially saying "you're right in adoring the founding fathers but i am in more in tune with the founding fathers than you are" you completely lose whatever you were trying to say. It doesn't matter whether you are closer to the founding fathers than he is (BTW the concept of referring to the ideas or desires of the "founding fathers" is itself ridiculous as they rarely agreed on anything, but I digress). What matters are your ideas on their own merits. That's it, that's all.
the founding fathers were getting at liberty and freedom... freedom from things like disease and lives shortened by infirmary.
That is not what the founding fathers were talking about when talking about liberty and freedom at all. You are just as misguided when you appeal to their authority as the GP. Please refrain from using the founding fathers as god-like figures. They knew they were human and apt to be wrong or short-sighted, that's why they made the Constitution a living document.
Make your arguments stand on their own merit. Don't counter a fallacy with a slightly more logical use of the same fallacy.
Here is the dirty little secret of capitalism --- it thrives on a huge class of impoverished workers. That's a fact. Couldn't exist without 'em.
Depends on what your definition of poverty is. Try telling someone impoverished in India or China that most of the "poor" in America are in poverty. Yes, capitalism creates large wealth difference. There's no dirty secret there, that's pretty much the definition of capitalism. But as the rich get richer, they drag the poor up with them. That's why someone in the US who we call "poor" is still one of the most wealthy and privileged human beings in the history of the world.
Agreed. Like other radical political groups, Greenpeace has gone off the deep end and now seems to just want to promote their own ideology and stay in the public profile. They largely succeeded with their original anti-whaling and nuclear testing goals, now they have to find something to do with their time so they go after new targets, regardless of their validity.
If they ever want anything remotely resembling acceptance from the public (which I doubt they actually want), the very first thing they need to do is give up their fanatical anti-nuclear position. They are too idealistic and have no appreciation for practical concerns. There is absolutely no way we can solve the global warming problem without switching almost entirely to nuclear. For most places, renewable resources would barely make a dent in total energy consumption, and that consumption is growing at a rapid rate. In a hundred years maybe we'll have the technology to go solar or bio-fuel, but I seriously doubt it. Right now there is absolutely no choice if we want to clean up our air.
Are there some concerns about nuclear? Of course, but they are mostly exaggerated. Compared to what we are facing with global warming and competition for a dwindling supply of fossil fuels it is ludicrous to be worried about nuclear power.
Microsoft/Windows is one of the top two or three most recognizable brands in the world (it may be #1 but I can't recall). They're competing with Coca-Cola, McDonald's, GE, Disney, and IBM for brand recognition, not Apple (regardless of how "cool" their brand is). Somehow I think that you're not in marketing. Steve Jobs would trade the Apple brand for Windows in a heartbeat. The yuppie hipster crowd is only so large.
Yeah, publicity is really the one thing the iPhone was missing. Apple was wondering how they could possibly start word of mouth speculation about their product, but thanks to Steve Ballmer now it's on everybody's mind. He really bailed their marketing department out on this one. They were on the rocks before, but now that scrappy underdog of a company might just pull through after all!
It's of questionable legality, not necessarily illegal. The reason why people are freaking out is because they apparently just figured out that Digg doesn't really give a shit about the democratic ideals and user controls they talk about so much. Hello, it's a business! Kudos for kicking their ass today, diggers, but they never really stood for that stuff. They're just trying to make money like every other company. Most of the time they can do it without compromising but everybody knows exactly what will happen when push comes to shove. Why do people actually buy into crap like that?
I'm not misrepresenting the statistics. Whenever you compare Sony products to Nintendo products, it as if you are assuming that it is a zero sum game. Just because Nintendo is more successful doesn't mean that the PSP/PS3 also can't be successful, even if the profits are more modest. Would you say that the N64 was a failure because the PSX wildy outsold it, or the Gamecube a failure because the PS2 outsold it by an even larger margin than the PSX/64? Of course not.
You make a very big assumption that the PSP is a failure. The PSP didn't fail. It is a very successful console (selling 25 million worldwide according to Wikipedia). That's substantially less than Nintendo's 40 million worldwide for the DS (not even counting the GBA), but it hardly qualifies for a failure. Comparing it to the Neo-Geo Pocket and Lynx is ridiculous. The Game Gear is probably as accurate as you can get, because it was a successful handheld that was still a distant second to the Game Boy, however the PSP is much more successful than the Game Gear was. There will likely be more iterations of the PSP and we'll see where it goes from there. If anything Sony should be lauded for creating the first handheld that survived battling Nintendo heads-up.
The PS3 is also hardly to be considered a failure (no matter what stories you may read on/.) as it has sold over 3.5 million units in six months. Whether it passes the Wii/360 remains to be seen over the lifetime of the console, but by no means is it a failure.
Just because you don't like something and you didn't buy one doesn't mean it sucks. It definitely doesn't mean it is a failure. As far as either being "Sony's biggest blunder," as you seem to claim, remember that we're talking about Sony here. This is the company that lost (potentially) the entire home movie market and (actually) the entire portable audio player market.
Aside from Wii most games I've seen for the new consoles are just shinier rehashes of last seasons games.
Most games on the Wii are also rehashes of last season's games. It's just that now you play by swinging your arms around!
I actually kinda like the Wii, so I'm not just bashing. Most launches suck because companies think it's too risky to launch entirely new titles. Couple that with Nintendo's tendency to stick with established characters and you have a pretty bland console other than the (very fun) novelty of the Wiimote.
Reread that post because you obviously didn't the first time. He never claimed that Blu-ray has won the format war. He was simply pointing out that DVD is also proprietary and Blu-ray is far from being considered a failure, it is in fact probably leading HD-DVD.
They probably won't because MySpace is owned by News Corp., which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Let's just say Mr. Murdoch doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to promoting freedom and democracy. This is hardly surprising.
Saying that those people paid the price of freedom is NOT going to win you any friends.
It may not win you any friends, but it's the truth. We are not safe. If we have freedom, we never WILL be safe. That's just the price you have to pay for living in a free society. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't have it both ways. If you respect people's freedoms at all times, occasionally a criminal is going to abuse that trust and do something terrible.
Just because it scares people that they finally realize just how unsafe we are doesn't mean we go around and start arresting kids for what they write. If you think the kid is disturbed, talk to his parents and bring in a counselor to determine what should be done. You can't start arresting people because they write something that scares you.
Actually, the electronics part is also a technical detail which has changed slightly, and may change more in the future as well. Also, the definition you gave is just a definition of a network. It's not unique to "the Internet."
All these terms (left, right, moderate) are all relative. It's a completely arbitrary distinction meant to generalize and categorize people's political beliefs. Your claim that there is no such thing as a moderate group is ridiculous. You are assuming a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. It is just as easy (and more descriptive) to split the political spectrum into three groups as it is to split it into two. None of these things have concrete definitions.
Thank you very much. I hate the red vs. blue debate being framed as a dramatic *social* distinction, and try and counter it every time I see it. Politically speaking, if a Republican candidate wins 60-40 in Kansas then that's a huge victory. But what does it really mean? Maybe 40% of voters are hardcore conservatives and 25% are hardcore liberals, but what about everybody else? If voter turnout is only 55%, you're not getting a good representation of the actual population. While most people that feel very strongly on political issues vote, there are a lot of moderate people that simply aren't voting for whatever reason.
Also, having lived in many different places in my life (in the West) I can tell you that a Republican/Democrat in Kansas is usually not the same thing as a Republican/Democrat in California. Rural vs. urban gives a better impression than red vs. blue, but even that is misleading.
What do you recommend for my (hypothetical) cancer? St. John's Wort?
Willful ignorance offends me. Someone who asserts his opinion as fact using fallacious arguments angers me. Someone who does so to attack science and reason makes me violently angry.
"Every man has a right to his opinion. No man has a right to be wrong in his facts." - Bernard Baruch
The Chinese, and others, have been using herbs since recorded history. Their track record is substantially better than today's drugs.
Really? I was under the impression that today's life spans are remarkably longer and medicine substantially more effective than not only anything in recorded history, but definitely more than so-called "natural" medicine you see nowadays.
What are the warnings on herbs and vitamins? None!
That's because the FDA doesn't regulate herbs and vitamins, which is where the requirement for listing adverse side effects comes from. If all of a sudden the FDA stopped regulating pharmaceutical drugs, would you somehow think they were better because of a lack of warnings? Of course not.
Even though you're throwing evolution around in your argument, you obviously don't understand a goddamn thing about science. We are not "f'ing" with mother nature. We are fixing the system. Our evolution is not perfect. There is no such thing as "Mother Nature". You are a complete fucking idiot. Herbal healing is just another long line of ideas that claim that science is going too far and we need to resort to the traditional ways of thinking, be it Christian Science, acupuncture, or any number of other bullshit ideologies.
The only way to know the truth of how drugs affect our bodies is through science. I know that there is scientific evidence for specific herbs' uses in medicine, and that's fine. Herbs certainly have valid uses. But to claim (as you seem to be doing) that traditional herbal medicine is superior to modern medicine simply because of some adverse side effects and lobbying power by pharmaceutical companies is to ignore nearly the entire body of scientific study on medicine! You can't cherry-pick which scientific ideas you want to accept, simply because some conflict with your pre-conceived view of the world.
If you're going to try and be conservative at least extend the effort to remove any and all references to scientific ideas from your post. That's what the "smart" conservatives do. I wish I could find language to explain the contempt I feel for your ideas. No matter how venomous my words may seem they will not project the absolute hatred I have for whoever has convinced you that this bullshit is anything remotely resembling the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a UN/World issue. My point was that we shouldn't feel ashamed about a simple difference in domestic policy simply because some people in the rest of the world think it's ludicrous. To use my same example again, Swedes shouldn't (and don't) care what American's think of their medical system and American's shouldn't (and don't) care what anyone else thinks of their medical system. Also, as always, my opinion is not indicative of American's opinions as a whole. Many people probably agree with you. Hell, I probably agree with you on a lot of issues (if I wasn't feeling so contrarian at the moment). My point is foreign opinion doesn't, and shouldn't, have influence on domestic policy. Whether you feel Americans should be doing something different is completely irrelevant.
You basically are saying that it is ok to disprove someone's illogical statement by using the exact same type of illogical statement. That is false. An appeal to authority is always false. Always. The founding fathers were not perfect. It doesn't matter one iota whether your ideas are closer to the founding fathers (which they aren't), because the entire premise of that argument is that the founding fathers' ideas are inherently sacred or better than other ideas. They weren't, as any intelligent person would agree. Although you may think that you are right, you are no closer to making a persuasive argument than he is.
I was being sarcastic, so I'll expand on what I meant a little bit. Do you really expect people here to "do things the world could admire" and stop "serving its own interests?" I hate to break it to you, but Americans don't give a shit what the world thinks. This was true when we were doing "admirable" things around WWII and it's true today. The only reason that we were more admired then than we are now is politics. It would've been pretty hard for France or the UK (or Australia) to complain about America selfishly protecting her own interests when those interests included not having Germany and Japan take over the world. Nothing has really changed between then and now.
It's also foolish to claim that we should change because some people in the world disapprove of how we run things. If you're Swedish, do you really care that Americans dislike your social system? Should it bother Australians that most countries don't like their handling of oil rights in the Timor Sea? Of course not, because its *your* system and nobody gets to tell you how to run it. Every country acts in its own self-interest. Every single one without exception. It's just a matter of how much they can get away with politically. Stern disapproval from some parts of the world is not going to change anything, especially on a wholly domestic issue like health care.
Whoa, calm down there Sparky. I never said or even implied that you couldn't talk about the founding fathers in an argument. I have no idea why you would think that. I said specifically "please refrain from using the founders as god-like figures." I think that sums up my point nicely.
When I said make your arguments stand on their own merit, I was specifically referring to two of your comments: "the founding fathers were getting at liberty and freedom... freedom from things like disease and lives shortened by infirmary," and "the fact is, i am more in tune with what the founding fathers wanted than you are." The first one is spurious, the founding fathers were not talking about lives free from disease and infirmary. They were talking about lives free from an oppressive and tyrannical government.
The second one is just completely unnecessary. Don't resort to that fallacy, even if using it to show that the other person is wrong. Your other points are sufficient. It also weakens your overall stance quite a bit. By tying the second part to the first (i.e. because the founders were talking about "life" the government needs to set up socialized medicine to protect life) all I need to do to unravel your argument is criticize that literal interpretation (which is quite easy) and your argument falls apart.
Your first point (think progressive, founders very obviously weren't perfect) is rock solid. Stick with that. The appeal to authority is *always* a fallacy, no matter the authority and no matter the context. By countering and essentially saying "you're right in adoring the founding fathers but i am in more in tune with the founding fathers than you are" you completely lose whatever you were trying to say. It doesn't matter whether you are closer to the founding fathers than he is (BTW the concept of referring to the ideas or desires of the "founding fathers" is itself ridiculous as they rarely agreed on anything, but I digress). What matters are your ideas on their own merits. That's it, that's all.
So sorry to disappoint you sir, we'll get on that right away!
That is not what the founding fathers were talking about when talking about liberty and freedom at all. You are just as misguided when you appeal to their authority as the GP. Please refrain from using the founding fathers as god-like figures. They knew they were human and apt to be wrong or short-sighted, that's why they made the Constitution a living document.
Make your arguments stand on their own merit. Don't counter a fallacy with a slightly more logical use of the same fallacy.
Depends on what your definition of poverty is. Try telling someone impoverished in India or China that most of the "poor" in America are in poverty. Yes, capitalism creates large wealth difference. There's no dirty secret there, that's pretty much the definition of capitalism. But as the rich get richer, they drag the poor up with them. That's why someone in the US who we call "poor" is still one of the most wealthy and privileged human beings in the history of the world.
Agreed. Like other radical political groups, Greenpeace has gone off the deep end and now seems to just want to promote their own ideology and stay in the public profile. They largely succeeded with their original anti-whaling and nuclear testing goals, now they have to find something to do with their time so they go after new targets, regardless of their validity.
If they ever want anything remotely resembling acceptance from the public (which I doubt they actually want), the very first thing they need to do is give up their fanatical anti-nuclear position. They are too idealistic and have no appreciation for practical concerns. There is absolutely no way we can solve the global warming problem without switching almost entirely to nuclear. For most places, renewable resources would barely make a dent in total energy consumption, and that consumption is growing at a rapid rate. In a hundred years maybe we'll have the technology to go solar or bio-fuel, but I seriously doubt it. Right now there is absolutely no choice if we want to clean up our air.
Are there some concerns about nuclear? Of course, but they are mostly exaggerated. Compared to what we are facing with global warming and competition for a dwindling supply of fossil fuels it is ludicrous to be worried about nuclear power.
Microsoft/Windows is one of the top two or three most recognizable brands in the world (it may be #1 but I can't recall). They're competing with Coca-Cola, McDonald's, GE, Disney, and IBM for brand recognition, not Apple (regardless of how "cool" their brand is). Somehow I think that you're not in marketing. Steve Jobs would trade the Apple brand for Windows in a heartbeat. The yuppie hipster crowd is only so large.
Yeah, publicity is really the one thing the iPhone was missing. Apple was wondering how they could possibly start word of mouth speculation about their product, but thanks to Steve Ballmer now it's on everybody's mind. He really bailed their marketing department out on this one. They were on the rocks before, but now that scrappy underdog of a company might just pull through after all!
Well it's not 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 BF, and it's not 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1. This riddle is unsolvable!
It's of questionable legality, not necessarily illegal. The reason why people are freaking out is because they apparently just figured out that Digg doesn't really give a shit about the democratic ideals and user controls they talk about so much. Hello, it's a business! Kudos for kicking their ass today, diggers, but they never really stood for that stuff. They're just trying to make money like every other company. Most of the time they can do it without compromising but everybody knows exactly what will happen when push comes to shove. Why do people actually buy into crap like that?
I'm not misrepresenting the statistics. Whenever you compare Sony products to Nintendo products, it as if you are assuming that it is a zero sum game. Just because Nintendo is more successful doesn't mean that the PSP/PS3 also can't be successful, even if the profits are more modest. Would you say that the N64 was a failure because the PSX wildy outsold it, or the Gamecube a failure because the PS2 outsold it by an even larger margin than the PSX/64? Of course not.
You make a very big assumption that the PSP is a failure. The PSP didn't fail. It is a very successful console (selling 25 million worldwide according to Wikipedia). That's substantially less than Nintendo's 40 million worldwide for the DS (not even counting the GBA), but it hardly qualifies for a failure. Comparing it to the Neo-Geo Pocket and Lynx is ridiculous. The Game Gear is probably as accurate as you can get, because it was a successful handheld that was still a distant second to the Game Boy, however the PSP is much more successful than the Game Gear was. There will likely be more iterations of the PSP and we'll see where it goes from there. If anything Sony should be lauded for creating the first handheld that survived battling Nintendo heads-up.
The PS3 is also hardly to be considered a failure (no matter what stories you may read on /.) as it has sold over 3.5 million units in six months. Whether it passes the Wii/360 remains to be seen over the lifetime of the console, but by no means is it a failure.
Just because you don't like something and you didn't buy one doesn't mean it sucks. It definitely doesn't mean it is a failure. As far as either being "Sony's biggest blunder," as you seem to claim, remember that we're talking about Sony here. This is the company that lost (potentially) the entire home movie market and (actually) the entire portable audio player market.
Most games on the Wii are also rehashes of last season's games. It's just that now you play by swinging your arms around!
I actually kinda like the Wii, so I'm not just bashing. Most launches suck because companies think it's too risky to launch entirely new titles. Couple that with Nintendo's tendency to stick with established characters and you have a pretty bland console other than the (very fun) novelty of the Wiimote.
Reread that post because you obviously didn't the first time. He never claimed that Blu-ray has won the format war. He was simply pointing out that DVD is also proprietary and Blu-ray is far from being considered a failure, it is in fact probably leading HD-DVD.
You don't have to use the term racist to describe anyone who is prejudiced. There is already a word that encompasses that.
They probably won't because MySpace is owned by News Corp., which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Let's just say Mr. Murdoch doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to promoting freedom and democracy. This is hardly surprising.
Who are "they"?
It may not win you any friends, but it's the truth. We are not safe. If we have freedom, we never WILL be safe. That's just the price you have to pay for living in a free society. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't have it both ways. If you respect people's freedoms at all times, occasionally a criminal is going to abuse that trust and do something terrible.
Just because it scares people that they finally realize just how unsafe we are doesn't mean we go around and start arresting kids for what they write. If you think the kid is disturbed, talk to his parents and bring in a counselor to determine what should be done. You can't start arresting people because they write something that scares you.
Actually, the electronics part is also a technical detail which has changed slightly, and may change more in the future as well. Also, the definition you gave is just a definition of a network. It's not unique to "the Internet."
All these terms (left, right, moderate) are all relative. It's a completely arbitrary distinction meant to generalize and categorize people's political beliefs. Your claim that there is no such thing as a moderate group is ridiculous. You are assuming a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. It is just as easy (and more descriptive) to split the political spectrum into three groups as it is to split it into two. None of these things have concrete definitions.
Thank you very much. I hate the red vs. blue debate being framed as a dramatic *social* distinction, and try and counter it every time I see it. Politically speaking, if a Republican candidate wins 60-40 in Kansas then that's a huge victory. But what does it really mean? Maybe 40% of voters are hardcore conservatives and 25% are hardcore liberals, but what about everybody else? If voter turnout is only 55%, you're not getting a good representation of the actual population. While most people that feel very strongly on political issues vote, there are a lot of moderate people that simply aren't voting for whatever reason.
Also, having lived in many different places in my life (in the West) I can tell you that a Republican/Democrat in Kansas is usually not the same thing as a Republican/Democrat in California. Rural vs. urban gives a better impression than red vs. blue, but even that is misleading.
What do you recommend for my (hypothetical) cancer? St. John's Wort?
Willful ignorance offends me. Someone who asserts his opinion as fact using fallacious arguments angers me. Someone who does so to attack science and reason makes me violently angry.
"Every man has a right to his opinion. No man has a right to be wrong in his facts." - Bernard Baruch
Really? I was under the impression that today's life spans are remarkably longer and medicine substantially more effective than not only anything in recorded history, but definitely more than so-called "natural" medicine you see nowadays.
That's because the FDA doesn't regulate herbs and vitamins, which is where the requirement for listing adverse side effects comes from. If all of a sudden the FDA stopped regulating pharmaceutical drugs, would you somehow think they were better because of a lack of warnings? Of course not.
Even though you're throwing evolution around in your argument, you obviously don't understand a goddamn thing about science. We are not "f'ing" with mother nature. We are fixing the system. Our evolution is not perfect. There is no such thing as "Mother Nature". You are a complete fucking idiot. Herbal healing is just another long line of ideas that claim that science is going too far and we need to resort to the traditional ways of thinking, be it Christian Science, acupuncture, or any number of other bullshit ideologies.
The only way to know the truth of how drugs affect our bodies is through science. I know that there is scientific evidence for specific herbs' uses in medicine, and that's fine. Herbs certainly have valid uses. But to claim (as you seem to be doing) that traditional herbal medicine is superior to modern medicine simply because of some adverse side effects and lobbying power by pharmaceutical companies is to ignore nearly the entire body of scientific study on medicine! You can't cherry-pick which scientific ideas you want to accept, simply because some conflict with your pre-conceived view of the world.
If you're going to try and be conservative at least extend the effort to remove any and all references to scientific ideas from your post. That's what the "smart" conservatives do. I wish I could find language to explain the contempt I feel for your ideas. No matter how venomous my words may seem they will not project the absolute hatred I have for whoever has convinced you that this bullshit is anything remotely resembling the truth.