Free Republic

This is just another reason why, for public health reasons, we need to quarantine the homos on their own island. I propose Rhode Island.

Well, I’d guess it’s stated like that for two reasons:

1) They’re British, and you know that nuanced, understated British humor.

2) It’s impossible to prove a negative. Saying that the existence of a higher being is impossible would be foolish, because, strictly speaking, one can never be totally certain. I am not a superstitious person, and certainly don’t believe in Christian mythology, but I wouldn’t ever state as fact that there is no god for the same reason one can’t rule out unicorns, psychics, or leprechauns.

Of course, I meant to say “interstate commerce”. It looks like KeyesPlease beat me to the punch with a similar thought in post 64, anyway.

If we return to the principles of the Constitution, secession is not necessary.

With a country as large as ours, a single all-powerful federal government doesn’t scale. There is no way that a single government entity can be nimble enough to account for the needs of both the people in large metropolitan areas like San Francisco and rural areas in Kansas. They have different needs, different standards, and different expectations, and trying to apply one set of rules to both leads to the divisions that we see now.

The problem is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any interest in shrinking the scope of the federal government; once the power has been allocated, they’re obviously not going to give it back. We can’t assign the blame to one party more than the other, either; the Democrats hypocritically talk about civil liberties while clamping down on video games and speech that they see as “dangerous”, while the Republicans (Nixon, Reagan, Bush) have all expanded federal legislation to enforce subjective moral codes and limit personal freedom and responsibility (War on Drugs, prohibitions on gambling and prostitution). Read some of the conservative opposition to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/lawrence.htm); it goes well beyond the correct analysis that it infringes on states rights, and moves into the frightening territory that the state should be in the business of regulating peoples’ sexuality.

The problem we have in America isn’t that we have groups of people with different opinions living in close proximity, but that we try to enforce our personal beliefs on others through federal legislation. Instead, we need to stop — at the federal level — raiding California medical marijuana clinics, censoring speech that is critical of Muslims or any other religious group, and criticizing people who engage in private sexual behavior that we find “icky”. Instead, if we were to apply those standards at the local level and leave the federal government to only worry about the borders and intrastate commerce, I think we would all see fewer calls for the next civil war from both sides.

There is a somewhat disturbing lack of understanding about what evolution actually is, even within the evolution/ID debate. It's depressing, as a scientist, every time I turn on the television and see people arguing against and trying to suppress a theory they don't even understand.

Evolution does not attempt to address the origins of life. It only notes what has been observed to happen to that life once it has been created. Evolution and creationism co-exist perfectly.

We observe mutations every day -- children unfortunately born blind or with extra or fewer limbs. Those are examples of negative mutations. However, once in a while there is a mutation that, while unusual, actually BENEFITS the child. If the benefit is great enough, the opposite sex will instinctively find it attractive and the mutated gene will be passed down to the next generation. That is evolution.

Darwin, as a Christian, never suggested that God did not have a hand in the development or progression of human life.

The NRSC has been trying to run damage control by tieing Abramoff to Democrats, but it's not technically true. Some of Abramoff's clients made contributions to Democrats, but he has never PERSONALLY given money to a single Democrat. All of his personal and family contributions went to Republicans.

I don't think Americans care too much about this issue, however, so it would probably be better for the GOP to remain silent than try to counter with mistruths.

Considering that there are no known incidents of terrorists entering the country from the Mexican border -- they have come from the north -- I think this is more about keeping out the dirty Mexicans.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260069/103-6782464-0127007

I can't view the Minute Men projects as anything more than xenophobia until I see them out patrolling that long stretch of Canadian border.

My grandfather was an attorney (before that was a bad word) who fought the tobacco companies. I consider this a good thing, because it was in the era when they were still trying to tell people that smoking is good for you, when they plainly knew otherwise.

I don't think he would be pleased with the direction anti-tobacco law has moved since his death in 1987, however, with multi-billion dollar class-action lawsuits in California being a regular occurrence. Seriously, who doesn't know smoking's going to kill you now? If you want to do it, that's great, but please.. take responsibility for your own actions.

Of course, I believe this should also apply to soft drugs like marijuana and LSD, and perhaps even hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. I don't think it's the government's job to regulate my state of mind or what I put in my body.

I'm not a big fan of the UN administration, but I also see potential problems with a separatist attitude from the US that might lead to a rejection of foreign innovation.

Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web while working for CERN, a European particle physics laboratory. The US created the physical infrastructure and continues to be responsible for most of the administration, but we shouldn't let our pride blind us to the contributions that those outside of our country have made.

The Internet was meant to be a global medium, and it would be a mistake to allow it to splinter. I believe the Internet is the key to helping countries like China with oppressive regimes achieve their own freedom. The Internet is far too important to the development of the free world to allow politics to interfere.

She should be immediately placed in Gitmo, sans trial, along with the rest of the terrorists she supports.

Nobody should be allowed to question the president or the US, especially during war time.

It's dissapointing that psychiatrists are bothering to dispute the claims of some nutjob that nobody takes seriously anyway. It only ends up giving Cruise a little bit of credibility.

The proper response is what the White House did when the Democrats complained about Rove's statement about them coddling terrorists after 9/11. Simply say, "It's puzzling" that you would feel that way, and go about your business.

We need to just get it over with, and ban all non-Christian religions and start shipping the Muslims off to Gitmo.

Exactly. If you're not a Muslim terrorist or black criminal, what do you have to be afraid of? I haven't done anything wrong, so they can "snoop" on me all they want.