Bryan

Do I need to point out again that the UK has a state-sponsored religion (Church of England)? How many atheists are suffering in that dreaded theocracy? Recall that Mr. LaClair was using scare tactics to make people fear a theocracy. What, precisely, are we supposed to fear? Is it? The field trip was for a voluntary club, not part of the curriculum. Do you see that distinction as unimportant? More importantly, would the law see the distinction as important? Whatever you say. I'm just curious about the evidence everyone is using to justify their view of Paszkiewicz. I'm not impressed with your justification. Have you anything else, up to and including an attempt to address my criticism of your stated example for alleging that Paszkiewicz broke the law? Please pardon me for asking for evidence. "Everyone knows it" just doesn't cut it with me. Sorry.

Have a look at the religious makeup of the SCOTUS and get an inkling of the type of crackpottery you regularly receive courtesy of Paul LaClair: http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html The Protestants are losing Souter. Care to guess the religion of Judge Sotomayor? Another Roman Catholic. Somehow, there's a secret sect of Roman Catholics in league with the evangelicals in trying to take over the government. Fortunately, other Roman Catholics stand in their way. Ludicrous. Interesting parallel, since Galileo was a committed Roman Catholic opposed by another set of Roman Catholics (as well as the mainstream science of the day). The Evangelicals didn't even figure in the debate in those days, of course. One might think differently to hear Mr. LaClair rant, however. To your knowledge, eh? Is that supposed to count for something? What rule, please? So Paszkiewicz runs the school's website? Or am I missing something? Where is that supposed willingness to violate the law clearly expressed in the public record, please? So you're saying that he has broken the law relatively recently? Or is there some other evidence that drives us to the conclusion that he cannot be trusted to obey the law? Good grief. This guy supported Obama and he wants folks to worry about their wallets because of Paszkiewicz. Time is money. Trying to work it out costs money, unless you did all the talking as well as any listening that went on. Meh. Think of it as economic stimulus.

Here is the fundamental problem with Paul's position: Gay-straight alliance club? That's great, because it promotes tolerance. Now the erotic readings club ... Paul offers that as an example of, what? Something that should be opposed? Or should it be supported on the same grounds as the gay-straight alliance clubs? According to Paul, it is an educational duty (to at least some degree) to promote tolerance. And Paul seems to draw the line somewhere in the law. But where? What should be legal and what should not be legal? Paul faces a dilemma, and he seems enduringly unaware of his problem. Do we follow the law for it's own sake? Or is there something undergirding the law that would make it right? In the end, Paul is all about political power. He wants to use political power to pursue his own religious agenda. And I expect that the apple fell fairly close to that tree. Paul's aim is to bring the law closer to his own set of values. If you're doing the same thing based on your own set of values and those values differ from Paul's, then you are the enemy. His talk of tolerance will evaporate at that point. Take him to task on NAMBLA. Should there be a NAMBLA club at public schools to promote tolerance if the activities it promoted were legal? And, when it comes to that, should those activities be legalized to pave the way for the club? Dig all you like, Paul LaClair has no principled foundation behind his push for political power. He believes in a fantasy of "universal" human ethics where the facts overtly contradict his position (human ethics are not universal). In a nation founded on property rights, human liberty and religious freedom, Paul is pushing to make some exercise of religion illegal, and his principle seems amount to the tyranny of the majority. He offers you choice between a terrifying theocracy and a type of religious secularism, but the reality is that we have lived with the type of "theocracy" Paul rails about since before the birth of the nation. The nation was founded on a common set of religious principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. You don't get rights from science, and there are differing (ultimately religious/philosophical) views on rights. For most of our history, people did not concern themselves over every little offense to religious conscience. But with time and plenty of help from lawyers, we are near the point to reducing our Constitution to the absurd, for it is based on the aforementioned religious principles and often promotes beliefs contrary to the beliefs of at least some. And the majority can generally makes its preferences legal. Before taking Paul's recommendations too seriously, think about where his road leads. And try to ferret out some of the inevitable unintended consequences.

Have you reason to think taxpayer money was used for the trip? Is it? Why? I'm not a young-earth creationist but I don't regard it as a threat to education. So anyone (or at least LaClair's kids?) who goes to the museum will automatically fail to understand science? That must be quite a museum. Hmm. I seem to remember Mr. LaClair proclaiming that he got what he wanted with his earlier lawsuit. Now, however, the supposed failure to get a teacher fired or to secure any meaningful sanction (was meaninful sanction not one of the original goals of the suit?), we find somebody pushing the envelope. I seem to recall that Mr. LaClair expressed ignorant views regarding science. Historically speaking, evolution as an idea preceded the theory of evolution. We may infer that calling calling it a preconceived idea is dishonest. What do you propose to do about it, short of lobbying to remove the constitutional protections of peaceful protest? Rankles you, does it? How does it supposedly affect the education of "all our students"? Perhaps the wishes of the parents whose students attend the club should be paramount rather than the wishes of a person who despises the club? With all due respect to Penn and Teller's abilities as entertainers, it is not accurate to portray "intelligent design" as stemming from fables. Intelligent design is a logical inference with which one might agree or disagree. One of the ill results of the Dover case, apparently, is the manner in which it facilitated the equivocation between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design. The latter is compatible with common descent. If LaClair is aware of that then he has little excuse for providing such a misleading link. I certainly hope that he is not planning on using taxpayer money for this ... after all, arguing straw men affects all our children's education.

The report does not necessarily reflect the views of the committee. The report was released to the public by a unanimous vote. That isn't at all the same as accepting its conclusions, despite the poor reporting coming from some media sources. And from irresponsible posters on Internet message boards, of course.

That doesn't follow, for it is simply a logistical impossibility to alter the practices of the executive branch overnight. Each branch has its own inertia and even its own ideology to some degree. The Bush administration argued that it was trying for a more comprehensive way of combating terrorism, and that's a plausible argument. It isn't surprising given the bureaucratic complexity of the executive branch that it would take time to get the tanker to change course. You're irrationally denying Clinton's responsibility in establishing the course of the tanker during an administration that oversaw a number of significant terrorist attacks and sinking to the level of calling names. Just in case I need to point that out.

Right. I did not and still do not realize that Bush was president on Sept. 11, 2001 because of what a blind nitwit of a sheep I am. Your type will do anything to distract from the proof that Bern gave us, apparently. I very plainly allowed that Bush is not free from fault. You ignored that as well as the proof that Bern provided regarding the failures of the Clinton administration. Ba-ba-baaaaa.

Yeah? What was it? Point us to your source.

It was Clinton, and Bern proved it. Unfortunately the miasma of Bush hatred swimming in your eyes keeps you from seeing it. If you went back and researched it, you'd see that a good number of the warnings that were supposed to tip Bush off about 9-11 dated well back into the Clinton administration (timely, eh?). Bush is not without blame--but he shares it with Clinton. That's just the truth. If you can't accept it then you've got a problem.

Excellent work. "At the top" in 2000 meant the Clinton administration, of course.

The CIA and the FBI did not share information because government agencies compete with one another for influence and budget. An increase in the budget of one agency shrinks the pie for the others. It's a well-known phenomenon applying to bureaucracies and understood as applying to federal government operations. Jamie Gorelick, who (somewhat astoundingly) sat on the 9/11 Commission was instrumental in keeping the informational wall intact under the Clinton administration. That said, if it's fair to fault the Clinton administration for its failures regarding the response to terrorism it is fair to fault every pre-9/11 president for failures--going from Carter to Bush without any exception. But I agree that the post-9/11 Bush at least deserves credit for making some pro-active and positive changes. The fact is that the U.S. has not suffered any domestic attack of any note since 9/11. A good number of planned attacks have been foiled and Al Qaeda has suffered a prolonged public relations failure.

You appear to have engage in bald-faced lying, brave anonymous Guest. What memo suggested that Bin Laden was probably going to use planes as missiles? That's not an inconvenient truth. There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion (though not necessarily affiliated with Al Qaeda), and Richard Clarke (remember him?) famously suggested that Bin Laden might "boogie to Baghdad" after being flushed from Afghanistan.

Larry has never claimed to be of any party? Is he your dad or something? How well do you know the guy? FYI not claiming party affiliation does not necessarily indicate non-partisanship. Or did you already know that and lead your argument off with that point anyway? You appeared to use the assurance that the site was non-partisan as the assurance to readers that the site was true and accurately reflected reality. Have we come full circle in just two steps? Nice dance, there. Paul was wrong about the targeted oil company boycott. Even if he had been able to find a "blog" to support him he would have been wrong. So you knew that Paul was full of it when he advocated the targeted boycott? Why didn't you pipe up sooner? I haven't been keeping track of the posts of mine that you have read but haven't bothered to challenge, FWIW. Do you see any problem at all with the voting record presentation that Larry reproduced, or do you think it speaks accurately for itself? What do you suggest I should apologize to you over? At least I had the courtesy to provide an example for your consideration. Should I apologize for overlooking the fact that you don't always find something to disagree with in my posts?

No, and he doesn't even report on them personally. He just borrows reporting from elsewhere. You skipped some questions (probably just to prove you're not ducking anything?). Why do you think Larry is non-partisan? Which type of person is Paul, given that he blurted out that brilliant targeted boycott plan without running it by Snopes.com or some other investigatory process? Which type of person are you, given that you go to (and recommend) a tertiary source for voting record information? And here's a new one: Have you considered apologizing for taking my comment out of context?

Well, perhaps you should consider accurately representing my claim. The claim I made is perfectly defensible considering LaClair blunders such as his recommendation of a targeted oil boycott. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=55972 His suggestion reflects an ignorance of an economic issue (oil economy) and he's going to vote partially based on that understanding (such as it is). He could have cleared up his misconception with a bit of research, as I pointed out at the time. Here's what I wrote, since you're having trouble representing it accurately: Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO). Likewise, I was able to show (using the much-respected Snopes.com) that the targeted oil boycott idea is bunkum. Paul, on the other hand, made the suggestion without apparently researching it. Which kind of person is Paul and why? Didn't I already point out that va watchdog is basically Larry Scott? And what makes you think it is non-partisan? Another question: If good research involves going to the source then why are we going through va watchdog for information gathered by Project Vote Smart from various special interest groups? Which of the two kinds of people are you, again?

Stay as vague as possible, then.

Trade is an overall good, and labor is a traded commodity. I don't think you realize the implications of the protectionism you're implicitly advocating, Keith.

It all depends. One could have a meaningful reminder of one's position as a citizen by reciting the pledge. And one might vote for Osama bin Laden as a write-in candidate on election day. Or a terrorist might recite the pledge as part of his cover while a Libertarian sincerely aligns with his party by voting for Bob Barr, a candidate who cannot possibly win the presidency. Hopefully. Not much. Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO). Again, not much. As the nation ages, things only get more complicated and the media do a poor job of explaining them. Many sense that the media are failing in their role (some sense it in a more accurate way than others) and therefore justifiably disregard much of what is reported. Such as voting just to say one has voted? Definitely. Hook electrodes to everyone's brain and monitor their thoughts? Make voting mandatory? Seriously, just inform yourself and inform others. Though of course if your understanding is poor you can simply aggravate the problem. Ask the courts, not the legislature. Moreover, what can we learn about Paul's attitudes and prejudices from threads like this one?

Do I need to lead you by the hand to the dictionary definition of "reductio ad absurdum" or something? I explained it. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=86122 You didn't get it, and you still don't get it. You're correct. Pursuing an irrelevancy as you did (engaging in an absurdity instead of a reductio ad absurdum) is a typical troll tactic. Leaving irrelevancies out of a reply is simply proper message board etiquette. But I think we can cut you a break since your trollish reaction appears to stem from the fact that you don't get it.

Since higher energy prices will make everything more expensive and potentially spur an inflation spiral, I'd like to see you cite a few of those responsible economists. Could it be that "responsible economist"="politically liberal"/"environmentally concerned"?

Heh. All you did in your reply was confirm what you've re-confirmed in this thread: You didn't get it: Three weeks and that's what you come up with? Obviously you aren't objecting to anything I said, you're making an ad hominem in a passive-aggressive manner. You don't even directly address anything I said. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85834 So since you've got nothing, there's not much left for you to do but throw the "troll" label around a bit. Nice work, Autonomouse.

The hilarious thing is the talk of implementing that policy when the economy is the most important thing to the electorate. Oil, meet water. Matter, meet antimatter. It doesn't add up. Cutting consumption of the most efficient means of energy production means one thing: hampering the economy.

Right, but China was an net exporter of oil until the mid 1990s. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/ When China's use of oil doubles as a net importer of oil, the difference is as between night and day in terms of its effect on supply and demand. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/ Leaving aside the fact that there are other nations involved besides China, of course. You mean Clinton's housing bubble, I believe (Clinton being the guy who put pressure on lenders to lower lending standards for home buyers, thus increasing demand for houses (^ price) and leading to an increasing rate of default (damaging subprime lending market). I'm not sure what argument you're talking about. I'm suggesting that the success of the surge will tend to make fuel prices sink over the long term. Rather than strengthen a straw man I'd rather help you rip him to shreds and trample the remains. The DOW is not a measure of the economy per se. It is a measure of the value of businesses. It says nothing about the war, really. It says that more of our GDP will be devoted to the war effort, by percentage, than when the military is being reduced. The real key with respect to the economy is the manner in which the war changes the economic landscape other than in terms of military expenditure. Take Japan's invasion of Manchuria, for example. Japan had to pay for the military effort in Manchuria, but the aim from the start was to secure a protected market for Japanese goods to help Japan weather the worldwide economic depression of the time. Nothing, really, though it appears that you mightily wish that they did say something. 1) Cutting welfare was, in particular, the strangulation of a self-perpetuating entitlement program. The self-perpetuating nature of the program was radically reduced through legislation. Props to Clinton for cooperating with the GOP on that one. 2) By "bank bailouts" apparently you refer to the reduction of interest rates (the rate the Fed charges banks) and the brokering of the Bear-Stearns buyout by another private company. In this case, putting the safety net under Bear-Stearns probably did much to avert a potential economic meltdown caused by the loss of public confidence in the money system. That's the sort of the thing the Fed was designed to do. 3) What oil subsidies? Are tax breaks supposed to count as subsidies? The fact that the economy remains strong along with the fact that economies run in cycles along with the fact that presidents don't actually affect the economy all that much in the first place. Yes he did. http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/i...pending_GDP.GIF You don't know what you're talking about. It's true that George H. W. Bush passed diminishing defense budgets, but the rationale was the same as for the later cuts: The Cold War was over. Clinton did not inherit a growing economy. Why do you think Bush 41 lost a second term? Yes, Clinton inherited a growing economy. Clinton beat George H. W. Bush because the latter was a poor communicator (including fallout from "No new taxes"), and the press did not give Bush credit for the improving economy. Ross Perot's participation also probably hurt Bush (Perot did rob voters from both parties). Top line for GDP shows economic growth (GDP) for every quarter in the two years leading to Clinton taking office: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid Top line for percentage growth shows growth in GDP by percentage (compared to preceding quarter): http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...08&Freq=Qtr The oil game is pretty simple. If you fix the supply, the price goes up. OPEC knows this, and so do our oil companies. And BP (Britain), Citgo (Venezuela), Fina (France), Shell (Netherlands) are all in on the game. Gotcha. Oil is a global market. It's not easy to fix the supply or the price when you're competing with companies based in other countries. Fina doesn't necessarily want Amoco to succeed. And compared to nations where fuel is not directly subsidized by the government, prices in the U.S. are lower than in other nations (did you check prices in Italy lately?). Consider the 1990s, when OPEC was pumping plenty of oil. Gas prices stayed low along with profits. Did the companies forget how to regulate the supply or was Clinton such a spectacular watchdog that they knew they'd never get away with it (despite the Republican Congress). It also helps that oil companies stifle competition with their mergers. Basic supply and demand obviously applies here, but not quite as simply as you put it. Why shouldn't we limit how they stack the game, if it helps the overall economy? Some regulation is appropriate. What do you propose? What would help the overall economy, in your opinion? You think the middle east is stable? By historical standards, yes. Iran needs to be confronted in Lebanon and in Iraq. Checking Iran in those places potentially establishes a stable balance of power. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then the balance changes and instability will increase. Currently Obama's campaign can't seem to figure out if he meant it or not when he said he would meet with the Iranians without preconditions. Yes. You don't have a serious reply, do you? I noted that Iran has probably been working on a nuclear program from the time Hussein started on his. There is no question at all that Hussein had a relatively advanced nuclear program. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html You find oil ties of Bush, Cheney, and Rice utterly uninteresting with regards to this topic, while looking at Clinton and Obama's book profits for answers? Oh, no. I'm quite interested in any relevant ties you can bring up. Are you having trouble thinking of one? Is that why you needed the delaying tactic of pretending to misunderstand my statement? There just isn't any cohesion in your arguments, and I don't see why there is such loyalty to this ideology. It's because of the elegant cohesion of the arguments, which you somehow seen unable to appreciate while you try to understand oil demand simply in terms of China's consumption (for example). What a laugh. Do you enjoy high oil prices? Hell, even shareholders of ExxonMobil and Halliburton heavily question the decisions of their boards. Why shouldn't the rest of us? (Disclosure: I own and have owned plenty of oil stocks outright of in funds.) If you don't like a company's practices as a shareholder, then complain and act as a shareholder. If you don't like a company's practices as a customer, patronize a different company. It's not that difficult, is it?

I'd have to read your post uncharitably to believe that you failed to understand how your argument was brought low by the reductio ad absurdum. If you were merely amused instead of airing sour grapes it speaks poorly of your intelligence. But I'll take your word for it, if you insist.

A mere fifty states, eh? If Obama sweeps, I'll bet he takes all 58 (contiguous) states. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/0...than-50-states/