WilliamK

They are. Just because they differ in magnitude, does not mean they aren't both heroes. A dishonest and dishonorable assessment. What it proves is your own lack of character.

Oh good grief. You don't need permission to post a link. To put something on the web then get mad because someone links to it would be like like jumping into a pool and getting upset because it got you wet. It's what it's there for.

Whoever first penned the saying: "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.", obviously didn't know what he/she was talking about.

Apparently not, judging by his reply.

I think the Constitution would favor the student, not the school. The student is not a government employee, and the school did not incite the proselytizing. The school may have a legitimate basis for their action based solely on her having broken a rule, but not because of the religious content. I was originally going to say "yes," but now that I think of it...the kids have already graduated by this time, so now it's like taking something from her that is hers, isn't it? I don't think a diploma should be withheld for any reason other than having failed to earn it. Granting or withholding academic credentials for any reason other than academic performance undermines the legitimacy of those credentials. Whether the school had a legal right to withhold the diploma, I do not know. But legal or not, I believe it was wrong.

Oops, didn't mean to post as Guest. I don't know why, but the automatic logins seem to stop working occasionally, and it's easy to not notice until after posting something. Not sure if it's something on my end or KOTW's. I didn't change browsers, delete cookies, or anything that I can think of that could cause it. Oh well. Only a minor annoyance.

"Flared up" does not equal "began". I have not claimed that Santos was not criticized prior to his speaking about the Paszkiewicz/LaClair issue, and am somewhat dismayed (but not entirely surprised) that this needs to be explained. The increase in anti-Santos posts immediately following his comments on the Paszkiewicz/LaClair issue is plainly visible just by looking at posts just before and just after that time. Though taxes continued to be the primary complaint, it was obvious what roiled them. As for property taxes in Kearny, it is way out of line compared to most other towns in the country. But it is inside the range for towns in NJ, which happens to be notorious for having extremely high and unevenly distributed property taxes. This is a problem with causes that extend outside of Kearny. Aiming all your anger and effort at Santos will not solve it.

You guys really should quit pretending. It's obvious. It's dishonest. It's unbecoming. You don't like Santos because he didn't side with Paszkiewicz and the school board. When he made a statement to that effect is when all this anti-Santos hubbub flared up. You've only latched onto taxes as a ruse. It's just a prop in your little play, pretending that you have some beef with Santos other than your own religious bigotry. But the reality is that if he had done what Castelli wanted, which is to not settle with the LaClairs, thus soaking the taxpayers for a shameful, years long, and ultimately futile legal battle, and if he'd wasted further millions of tax dollars on some other foolishness like putting a big Ten Commandments monolith in front of City Hall, or replacing all the town's non-religious or multi-religious holiday decorations with overtly and exclusively Christian ones, and fighting another expensive and futile legal battle over that, your taxes would be much higher than they are now. But you lot would be singing his praises and heading up the "re-elect Santos" campaign. This is not about taxes. It's just a slander campaign driven by religiously motivated hatred.

Since Carrier only indicates that a reviewer did say that, but not that Adams didn't, it is entirely possible for you to be wrong without Carrier also being wrong. Adams and the reviewer might both have said it. Perhaps Carrier was quoting the reviewer quoting Adams. I don't recall Keith having commented on it. Perhaps you've confused me with him? No matter. Here's another quote from Carrier: "Now, to be sure, I don't want your reading impairment to trip you up again, lest you misread what I am saying yet again: Adams was certainly a god-fearing Christian, and offers much praise in various of his writings for Christian religion. That has no bearing on what I am saying here or what I said in my essay to which you respond. Until you understand what I mean by that, I don't think you will ever be able to produce any relevant response to me or what I have actually written." "But I will close with my own quotation of Adams, from the above mentioned book:" 'The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature, and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history....It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture. It will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.'" See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-64382.html (search for the word "pretended" to find the relevant post) This time Carrier indicates that Adams is the author of the quote. Also note that there is nothing in Adams' book (at least the online transcription cited earlier, which is all I have available at the moment) to indicate any separate authorship for the preface. That rather implies that it was written by Adams. I suspect that if I were discovered to have published a book with a preface written by someone else with no attribution, you and probably a few others on this board would gleefully point the finger and cry "plagiarist!". But I would not knowingly or intentionally do that. And I don't think that John Adams would have done it either. There is, of course, the possibility that the preface was written by someone else, possibly the reviewer, and added in a later edition. I don't have a way to check, but it seems unlikely. At the end of the preface it says "Grosvenor Square, January 1, 1787.". This date is about 7 years before Adams' books were published (1794), and more than 8 years earlier than the American Monthly Review article (August 1795). I googled to see what association Grosvenor Square might have with John Adams. It turns out that Grosvenor Square is in London, and Adams lived there from 1785 to 1788. He was the first American Minister to Great Britain before he became the second President of the United states. (see http://london.usembassy.gov/grsvnrsq/adams.html) Based on the information available to me at present, I believe that the case for the quote (and the remainder of the preface and at least one other oft-cited quote contained therein) being authored by John Adams is much stronger than the case against.

Curious how that is so easily proven false, yet you choose to state it anyway.

Of course they do. These people do not idolize Paszkiewicz because they believe him innocent, but because they believe him guilty. The hate the LaClairs for much the same reason that robbers hate security systems.

The word was his. But the meaning you ascribed to it was your own invention. To say that you were "reaching" would be an understatement. Your interpretation was downright bizarre. That's good, Guest. Show the world your true colors. Just keep on backing up your lies with more lies. That's quite a technique you've got there. How very "Christian" of you. Go ahead, Guest. Lie about me too. Misrepresent my words to your heart's content. Just like you did to Strife. Just like you did to Paul. Just keep on showing what you're made of.

Yes, he did. It's in the preface to "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.". The full text of which is available here: http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_pre.htm Yeah. Funny, that.

"Diculous" is a verb. It's what 2smart does to a thread when he posts. "Rediculous" is when he posts again to the same thread. Here are the past tense forms used in a sentence: This thread has lost all sanity. It has been diculoused and rediculoused.

I'll take Mr. Adams' word over 2smart's any day.

That would back up your argument if you had been arguing that Strife sometimes resorts to name calling. But that, of course, was not what you were on about. You were trying to defend and distract attention away from your lie. Are these not your words? Where's the retraction? Where's the apology for the false accusation? Where is any hint of integrity or honesty from you? No amount of Strife or anyone else calling you names will turn your lie into truth. Talk about "true colors" and not having a case.

Read that again with the following question in mind, and be honest with yourself. Was that comment intelligent, witty, mature, truthful, considerate, or in any way constructive? How about these? And one more for the road:

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question. She joins the battle unarmed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One cannot have "begged the question" without having made an argument. Which part of "The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them." is the premise? Which part is the conclusion? Give up? It is merely an assertion, Bryan. Not an argument at all. It is you, Bryan, who is fighting this battle unarmed. Not only do you not understand fallacies nearly as well as you pretend, but you fail even to distinguish what is or is not an argument.

Of course not. He's saying that to be a smallish kid confronting a larger and stronger adult is intimidating. No actual (or even imagined) physical threat is necessary for this to have a psychological effect. This, in itself, is not the result of any wrongdoing on the part of Paszkiewicz or Somma. But still it serves as one example of the courage that Matt has demonstrated throughout this situation. Even if you don't agree with Matthew's cause, why can't you at least acknowledge his courage in pursuing it? Are you so desperate to vilify your perceived enemy that you've lost your capacity for honesty and rational thought? Can you not acknowledge that someone who pursues a cause that you detest can still have genuine courage, noble motivations, and honorable actions? Where's the dishonor that you're so desperate to prove? Was Paszkiewicz accused of anything other than what he did, in fact, do? Were Paszkiewicz and the school board not given ample opportunity to take appropriate action of their own accord well before any of this went public? Were they not then given additional opportunity to act before going public with the recording from the meeting? Was there any demand for action that would end or permanently harm Paszkiewicz' career?

That's right, natural selection doesn't explain that. In much the same way that continental drift does not explain why the earth's crust is made up of plates floating on magma. Genetic variation is a cause of natural selection, not an effect of it. It can cause trends to emerge from that variation, but does not cause the variation itself. There are explanations for why genetic variations occur, but there's no good reason to expect or demand that explanation to come from natural selection. And one other point. Even if there was no explanation at all, "unexplained" does not equal "God did it". And yet, that's usually where we find God lurking. Just outside the reach of what we understand, in the realm of our ignorance. Even the most brilliant minds are capable of that particular folly. There's a very thoughtful and intelligent discussion of that here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713

Ah yes. All behold the uniformity of unguided natural phenomena (for example, the vast numbers of identical size and shape rock fragments that invariably stack themselves in neat geometric piles at the bottoms of landslides), as compared with the stunning uniqueness of intelligently designed objects, such as tubes full of freshly stamped coins from a mint. It would be slightly less absurd to argue in the opposite direction, and say that it is our similarities that are evidence of a creator, not our differences. But only slightly, as there are also examples of uniformity in nature, and of uniqueness in created objects. The point being, that neither similarity nor dissimilarity, by themselves, make a valid argument either way. Both can be found in both created and naturally occurring things.

That's probably what he read about that spawned his misconception, but it most certainly isn't what he meant, as evidenced by his own assertions to the contrary when challenged about it: A simple "Oops, I misread the headline" would have been sufficient to write this off as a simple mistake. It would still be sufficient now. His "Sorry. You typed too fast, I couldn't read it." comment may have been a self-deprecating attempt to do that, but it's hard to tell, as that would be a bit obtuse and could reasonably be taken other ways.

It doesn't matter. The burden of proving an accusation falls to the accuser, not the accused. Guest offered no supporting evidence whatsoever. No witness accounts. No explanation of how he/she might have known this. Nothing. Just a bare assertion. And when Guest's first accusation missed the mark, he just aimed at a different spot and fired again. Why would Guest have done that, other than if he himself accepted Paul's refutation as credible? If Guest had anything to support his claim, he could have trotted it out, and not only vindicated his accusation, but could have caught Paul in a lie as well. But that didn't happen, did it? When has that ever happened?

No, he doesn't. "Debt held by the public" refers to money the federal government owes to entities other than itself. It is "public" in the same sense as "public funding" or "public housing". What you are describing (mortgages, credit card debt, etc.) is "personal" or "private" debt. Speaking of these private debts in aggregate doesn't make them "public debt", any more than speaking of privately owned automobiles in aggregate would turn your car into "public transportation". No, you weren't. There has been no reduction of national debt in the period you claim. You were most likely crowing about the recent reduction in the federal budget deficit, having either misheard it as a reduction of national debt, or possibly not understanding the difference. A deficit reduction means only that the federal government's spending exceeded its revenue by a smaller amount than the previous period, not that the national debt has been reduced.

The national debt was not reduced. Not even on paper. BushBacker is just having a comprehension problem.