Sisyphus

As far as I'm aware, I only know one blonde, gay jew with a beard, so that won't be a very interesting list.

I think the "in popular culture" section is particularly hilarious.

So is this thread now "Random People We Have Known?"

I know that. My only point has been that there are plenty of very radical Islamic organizations, but "Radical Islam" is not a coherent entity. That's why it's not surprising that radical Shiite groups and radical Sunni groups often hate each other more than, say, Westerners. Also, irregardless of what would actually happen if we "left the Islamic world alone," (something I am NOT advocating), the point remains that almost all of the rhetoric of radical Islamic groups that DO care about what Westerners are doing centers on the fact that we are trying to oppress them and they wish to be left alone. Hence, even saying that most radical Islamic groups have the goal of "enslaving the world" or something, as if they were Evil Galactic Overlords, is inaccurate.

The first link was about someone calling for the destruction of Israel. The second was about calling for the destruction of George Bush. The third is a random group of articles. I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to support the statement that "Radical Islam is an organization that seeks to destroy all non-Muslims." Even the crazy terrorist says there should be peace if Muslims are left alone. I'm not saying that nobody wants that, I'm just saying it's foolish to generalize. Indeed, "Radical Islam" is not a thing that you can really say any generalized statement about. Less, even, than you can talk about "Radical Christianity."

There are ways you can sort of mentally prepare yourself for lucid dreaming. Like, if you keeping thinking to yourself as you're going to sleep, "in my dream, I will look at my hands and realize I'm dreaming, and continue to dream." Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. When I was little I got over certain nightmares using a similar technique, except more focusing on the aspect of "This is my dream. My mind. I am the most important and powerful being in this existence. I am more dangerous to these things which threaten me than they are to me." It's a wonderful confidence builder...

I think it's generally a given that the young tend to underestimate the old. But isn't it also true that each generation tends to have trouble understanding those that come after, as well?

ParanoiA, I'm not sure I understand the gist of your position. With regards to child pornography, are you saying it should be up to individual citizens to make the moral decision and not support it?

That doesn't work. I would think Athens itself should be adequate proof of that.

Because "Radical Islam" is not an organization, let alone an organization that can articulate a single goal, let alone an organization with THAT goal. There are certainly many Islam-based "radical" organizations, but their goals vary wildly. I can't think of any whose goal is to "destroy or enslave the non Muslim world." As for why all those Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other in Iraq right now, then I would say general anarchy + religious fundamentalism + centuries old hatreds = a lot of interfaith violence. The more conservative elements among Sunni and Shiite don't consider one another to be true Muslims.

What is it made out of?

I don't understand. Are you an illegal immigrant or something?

What I had in mind was a generic ID that could also act in place of a state driver's licence with something as simple as an added line or "state specific" box or something, not that you would need to be a legal driver to get one. Having state IDs that comply with a national standard would amount to the same thing and probably be easier, since most people already have driver's licenses. I'm not sure I really understand your scenario. Why wouldn't the states comply?

I don't see why it couldn't include something like "legal driver - New York," or whatnot. Just makes sense, since most of the info would be in common, anyway.

Presumably, if the ID is national and something one carries most of the time (unlike a passport, for instance), then it would be at least as hard to fake as it would be to counterfeit currency.

Look, I agree with you about tariffs. I agree about free trade. My questions were, is your position primarily one of fairness or of sound economic policy? And, more generally (and more importantly), if there is a conflict between fairness and the health of the economy, which would be your primary consideration? Is there a balance needed between the two, or does one always outweigh the other?

I asked first....

"What the bleep do we know" is nothing but misleading interpretations of already-outdated science. And the "21 grams" thing is an urban legend.

ZING! Issue dodge!

Because state driver's licences vary more than is convenient. Of course, if you have no problem with the driver's license, what's wrong with the national ID? Is it just superstitious fear of the big bad federal government? And incidentally, you wouldn't have any more documents. As I understand it, a national ID would serve as a driver's license.

Your refusal to answer is all the answer I need. The question, in essence, was "is there any point at all at which pragmatism (in this case, the health of the economy) outweighs idealism (in this case, economic fairness." The answer, apparently, is "no," which to me perfectly encapsulates the Libertarian proud refusal to understand more than one side of an issue.

That doesn't really answer my question.