Sisyphus

Maybe you could spell it out for me. Is it that Howard Dean is stupid?

Would it all be ok if he had just said "Jew-hater," or "Islamic fascist?" Wourm, are you saying you would abolish the FDA? (A lot of libertarians would, and I think that's completely ridiculous.) Or is it just that people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, as long as its sold as what it is and they know what they're getting? If the latter, I agree, but that's a much more moderate position than many of the crazies at the LP. Their position is essentially that the free market will take care of any conceivable problem all by itself, putting bloody-minded idealogy over reality. It's an article of faith for them.

You have to step in to stop a sperm from entering the egg, too. It will certainly try its darndest!

Maybe at first glance and in overarching principles, but I think most people are also too pragmatic to be libertarians. For my part, I agree with the basic libertarian principle that anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights to be legal. But I also understand that that's an ideal and not always practical in the real world. For example, I'm glad private citizens aren't allowed to own anti-aircraft missles, even if they promise not to use them...

How is a separate sperm and egg not a potential human? And so definitively one once they do what they're trying desperately to do? "Period?" And yes, clearly I'm making a point from aburdity. The point being that a potential human isn't a human, and it's absurd to say so. And yes, the fact that this research isn't even destroying potential people (they're already destroyed), should make that irrelevant, but nonetheless that is what the debate is about at its core. You can be against abortion and pro stem cell research, and many are. But who ever heard of vice versa? No one, because those who are against it are afraid it will make abortion seem acceptable.

Sure, an egg by itself isn't potential, but a separate egg and sperm cell is! And there are plenty of sperm to go around, so any woman who has her period is a murderer. "Thanks for having sex, mom!"

I didn't realize Einstein was a leader.

Yeah, and think of all the potential lives lost every time you masturbate, or every time a woman has her period! Any of those billions of sperm and eggs could be united to grow up and cure AIDS! Imagine how many disease cures we're missing out on!

Maybe if you could define "real freedom," explain how, exactly, the founding fathers desired it, and when we lost it in favor of socialism.

I have strong libertarian tendencies, and I think most regular posters here do as well. If you mean an actual member of the Libertarian Party of America, then I think they're generally too pigheaded and silly for my taste.

I'd think being at odds with the U.S. would help his credibility at home.

I never realized what breakthroughs were being made in the stupid redneck community.

It's not "backing up" your views, it's an explanation of why you can't be objective. And it's completely understandable.

I taught myself calc in 2 weeks and got a 5 on the BC exam. Not to brag or anything...

Why is the fact that it's political important? Why isn't the fact that he's a total crackpot teaching his crackpot theory as truth the only real issue here? As I see it, the politics is irrelevant, since anything can be made political. Young Earth Creationists are always accusing science professors of pushing their "political agenda" on students.

Yeah.

It is true that nobody takes actual Nazis seriously anymore...

The Athenians did that, basically. The only public positions that weren't selected at random were the ten generals, who were elected. Of course, they got into a bit of trouble.....

Well I suppose that's why decisions made from grief and bloodlust tend to turn out badly.

Antarctica is the most mountainous continent on Earth, but there are large flat regions, as well. I don't think there's much movement aside from the coastal regions, though.

Apparently they gave up: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/

I wonder what that would make the homosexual divorce rate.

Yes, it could easily get passed. Ignoring hundreds of scientists has become something of a national passtime in the past few years. They already know that we could, just only in self defense against another nuclear attack. That's called mutually assured destruction, and it pretty effectively prevents there ever being a nuclear war, unless some idiot changes the policy. It's the precedent that is the concern. We're not the only nation with nukes, and club is growing whether we like it or not. We do this, and any nation with a pesky neighbor has a defendable right to nuke them, and then nukes will be just another part of war (assuming we aren't all killed before it becomes common custom). North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, Israel and the entire Middle East....

I agree with Phi for All. Anything that frames the conflict in terms of some huge apocolyptic struggle between Islam and the rest of the world is EXACTLY what they want, and exactly what they will use to grow stronger and more aggressive. That's because it's not an enemy like Germany or Japan, and it CANNOT be defeated by military force. It is made up of individual people who decide, one by one, that they must destroy us at any cost. If you kill one enemy, but, in doing so, inspired two more, you have only helped their cause. So how do we defeat them? Well, several have mentioned that the real threat is here at home, in those who have "sympathy for the enemy" or whatever. Well, the real war is a public relations war, but it isn't here in the West, it's in the Islamic world. The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, which means THEY have to have "sympathy for the enemy," which means they have to have sympathy for us, which means all the asinine bravado about "World War 3" is just helping us lose. Right now, terrorists are heroes to far too many people. Until that changes, there can be no victory of any kind. BTW, what's a trust fund state?