ParanoiA

But why must these words be off limits to children? Don't they have the right to be emotional and shout F#$K!! when they stub their toe? These arguments aren't convincing me that these words should be off limits or taboo. There are plenty of dedicated religious folk who would take issue with the idea you need taboo words to "blow off steam". I've worked with guys in shops that do NOT curse - well, not the designated curse words anyway - instead they say crap, hell, freaking, frack... It's silly to think you need taboo words - as if suddenly everyone will go crazy because there's no taboo words to air out their frustrations. And where's the psychologists in the room? One person can air out their pain of a stubbed toe with "crap!!" while another needs "shit!". This is just emotion. It's not the word that's doing any magic, it's the furor being released in verbal form - and you don't need taboo for that. That's why we amplify intensity and volume when we do it!

And here again you're pinning all the blame on "us". It has helped result in the Iran we have today.

Well, his contention is that today's republicans aren't really republicans. He claims that republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. That the party has been hijacked by neocons that only share the fiscal characteristics of the republican party. I think he has a point, but it's a little weak since he's more libertarian than anything else - hence his presidential bid in 1988 as a libertarian. I think he's running as a republican because our two party system snubs other parties. They don't get to participate in debates and are generally ignored. He's a capitalist, so not your favorite type. But he's also a non-interventionist. He believes we should withdraw our troops from all over the world - within reason of course - particularly the middle east, and stop policing and meddling. I wonder how you'd feel about a capitalist that loathes war...

This is a good point snail. But can't we have power and conviction without dirty? I think the focus is on the "dirty" part. You're right, in that cussing is useful, but I still don't see why my 7 year old shouldn't say "shit" rather than "crap". Kids need to be able to express conviction in their language as well. After all, we adults are a royal pain in the ass...

I completely agree. Keep fighting the good fight!

Well, I've always thought that debating was a critical thinking exercise for the observers...does nothing for the debaters.

Uh...so what? I don't even ask how I can improve life for my group, I ask how I can improve life for ME. I think that's a weak argument, although popular. I've never agreed with the idea of "molding" society to behave in some preconceived method - rather let society evolve into whatever it evolves into. You have a preconceived notion that homogeny should exist, whereas I'm indifferent. If homogeny happens, great..if heterogeny happens, great. We'll all still share the love of country, and all are required the oath of allegiance. The constitution and the framework of our government doesn't provide for molding societies to our mind's eye. That's fascism, socialism, communism - controlism... Didn't they steal it from the spanish? I thought they only had those territories for like 30 years or so, compared to hundreds of years of spanish rule. I don't know, I haven't cracked a history book in years, and I'm over due I think... Nevertheless, I sympathize with you here. Agreed. Appropriately. But how does the fact that they are illegal, make it that way? Seriously. I'm not understanding how their illegality magically translates into lower paying jobs, but not lower than minimum wage. I would think that even if they're legal, they're going to take those jobs for cheaper pay than unions and so forth. After all, once you're over minimum wage, it's all about competition - just like any business. And those businesses that are dodging union labor are breaking the law already, presumably, before we even talk about illegal workers. If you had illegals working for under minimum wage, that would make more sense because it's their illegality that enables that function. In other words, they would have to be illegal, because no legal citizen would accept wages under minimum wage since it's just a matter of law - a quick phone call would fix it. So, if you have illegals working cheaper, but not under minimum wage, then I dont' see how that would change once they're legal residents. Did I just use a thousand words to say something that could have been said in 30? But most of the issues you're bringing up will still be issues when they're legal. It sounds like you have more of an issue with immigration, not just illegal immigration. That's fine, but I thought we were concentrating on illegals. Yes they break laws to get here, but I think that's a little disingenuous. I mean, you could make it illegal to breath our air too, and technically they're all criminals because of it, but how realistic is that expectation? I know you disagree, and perhaps I should give it more thought, but I'm not buying into this "criminal" thing. So we are talking about immigration in general. Their illegality is not the problem, the lack of controlled inflow is the problem? That's a legitimate complaint. I think a secure border with practical filtering would take care of many issues, but it wouldn't take care of this. I'll have to give this some more thought, because you do raise some good points here that can't be ignored.

Maybe ecoli can do it...I think he lives up there somewhere... Well other languages and culture often come from other races... But, why does the country need to homogenize? First: No, just trying to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I believe their intent is far more benevolent. Second: A secure border - and I mean an actual secure border - should have been a priority decades ago. I don't know how passive a stance would be when you're literally - for real this time - going after and deporting those who don't take the path to citizenship. A virtual open border doesn't mean there's nothing expected of you. I just don't agree with this massive sweep of millions. Illegal aliens make above minimum wage in most cases? I think we'd better get some real numbers before we keep down this path. And I'm not sure about what band aid solution you're talking about. I was finishing my comparison between our ancestors malevolence and the benevolent intent of the current crop of immigrants. No, I worded that terribly. My position is against government programs like welfare already. So, I consider that when thinking about this immigration issue. For me, ideologically, there's no issue since those programs shouldn't even be in place. And if people are spending their own money on it, rather than my tax dollars, then why would I care? Although, I realize that realistically these programs aren't going anywhere. So, I'm of the mind to deny these services until citizenship. That may not stop the growth of the welfare state, but the problems associated with it are far greater than immigration. No, there's difference between countries and cultures, but I can't see how an illegal immigrant working and living here for a number of years is so far away from being a citizen that he should be deported. We're getting all bent out of shape over people that haven't pushed paper, or learned some of the language, jumped through some hoops we've set up - and while it's disrespectful, no doubt, I don't see the justification for rounding them up and deporting them - people who have spent time here, established lives, friends, families. They broke a law, but it's not worth deportation. Again, virtual open borders does not mean non-secure borders. Or maybe I need to look that up too... I don't have any problems with practical filtering along the border. I just figured that was part of an actual secure border. Pimps hurt people. Or at least, the pimps I'd be proud to put away do. Selling sex doesn't hurt anybody, but when someone beats another down to do it, then it does doesn't it? I give a free pass to the impoverished people that run to america for a better life and condemn those that beat girls into selling their bodies. Any other questions?

Agreed. Which is why I take issue with demonstrations on american soil sporting mexican flags. It's insulting and doesn't go a long way to showing any willingness to unify with other americans. This is true, and I am certainly trivializing a bit, but from my perspective most of these "public resources" are poverty focused welfare programs of all flavors, which I am against. So, that puts me in a funny spot with all of this, because I'm of the mind that the government safety net should be eliminated, which would make it a non-issue concerning immigration. But most people don't agree with that idea, so it makes it an issue. Since it won't be eliminated, my pragmatic default would be to deny all government services except the essentials, until proof of citizenship. No school, welfare, food stamps...etc. But that still doesn't evade costs associated with incarceration and medical. But when you take the sponging incentive away, I think you get rid of the losers. Sure. Not sure of your point though. I was just trying to look at it for what it is - what we consider a "citizen" is more of a symbolic ritual of paperwork. Maybe I'm trivializing that a bit too much, but I'm not appreciating the credit of the "citizen".

Maybe not, if we can get Ron Paul elected...I like that guy so far.

I meant to include a question mark at the end of that to indicate speculation. I was speculating that perhaps interest in missile defense is low because of an aversion to runaway defense spending. It was not a conclusion, sorry. Well, the implication was that you don't care about saving lives AS MUCH as you care about resisting the defense spending - but that only applies if you had verified my previous speculation that I flubbed up into a conclusion. Man, when I screw up... I'll agree with that in terms of the current rolled out system. But I didn't think they were done coming up with ideas, which is where my arguments lie. Missile defense as a concept, is what I'm arguing for. I don't have an opinion on the various systems because I'm not qualified to have one. That's why I've declined your invitation to preach, essentially, ignorance on missile defense success.

Then take the statue down or change the slogan because it's a lie. Social homogeneity? The country getting a little less pale bother you some? I don't see any problems here, since individuality is promoted. The only problem is traditionalists who want to keep things relatively the same... Yes they should be rewarded citizenship for making it here. I don't really give a crap if they consider it reward or not. It's pragmatic. Our ancestors showed up and killed' date=' raped and enslaved the natives here and we were rewarded with our own little country huh? Today's illegals are guilty of not fitting in, and not learning the pledge of allegiance - though rather than pillaging the natives, they're working for them...for crap wages... And I'm sorry my countrymen believe in the welfare state, perhaps if you wouldn't give handouts they wouldn't be able to sponge off of the tax payers. There are a lot of arguments about how they tax government programs, and my response is to quit with the government safety net. That's just one of many reasons not to have a welfare system. Sure they do. They deserve equal treatment. Even criminals have rights. It's easier to see their due, when you consider yours. What makes you such a citizen? Because you were born here? Gee..bet that was tough. What else? Because you pay taxes? Yeah, I can see how envious working for two dollars an hour under the table can be... There's not enough to being a legal citizen to justify the level of animosity towards illegal immigrants. I don't get it. I'm such a deserving citizen because I have a social security number and I can say my ABC's? But those illegal immigrants should be deported because they don't?? That's why I don't have a problem with amnesty. Citizenry is overrated fluff. All they should have to do is pay taxes, in my opinion. Which will actually be better for them, since their wages will go up more than the difference taken by taxes. Already covered above, but just wanted to be clear that yes, 15 million pimps put in jail on my watch would make me proud. 15 million non-criminals that we make believe are criminals would make me sick. This is based on the idea that a starving man who steals bread is not a criminal - maybe technically, but not realistically. Anyone who just starved to death instead, would be an idiot. No. My contention is that we should not have laws that contradict our traditional offer of global welcome to all that can get here. My contention is also that if you're going to deport them for breaking the immigration law(s), then deport anyone else for breaking any laws also. After all, I break our laws all the time - floating stop signs, not using a turn signal, speeding, smoking herb, public intoxication...etc. And that's entirely trivial - the quality of my life is not in any jeopardy if I don't do those things. But you want to stick it to people who broke one law - or one set of laws? Deportation for a crime that's far more harmless than the laws I and many others are breaking everyday? AND, that is arguably out of necessity and desparation? That's way too inconsistent and hypocritical for my taste. I say punish them for breaking the law, with reason, not hyped up Rush Limbaugh punishment. Except the problem last time is Reagan had no issues with the amnesty part, he dropped the ball on enforcement from that point forward. I think that second part is more important than the first part. And that's the part the country is so concerned about. But here we are, arguing about people that are already here, keeping us from doing anything about those trying to get in everyday. Understand, I'm for a secure border. Probably moreso than you. I don't think there should be an inch of border that is not surveilled and secure. We should be patrolling that border like a maximum security prison - so we can check and filter criminals and such from the rest of the immigrants.

No kidding. Besides, can you imagine how disgusting it would look to see 15 million people rounded up and deported? It would be another stain in american history, and I'd be ashamed that it happened on our watch... That said, after this amnesty party, we need to get complete control of our borders and enforce citizenship laws - including punishing employers for hiring illegals.

I guess I'm in a strange position, because I don't see the problem with virtual open borders, like the right seems to. Our country has always been the reject's home. Give us your tired, your poor...etc. I love that. We take your tired and poor and become the most advanced country on the planet. We're the melting pot and I'm proud of that. So why do we want to ditch that whole idea and restrict access? On the same note, why does the left insist these people stay illegal, beat down to crap wages and no representation, no access to the same rights and laws as the rest of us? They keep using this misdirection technique, acting like they're fighting for the immigrants against these racist republicans, when they're actually fighting for them to stay illegal by not doing something about it. These people deserve the same rights as the rest of us - particularly wages. And in my opinion, we should always offer the open door policy to all immigrants. Maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal if we weren't shipping jobs overseas and trying to be part of the global market...

Then let me clarify by saying physical defense. How else do you stop an ICBM, physically? No one has an answer for that, just repeated rationalizations that we don't need to physically defend ourselves from ICBM's. That's about as senseless as dissolving the military because no one is invading, or will likely invade. But your last sentence explains alot actually. Perhaps many of you are too focused on who's making money, too absorbed with resisting the capitalist defense industry - rather than focusing on the potential good. Maybe they are making money hand over fist, taking advantage - but that doesn't change the obvious need for missile defense. I'm more concerned with saving lives than who's running away with the money. It's not that I don't see it as flawed, it's that I see it as necessary to pursue. If our military totally sucked and anybody could beat us up, I would STILL contend we need to spend money on it and continue to make it better. It doesn't matter that we aren't good at shooting bullets with other bullets yet, it matters to keep trying anyway. Besides, we're actually not bad at it. Patriot missiles were pretty sweet huh? And doesn't the navy utilize the same idea of shooting a projectile with a projectile also? It's these very obvious, fundamental points that have me suspicious of the motives of those who oppose missile defense. I just see repititious, weak arguments about how much it sucks right now and how much we think it's going to suck in the future. Even though that hasn't stopped us from promoting AIDS and cancer research, embryonic stem cells, or weather forecasting. If my contention was that it isn't flawed, then sure. But that's not my perogative. I don't care if all we have is blue prints and a team of monkeys in a lab, we need to pursue it, period. Shooting down ICBM's is extremely important - well shooting down any moving object of any size is extremely important. Iran is nuclear. So is Pakistan and India. This club will only grow, not shrink. And none of them like us very much. We need to get good at this.

Yeah, you're right. Why build tanks? It's easily thwarted with bigger ammo. Why build planes? They're easily thwarted with a handful of idiots with box knives. Just because it can be thwarted - today anyway - doesn't mean you just give up. Isn't that a little childish? What is it about american technology, R&D, that would suggest to anyone on the face of this earth that we can't master missile defense?

Why would anyone argue in favor of NOT defending yourself? That's weird. That really puzzles me why so many people are in favor of not pursuing defense. Why do we have an army during periods of no war? Why do we have warships at sea during periods of no war? Why do we train constantly during periods of no war? Gee...maybe because you should be prepared? Same with embryonic stem cell research huh? Doesn't matter if it's a joke and adult stem cells already enjoy significant success, just as long as certain individuals in government get money to kill unborn babies huh? ---------------- I remember several people in this thread arguing in favor of embryonic stem cell research, even though after decades of research...not a freaking thing has come of it. Yet they still support it - and rightly so. So what happened to that logic when we turn to SDI? Suddenly, if no big pay off on the outset, and we're calling it a joke and dismissing it...WTF? How about a little consistency? Gee...this couldn't have anything to do with GWB does it? Of course not...if Clinton pursued it, everyone would still crap all over the idea I'm sure...yeah right.. I've brought this point up 3 times now and no one has taken it on. I can only assume none of you have an adequate response. So, why the inconsistency? How can you be in favor of as-of-yet fruitless research in one area, but against it in another? If there's a logical hole there, I'm not seeing it.

"Star Wars" worried the hell out of Gorbachev. It's easy to look back now, and judge Reagan from the typical evil republican capitalist blah blah blah argument, but at that time it was very real to people and served a psychological purpose in the arms race with the soviets. I know I read somewhere, that SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back for Gorbachev - according to him anyway. They could keep up with nuclear warheads, but we bluffed them good with SDI. And while that's all fascinating technology, it will get better still. Just like embryonic stem cells that haven't produced a single cure, missle defense will also one day start to really take off, even if it looks dismal now. No reason at all not to have faith. And then, keep in mind, Bush also said SDI was intended to counter rogue nations from a missle or two - not dozens of waves of ICBM's. So, much of technology above will work good for that. Sounds to me like Bush is being quite consistent. No reason for the russians or chinese to worry about the effectiveness of MAD.

Bombus, ICBM = Inter Continental Ballistic Missle....they can lob 'em far enough. Sure it will work. Has the last few hundred years of exponential human advancement given you any clues yet man? It will work great. We can shoot a bullet with a bullet. And it will be fairly easy to do at some point too. And we can already shoot a nuke on a boat...no problems there, that's why we're concentrating on these flyin' ones now... I don't remember anybody saying the soviets intended to invade the west. Now maybe I missed that history lesson, but as I recall there was a lot of tension between the allied powers and russia at the end of WWII and we began checking each other through proxy wars and propaganda. More of a power struggle than an imperial intent. We are both guilty of this, but I would nod to human nature and get past it. After all, WWII was just absolutely horrible for the world - so much dead and suffering, torn up countries. All because we let somebody get out of hand before dealing with them. So what was wrong with basically a war of economies with the soviets rather than physical battle, casualties, dead people? Isn't that more of a pacifist approach?

Yeah, his arguments are over simplified populist exercises. He uses logic when it's convenient for his position, only. But I do remember one time on the radio when someone was using the slippery slope argument on something, and he started going off about how he doesn't buy into the whole slippery slope thing. Keep in mind, his logic behind it was as sparce as anything else he's spewed on the air.

Interesting, since he's repeatedly made the same points as you about the slippery slope argument. He doesn't buy it either, or at least the last time I heard him on radio anyway. I don't know that slippery slope arguments aren't merely following logic to its ends. If you're going to say that marriage isn't between a man and a woman, but rather two humans, based on the logic that we have no right to judge or deny others of their own interpretation of marriage, then marriage to other animals is a logical step beyond by using the same logic. Just following it to its ends. The Patriot act establishes a new line of logic. By ignoring our basic privacy rights, we have taken a step in the direction of facism. If you follow the logic to its ends... And Dak makes a great point, if I understood him correctly, that often times we're starting from A and heading towards Z. Z is the extreme of that logic. A is the most subtle application of that logic. Everything in between is discrete steps that we arbitrarily choose as the "line in the sand". And I would add that if that logic is good enough for A, why is it not good enough for Z? If it wasn't appropriate for Z, then why should it be appropriate for A? That's how we get a country that sports freedom while owning slaves...freedom was good for white man, so why wasn't it good for all man? The logic wasn't consistent, wasn't followed to its ends. Edit: To be clear, when I hear the slippery slope argument on gay marriage leading to beastiality, I always say " So...?" Consider the slippery slope being presented before we assume its an undesirable end.

I vote political maneuvering. And I think it's somewhat necessary. Did we actually extend an offer of alliance on the science of missle defense before this? I really don't know. Aforementioned strategic balance sounds right to me. I could see Putin saying something regardless of whether or not the Russian's are genuinely concerned. I think it would be good collaborate with them on missle defense too. Now, I have to admit being shocked at the apathy towards missle defense as well. Current effectiveness = irrelevant. Same thing with embroyonic stem cells. Why should it matter that we suck at it right now? Need = Major. We've pissed off half of the world at this point and half of them have nuclear weapons or are feverishly trying to get them. And we're always talking about how we shouldn't attack and occupy other countries, so why not direct the money and the capitalists to defensive military toys for a change? That'll keep them busy....

What about cars that don't use keys? What about the future cars that may or may not use anything that's able to be confiscated? And how do you know who drove? 10 cars and 27 people...gee who's keys do you take? And how are you going to stop someone from parking around the corner, or a block away? Since when is a business compelled to supply bouncers? Why should they have to pay for it? How many bouncers per pub? Funny, how their business is about drinking and staying in one spot, yet they're the target of your solution to stop people from drunk driving. Why is it their problem? They didn't make you drive. They don't care how you get there. There is no direct responsibility between the bar and drunk drivers. There is between the bar and drunks...not drunk drivers. I really don't get it. You are basically advocating picking citizens out of mix and forcing them to make others adhere to the law. That's weird. How about examining the lack of sense in having public bars yet putting people in jail for public drunk....you have go into public in order to get back to your private property. In fact, I see no legal way to leave a bar drunk. If that's the case, then no bar should allow anyone to get drunk right? When's the last time you saw a breathilizer? They should be hanging on a rack at your convenience store. They should be sold at the bar, or provided as a service. Where's the sense in defining a blood alcohol level and tool to measure it with, yet keep the ability away from the public - the public who has been directed to stay within it and has no means to measure? I don't think it's a conspiracy to keep it away from the public, and I know it's not illegal for us to own breathilizers, but I've always found it odd how you never see them anywhere. We're supposed to know when our blood alcohol level reaches 1.0....magically??? I still like attempted murder charges, first offence.

Where? If spending time in prison for attempted murder, first offense, doesn't stop it, then I say death penalty and just get it over with...

How about making drinking and driving an attempted murder or manslaughter offense? I like that one the best...