How Conservative is Princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
61

<p>
[quote]
"1) So tell me - should infertile heterosexual couples be given the right to marry?
2) The two couples are not equal in what way? Chinese couples are not equal to Jewish couples.... should they be granted different rights based on race?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You should get over yourself because cicero already answered your first question about the state not being able to evaluate each heterosexual couple and thus granting the ability and privileges to marry to all heterosexual couples. With homosexual couples it is obvious they can not reproduce. </p>

<p>The second question has nothing to do with what I posted because race had nothing to do with homosexual marriage so I am not sure what you are talking about. And jewish is not a race btw.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"In response to your contention that religion owns "marriage" because it's a religious idea, I came up with the hypothetical suggestion to ban Sundays for non-Christians by the same principle. Anyone can see how ridiculous that this line of argument of "owning" "marriage" was in the first place."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't respond because the two are not parallel. You can not ban a day, because it is simply a period of time that is not granted. Sunday is a label, in fact sunday has nothing to do with Christianity. If you knew history you would know it was labeled sunday for pagan references so your analogy further falls. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"And for God's sake, it's spelt argument. And no, it's not a typo when you've done it more than once.</p>

<p>Give me a non-religious case for banning of gay marriage and maybe you'll learn to spell properly for once."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is so cute that when people can not respond to arguements :) they result to attacking the person. You should really calm down this is an internet forum. People are not going to take your arguements seriously if you inject emotion into them. </p>

<p>I offer you the challenge to logically show that a gay couple and a heterosexual couple are equal biological, show that they have the capabilities of producing a child naturally, until then DON'T RESPOND. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"Dbate, since you're so into the history of the Bible, why shouldn't marriage be defined as one man and multiple wives, as it is in the Bible? "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One of the epistles of Saint Paul established an analogy between Christ and the Church and therefore instituted the Christain policy of monogomous relationships. This is really a simple explanation that you could have found out by a google search.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]

From your quote I highly doubt you studied The Bible in a historical context, because then you would know Christians did not exist at the time that the actual commandments were written.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a completely pathetic response to my argument. It shows that you in fact have nothing of any worth to address the actual points that I raised. I would enjoy a response of substance, not a moot point in semantics next time.</p>

<p>
[quote]

You are showing that you neither understand the basic aspects of The Bible nor do you understand history. The crusades did not have a basis in The Bible, why? Because people could not read they only knew what the priests told them. If you know the history of the Church you would know that the Church was corrupt and wanted power. The ability to call soliders to war gave them the power to control kings. There is no Biblical motivation for the Crusades, if you really did study European history you would know this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, you are showing that you would fail logic 101. Your entire argument rests on the faulty assumption that not a single soldier in the crusades could read or comprehend the bible. This is statistical ignorance, and just makes no sense. Lets try to keep broad generalizations out of our arguments. I also enjoyed how you tried to avoid the Reconquista. Your generalization again fails to explain the actions of christians such as Torquemada, who definitely understood the bible, and definitely killed and tortured on its behalf.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Again you don't know what you are talking about. The other religions WERE threatening to the ISRAELITES which is who the commandments were written for. Those of other religions would literally wage war upon countries and threatened the purity of the Israelites (they had the most distinctive religion that was predicated on monothesism). It is interesting how the athiest arguement is to never kill because we all know atheists have never killed anyone <em>cough</em> Russia <em>cough</em>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So if someone threatens you, you should kill them? Great point, moral christian. Again, you make generalizations in an attempt to support your shaky arguments. You assume that every single non-israelite (sorry for simplifying and using christian in my last post, I assumed that you would understand what I meant-I was wrong) was waging war on the israelite's monotheistic religion, and that the israelites were acting out of self-defense by killing. If you studied the bible you will know that this is simply untrue. Israelites attacked and pillaged other tribes in the name of God, without being first attacked, on many occasions. The atheist point you mentioned is just sad, and because it has already rebuked by others, i'll just leave it at that.</p>

<p>
[quote]

You obviously know very little about history and therefore your understanding of religion is completely hampered. I think you should take up my suggestion that you read The Bible with historical commentary.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was hoping you would leave personal attacks out of our argument, but apparently you don't take to heart the teachings of Jesus. I will recommend then that in the future you do not pass judgment on others or childishly belittle their education during a scholarly debate. You have no idea how much I have read the bible and subsequent analysis, so I hope you will not to continue to pretend that you wander some state of higher enlightenment. Acting like you are too good to debate with me is just so hypocritical that it demeans the very teachings you are attempting to defend.</p>

63

<p>How can you be socially conservative, and economically liberal? That's like the worst of both parties right there. It's NeoConservatism. I mean I respect Democrats for their stances on voicing the social concerns and rights of all people, and I respect Republicans for preventing us from overspending--but you have the opposite of both of these views?</p>

<p>Yes, as a liberal I'm open-minded. But I'm not open-minded to intolerance. Period. I mean you're going to an ivy league school, you're a part of a new generation, a much more global world and you're still socially conservative?</p>

<p>I promise it's much easier to see the beauty in life on this side.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
You should get over yourself because cicero already answered your first question about the state not being able to evaluate each heterosexual couple and thus granting the ability and privileges to marry to all heterosexual couples. With homosexual couples it is obvious they can not reproduce. </p>

<p>The second question has nothing to do with what I posted because race had nothing to do with homosexual marriage so I am not sure what you are talking about. And jewish is not a race btw.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I ignored cicero because that's a pretty pathetic way of justifying the banning of marriage on the basis of reproductive ability. Your implied assumption is that no, in practice we can't ban infertile couples but if there were a way to do it you WOULD ban them from getting married. This is ridiculous on a level that's beyond any reasonable modern human being. There is no reason at all reproductive ability should even be considered when marrying people. Marriage has never been about that, and you guys are obviously just desperately cherry-picking what convenient differences you can find between gay and straight couples to support a very tenuous and unconvincing call for the ban.</p>

<p>And my question to you now is: so WHAT if they cannot reproduce? Nowhere in the law does it state they have to. IF you're so pumped up about reproducing, why aren't you calling for mandatory divorce for people who don't have kids before the wife reaches the unsafe age for reproducing?</p>

<p>Ohhh please, if you want to ban gay marriage on the purely religious basis that you're Christian and you can't stand gays, you would serve yourself better to just admit it rather than looking totally uncredible by coming up with whimsical "legal" arguments for it. Even FNC makes no pretensions about being "fair and balanced" anymore.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I didn't respond because the two are not parallel. You can not ban a day,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? You want to ban marriage. You want to ban anything that doesn't fit your worldview. How open-minded.

[quote]

because it is simply a period of time that is not granted. Sunday is a label, in fact sunday has nothing to do with Christianity. If you knew history you would know it was labeled sunday for pagan references so your analogy further falls.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Does it matter how the name came about?! How does it even discredit my question? Okay, for something that we Christians still recognise as ours, why don't we ban non-Christians from getting a day off on Christmas?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is so cute that when people can not respond to arguements they result to attacking the person. You should really calm down this is an internet forum. People are not going to take your arguements seriously if you inject emotion into them. </p>

<p>I offer you the challenge to logically show that a gay couple and a heterosexual couple are equal biological, show that they have the capabilities of producing a child naturally, until then DON'T RESPOND.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, looks like someone's running out of ideas. Calling the other side not to respond?</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
"How can you be socially conservative, and economically liberal? That's like the worst of both parties right there. It's NeoConservatism. I mean I respect Democrats for their stances on voicing the social concerns and rights of all people, and I respect Republicans for preventing us from overspending--but you have the opposite of both of these views?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I refer to myself as economically liberal because I believe in heavy government intervention to foster economic progess. So therefore I oppose the conservative view of limited government, perhaps an economic moderate would be a better label. I am so used to a binary conception of political views that I normally equate not conservative to liberal and I don't think of liberal economic policies as that of the extreme socialist.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Actually, you are showing that you would fail logic 101. Your entire argument rests on the faulty assumption that not a single soldier in the crusades could read or comprehend the bible. This is statistical ignorance, and just makes no sense. Lets try to keep broad generalizations out of our arguments. I also enjoyed how you tried to avoid the Reconquista. Your generalization again fails to explain the actions of christians such as Torquemada, who definitely understood the bible, and definitely killed and tortured on its behalf"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it means you don't understand history. Even if a single solider could read the Catholic church had the means of getting into Heaven because they regulated who could recieve last rites and the sacrements that Church teaching said was neccessary to enter into Heaven. So even if thousands of soliders could read they would not challenge the pope himself.
If you ever read or actually study the politics of the Church and the Reconquista you would know that it was not based on Biblical principles but on principles of power and economic conquest that was fueld by ignorance of the actual words of The Bible and manipulation by Church officials like Torquemada.</p>

<p>I will put it in a way that you will probably agree with. George Bush instituted policies that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis does that mean that the US government is corrupt? Or maybe that the constitution is corrupt? He used as a JUSTIFICATION WMDs but does that mean that the WMDs existed? Nope. Likewise the clergy that called for torturing and war used The Bible as a justification despite the fact that The Bible does not call for these actions and people consented to thier will, just as the US army consented to the President's will. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"So if someone threatens you, you should kill them? Great point, moral christian. Again, you make generalizations in an attempt to support your shaky arguments. You assume that every single non-israelite (sorry for simplifying and using christian in my last post, I assumed that you would understand what I meant-I was wrong) was waging war on the israelite's monotheistic religion, and that the israelites were acting out of self-defense by killing. If you studied the bible you will know that this is simply untrue. Israelites attacked and pillaged other tribes in the name of God, without being first attacked, on many occasions. The atheist point you mentioned is just sad, and because it has already rebuked by others, i'll just leave it at that."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your posts are showing a complete lack of knowledge of history and of logic. Yes if someone threatens your country you kill them aka WW2. If you knew the Hebrew of the Torah you would also know that killing is a distinct word from war. The Israelite country waged war against others for resources, just like modern day countries do. The dichotomy is that while we used national borders as distinctive aspects the Israelites used religion as it was the only thing that bonded them, and therefore other religions were literally anemic to the identity of thier state. </p>

<p>
[quote]
" I will recommend then that in the future you do not pass judgment on others or childishly belittle their education during a scholarly debate. You have no idea how much I have read the bible and subsequent analysis, so I hope you will not to continue to pretend that you wander some state of higher enlightenment. Acting like you are too good to debate with me is just so hypocritical that it demeans the very teachings you are attempting to defend."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no acting involved. In the course of this debate you have shown that you have very little knowledge of history including making errors like this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"And then let me say that Dbate has this complete inability to see a response when it screams at him in the face. In response to your contention that religion owns "marriage" because it's a religious idea, I came up with the hypothetical suggestion to ban Sundays for non-Christians by the same principle. Anyone can see how ridiculous that this line of argument of "owning" "marriage" was in the first place."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Showing that you don't know that Sunday has nothing to with Christianity and is even pagan in nature.</p>

<p>I asked you to show that gay couples are equal to straight couples in a biological way and so far you have failed to do so, I eagerly await your response. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"they cannot reproduce? Nowhere in the law does it state they have to. IF you're so pumped up about reproducing, why aren't you calling for mandatory divorce for people who don't have kids before the wife reaches the unsafe age for reproducing?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You completely misunderstand what I am talking about. Marriage has two distinct aspects legal and religious, it is would be unconsitutional to bar same sex individuals from obtaining the same legal rights as straight couples which is why civil unions are the natural mechanism. But in the religious aspect a gay couple can never be married and that is the larger context, that I am adresses when stating that they can not reproduce.
I hold the same opinion as Hillary Clinton that gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples but I believe the nomer should exclusively be civil unions. Reproduction and intercourse are important in the religious recongintion of marriage not the legal respect so the arguement about the law does not matter.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
"Yes, as a liberal I'm open-minded. But I'm not open-minded to intolerance. Period. I mean you're going to an ivy league school, you're a part of a new generation, a much more global world and you're still socially conservative?</p>

<p>I promise it's much easier to see the beauty in life on this side. "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fail to see how which school you go to or which generation you are determines your opinions. In a global world ppl are to acknowledge and to accept difference something that you care closed to, so I would suggest that perhaps you come to the beauty on the side that sees legitamacy in many points of view and that does not close itself off to anyone.
A person who only reads mother jones and watch MSNBC is as closed minded and ignorant as a person who solely reads Ann Coulter and watches Fox. True acceptance is the acceptance of difference.
I am fiercely opposed to gay marriage, but I am also fiercely in support of gay people because I personally feel that they are the same as straight ppl.
Not to offend you, but when you close your self off from the other side of a debate you limit your ability to form a total picture. Instead of dismissing those who oppose gay marriage as bigots try to understand why they oppose them. Is it because they are against the rights of gays or because they want the religious conception of marriage to remain pure. I am very much the later and that is why I support civil unions and not gay marriage. Perhaps to some that makes me a bigot, but I do not care.</p>

67

<p>So does anyone have any knowledge about the prescence of conservatism at princeton? It seems like one of the more conservative of the lvy league schools. I realize that the campus is probably overwhemling liberal being in jersey, but what is the extent of political activism on campus?</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
A person who only reads mother jones and watch MSNBC is as closed minded and ignorant as a person who solely reads Ann Coulter and watches Fox. True acceptance is the acceptance of difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. Good point. But let me add that "true acceptance is the acceptance of difference" if that "difference" is justified. I don't respect liberals who are only liberal b/c they want food stamps, but I do respect liberals like Olbermann who have come to those same conclusions based on analysis of the germane arguments. Same for conservatives.</p>

69

<p>What, now we're doing hermeneutics? On a college admissions forum?</p>

<p>No wonder people people hate social conservatives so much!</p>

70

<p>"You completely misunderstand what I am talking about. Marriage has two distinct aspects legal and religious, it is would be unconsitutional to bar same sex individuals from obtaining the same legal rights as straight couples . . . ."</p>

<p>So we all support gay marriage! Excellent!</p>

<p>Dang, spoke too soon...</p>

<p>"I hold the same opinion as Hillary Clinton that gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples but I believe the nomer should exclusively be civil unions."</p>

<p>Oh, so we're going back to the old "separate but equal" idea. I may be Canadian, but I could have sworn that the Supreme Court struck down this argument for institutional apartheid decades ago. That's American jurisprudence for ya!</p>

<p>"Reproduction and intercourse are important in the religious recongintion of marriage. . . ."</p>

<p>That's nice. Not very relevant, though: last I checked, nobody is proposing that we force religious establishments to recognize same-sex marriages -- except in their legal dealings, of course.</p>

71

<p>Sorry, I just had to get in on this.</p>

72

<p>1) Dbate, my main point has always been: DOES IT MATTER whether they're biologically equal? When has marriage EVER been about biology or the ability to reproduce? Rationally, logically, legally, it's clear as day that there are many other types of biological differences between different couples, such as ethnicity, health, fitness levels, and somehow Dbate, the self-proclaimed champion of biological equality between all marriage couples, finds no problem with those differences. After exhausting all logical explanations and rationalizations to explain Dbate's inexplicable fixation on sexual orientation, one can only come to the conclusion that his dispute is purely ideological and personal opinion. </p>

<p>2) And again, Dbate fails to answer whether, by his principle that marriage has religious origins and thus should forever be answerable to religion even if marriage has become a right enshrined in the laws of a secular nation, we should therefore make Christmas exclusive to Christians, and so forth. Like the typical radical conservatives, Dbate would very much prefer a theocracy where even universal rights must defer to the whims of one religion to the exclusion of everyone else, as long as such universal rights have "religious origins". </p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it because they are against the rights of gays or because they want the religious conception of marriage to remain pure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is simply the height of close-mindedness. Religion lost the right to define "marriage" the moment "marriage" got co-opted into the laws of a secular nation as a right. Organized religion does not run the country and has absolutely no say in government.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps to some that makes me a bigot, but I do not care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When the majority of people call you a bigot... then yes, you probably are one.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
You completely misunderstand what I am talking about. Marriage has two distinct aspects legal and religious, it is would be unconsitutional to bar same sex individuals from obtaining the same legal rights as straight couples which is why civil unions are the natural mechanism. But in the religious aspect a gay couple can never be married and that is the larger context, that I am adresses when stating that they can not reproduce.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Marriage has taken on to a meaning beyond religion. You are picking at tiny details. First you say that religion does not determine marriage. Then you say that people of different races should be able to "marry" because it's race and not gender. Later you start talking about infertile couples as if they should not be allowed to marry either.</p>

<p>Stop attacking screwitlah and refine your arguments please. and like mustaf said, the Supreme court has already struck down "separate but equal" institution unanimously in Brown vs. Board of Education. So stop making it sound like Civil Marriage brings the same benefits has marriage.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But in the religious aspect a gay couple can never be married and that is the larger context, that I am adresses when stating that they can not reproduce.

[/quote]

Furthermore, this comment is completely self-contradicatory. As I said, marriage is not contained by religion. By your comment, you would have us believe that all atheists and agnostics should only be allowed to have civil unions.</p>

<p>Lastly, I simply fail to understand why you seem so happy to make other people miserable.</p>

<p>P.S. I find your arguments way more emotional and flawed than screwtilah's arguments. You have provided roundabout logic.
[quote]
"Marriage is not religious. Because it's not religious, gays can't marry. Because of equality, gays should have civil unions. Gays should have civil unions because marriage has religious aspects

[/quote]

Wow.</p>

74

<p>screwitlah: you are mentally retarded if you keep this up. Shut up and stop attacking Dbate. He can have his opinion and you yours. Marriage usually stems from a religious sacrament/ceremony, therefore, it should be kept to religious institutions. Civil unions deal more with government, thus they should be reserved for homosexual unions. If the church does not want to unite homosexual partners then they should not be forced to. The definition of marriage by at least the Roman Catholic church, not sure about anywhere else, is a union between a man and a woman. Remember: if Caesar wants his money, then give him his money. If the church does not want to marry gays, then don't force them to. If gays want to be officially partners, allow for civil union. That is my take, but I am not trying to change your opinion. Aren't self proclaimed liberals supposed to be more open to ideas? You never see mobs of conservatives denouncing liberals for their ideas and getting them in trouble because of what they say, but this does not hold vice versa. You cannot say anything bad about blacks, homosexuals, jews, or any minority for that matter in our society today. I think it would be great to talk about topics like this, but it is not great to talk about stuff like this. Why? On one side, you have very radical self proclaimed conservatives that give all conservatives a bad rep by solely basing what they believe in on religion. That is nice and I am still somewhat religious, but you should have some logical backing to arguments other than a reference to the Bible. On the other hand, you have extreme ACLU liberals, like yourself, who hate the church just because or because it "conflicts with science" (which is bull because they are two completely unrelated topics if you don't take religion face value, and you would be a moron if you did so) and who hate conservatives because they are allegedly all holy rollers. Well, that statement is wrong. Then, there are many logical fallacies and false accusations that are thrown around. If you want to talk about social issues, economic issues, and political issues, grow a brain screwitlah. And that doesn't just go for screwitlah, but I am pointing him/her/shim out just because (s)he has acted like a big d-bag on this thread. Please talk about issues without getting all passionate and illogical. Some things are not a pure right or wrong answer, and you cannot condemn someone for holding an opinion that is marked as conservative or liberal unless they just have that opinion for the sake of being conservative or liberal. Most of my views on economy and social issues are conservative not because I am a holy roller, but because after logically assessing these issues, I've found that the more "conservative" stances make more sense to me. Now grow a brain, grow a pair, and shut up if you are going to just be a big annoyance.</p>

<p>As you were...</p>

75

<p>


I'm not sure if you're just talking extemp or about legalizing gay marriage, but when gay marriage was legal in California (pre Prop 8) Churches were NOT forced to marry anyone, they never have been. There were some churches and institutions that were licensed to give marriage licenses that did, however, freely marry gay couples and the gay couples went there. Legalizing gay marriage does not entail forcing churches to marry people, they can refuse whoever they want.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Marriage usually stems from a religious sacrament/ceremony

[/quote]
This is actually not true. First of all, marriage predates any form of a monotheistic religion. One of the best in-depth examples of ancient era marriage can be seen in The Medea (play by Euripides) about ancient Athens/Greece at the time. I suppose that marriage was definitely somewhat religious, but it was mostly a legal thing. The problem is that in ancient Athens the law and their unique brand of religion were quite intermingled, and it was also different than now because their religion was more flexible and open to debate by the juries and politicians of the day. While the marriage oaths were upheld by a certain deity, there were set marital laws abounding and it was very much a legal institution. Even if you would try to argue that it had a basis in religion and not just the law, then why are you trying to make modern versions of marriage into a specifically Christian-Judeo thing? Hell, ancient Greek/Roman paganism was so completely different from this thing. How come the Church gets the nation's only legal definition of marriage, and not Paganism and myriad other religions?</p>

<p>
[quote]
extreme ACLU liberals

[/quote]
Seriously dude, s t fu about sh-i-it you don't know anything about. ACLUE is HARDLY liberal or affiliated with any inane political party. The ACLU is one of the least partisan, least biased organizations in our nation. For God's sake, those "liberal commies" over at the ACLU were the reason that Oliver North (see: scapegoat for the Iran Contra Affair, i.e. Reagan's lackey) got out of jail! They will ardently support anyone in the name of constitutionalism and civil rights. Don't call them liberal or conservative, that's slander</p>

76

<p>But on topic:
I don't think Princeton is actually too conservative at all. Traditionally, the most conservative department on any college campus is going to be the economics department, and Princeton's is actually unusually moderate and sometime left-leaning. Paul Krugman, all-star Nobel Laureate, NYTImes columnist and proud liberal, is on the staff, Alan Krueger, who's research has been cited by Clinton's farthest left-leaning cabinet member (Labor Secretary Reich) work there, and Ben Bernanke (current Fed chairman, who seems pretty damn liberal or at least moderate to me) once worked there.</p>

<p>I would call the Princeton stereotype elitist, rather than conservative. And there are many liberal elites too, not just conservative elites (duh). A snobbish rich prick can be liberal or conservative</p>

77

<p>Liberal isn't a political party. And by religion I was not referencing monotheistic religions only. But traditionally, religion is not something of the state; it is more of a church matter. And the ACLU sucks in my opinion, but I do not feel like getting into a whole debate with me spending a good thirty minutes putting together the lot of my reasoning into one logical post. All I was trying to say (although I rant too much and go on too many tangents) is that conservatives should not be branded as holy rollers and liberals should not be branded as a "civil rights" martyr. If a self proclaimed conservative or liberal is of the respective affiliations of the extremes, then please at least express your opinions logically. Don't get up in others' grills with raging emotions.</p>

78

<p>Yeah, with Krugman (<3) on staff, I wouldn't say Princeton is conservative at all, imo. :)</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
But traditionally, religion is not something of the state; it is more of a church matter

[/quote]
What does church mean, then? There were no "churches" in Ancient Greece or Rome. Also, Ancient Greek marriages were more technical and state-administered than you can believe. The state routinely changed marriage laws - Pericles was famous for restricting who one may marry with the citizenship laws passed under him - and there were complicated property laws associated with it. Really, the history of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with anything religious or saintly or whatever. It's the history of women's rights, the social transition of women leaving their parent's homes, and property.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Liberal isn't a political party

[/quote]
It's a political movement, and while this is of course not always true, don't pretend you didn't mean it that way. I resent the fact that you slandered the ACLU by affiliating it with any political movement or party whatsoever. I suppose that the ACLU is QUITE liberal, if you're thinking of liberal in the vein of John Stuart Mill, which I am positive that you are not.</p>

80

<p>LOL, cicero has just reduced our perception of his mental age from single-digit to the negative zone. cicero, go get a mirror.</p>

<p>in the interest of this thread, and because the conservatives here are unable to contribute anything valuable or intelligible to this discussion, I'll take my leave.</p>