<p>jks search my posts. you can see that i have always loved to share my opinions and try to be a help. but lmao help others so they can have an unfair advantage? lmao...help them so other ppl will suffer coz of them? lmao...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Youre just a traditionel case of a brainwashed american....
A year ago, few US exchange students went to my country to stay for a year. When they arrived, I asked them about the war in Iraq, at that time they said exactly the same thing as you are now. A few months later, I started the discussion agian. This time they all 4 agreeded with me about Iraq, they even went to demonstrate against Bush when he arrived here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Deference your post has nothing to do with the facts. Just because someone else "believes" something has not a dam thing to do with whether I, or anyone else for that matter believes in that same thing also. Try to think outside of whatever political herd youre in. Two hundred years ago the southern region of my country stripped the natural, God-given rights of an entire class of humans all for economic gain. Just because the majority spat at the principles of our Declaration of Independence during this time didn't change the fact the government was still encroaching upon the rights of its citizens. To summarize, the majority is only a tool governments use to uphold a limited republic; in other words, there are definitive limits on the government that a majority cant change no matter what. Your point has no stand because youre trying to persuade me into doing something by saying others agree with you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
First Iraq was an unnessery war, it was started with lies about weapons of mass destruction, the possibilty of Bin Laden in the country. Both things were never found there, and still Bush hasn't apology for this tremendous mistake.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lie? Really? Because if a lie presupposes one's cognizance of the TRUTH before anything is said to mislead, that means you and your socialist friends must of known something the rest of the intelligence community on this planet didn't! Let's get this man his props! </p>
<p>But to ask a serious question, what is (and was) the job of President Bush anyway? </p>
<p>First and foremost, it was to protect his citizens from foreign breaches of their rights (he is, after all, the head of the EXECUTIVE branch). Get in the shoes of this man for a moment. Suddam Hussein won't let weapons inspectors properly inspect, he's a pathological dictator that tortures, murders, and rapes his own people, and we know for a fact that if he had WMD's he wouldnt hesitate to use them. Now, according to intelligence reports from several nations across the globe, this man has either</p>
<p>a.) The capacity to make WMDs</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>b.) Actual WMDs !</p>
<p>So, considering Suddam Hussein is NOT complying even with U.N. resolutions which are attempting to lead him in the direction of disarmament/proving to everyone he doesn't have the capacity to make WMDs, there is a PROBABILITY OF A THREAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. </p>
<p>What was the probability of this threat? Was it 100%, 80%, 25%, 10%....does it even matter? Bush has and HAD the obligation to protect his people from foreign rights violations. He acted by warning Suddam over and over that if he did not comply 100% with the U.N., military action from the U.S. and several other nations would be brought forth on Iraq. Because Suddam refused to do this, President Bush wasn't going to play the "Probability Dice Game" with the lives of his own people. </p>
<p>Now, I understand you feel concerned that the U.S. didn't find any WMDs after we invaded his regime, but you have to realize Bush had no other safe choice to take in terms of neutralizing a possible impending threat. Even though we didn't find any WMDs (the primary justification for the war), look at all of the great stuff we have done that serve the interests not just of the U.S., but millions of Iraqis as well (listed in my previous post).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second if every day you hear the same thing about Iraq, at the end you will believe in it. *</p>
<p>That's a two way street buddy, and even though I don't know what country you come from (your profile doesn't indicate), I seriously doubt your media is any better than ours in America. For crying out loud, most of Europe gets their news from GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SOURCES. This is the most atrocious concept I've ever come accross. If you want to constantly deal with your medias high potency for corruption, slander, and outright BIAS, then you go ahead, but I'll stick to my private (albeit liberal) media here in the U.S. where networks compete like hell with each other and at the end of the day all of the facts are heard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just as you hear everyday someone is raped, at the end when it is night you will be afraid to get raped.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just like the Iraqi people before they were liberated by the U.S. military, eh? Again, even though it was not the primary justification for war, the Iraqi people now are respected as they should from their government. No sane person could assert the Iraqis are worse off now then they were before the invasion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Third I believe in the Roosevelt way..pumping money in the economy..in almost every european country it is happening now, and we already see the change of the economic climate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry to hear that; I believe in the free way: get the government the HELL out of the economy and let the PEOPLE do as they wish with THEIR money. That's funny how you attempt to corroborate your claim with the European examples. The European economies suffer from adept unemployment rates and stagnating growth patterns. Almost every law passed in Europe somehow stifles the hard working individual by sucking more money out of him for the benefit of his looting brothers in the government and elsewhere. </p>
<p>If I sound at all harsh, I apologize beforehand. I'm simply stating what I believe with no political correctness attached. I ask that you look at the claims I make in my posts (as well the warrants behind them) with an open and certainly active mind (I promise I will do the same for your posts). However, with all of the personal research Ive done on nearly every topic in existence, I have found that looking at things with the conservative perspective is the definitive way to go.</p>
<p>very nicely stated argument</p>
<p>anyway, I'm gone for like 2 days and damn this thing turn into a war, mainly headed by spartan and vehement. But let me make one thing clear</p>
<p>programmer: I did not create these programs because you did...and although I know how to use c and create assembly programs...I believe it is not as efficient. But anyway, without creating argument on that, let me say that I am in no way advertising my programs or anything....I just had a lot of requests from people to send me stuff and I felt that I should share with the world whatever I know (even if it may not seem ethical or whatever to you guys...its your choice to use them)</p>
<p>so in the end, i'd like to say I'm still updating and working on MATH IIC things...although mathIIC is more of a knowledge based test (less reasoning)</p>
<p>lmao....why even bother posting on a forum if you don't want replies?</p>
<p>might as well have pmed those people instead of advertising stuff thats not even urs...</p>
<p>yeah you're right, I guess I should've. </p>
<p>But on the lighter side, if you do have tips (since you say you are very helpful) please do share them. I'll give you credit for them (it does seem that you have a lot to say)</p>
<p>i am currently working on an sat 1 guide..i will post it later. just don't laugh when you read it O_O</p>
<p>Would you kindly like to explain (specifically) your reasons behind your opinion that "C and Assembly are not as efficient as TI-BASIC?" Every single "sane" person realizes that BASIC is so limiting and inefficient compared to Assembly and C that it's rediculous! Holy crap, why do you think people are dying to learn those languages!? So they can tell people, "hey, I developed a pile of sheit because it's inefficient!" ?? Hell, no. Honestly, look at any manual on <a href="http://www.ticalc.org%5B/url%5D">www.ticalc.org</a> and you will see. :D :D</p>
<p>c isn't inefficient....I've actually known c and c++ programming and whole bunch of other languages. I just think that creating an assembly program takes too much to go in and get out. If you use small simple functions and programs that you know how to use (it'll make you realize how the program is working) and best of all you can always scroll up and see what you plugged in and what not.</p>
<p>c is great for creating accessible "side notes" and various other amazing things, but for this purpose...its not that great.</p>
<p>My compliments GeorgeS,
That were very good arguments...
I am sorry that my English skills are very bad, so that I am not able to write my arguments without grammar errors. </p>
<p>I think if this was a real discussion in public, you had won.
But let us look at one more point, The United States failed the UN, it went to war without approvement of the UN. US said that it was all about selfdefense.
I think this is wrong, because US is the policeman of the world, by doing this it gave all other countries the wrong impression that you can go to war without caring about the UN and can invade an other country simple because of self-defense. I dare to assert this, that in the near future there will be a war where a country will do exactly the same as US did now. But this time the US will say that this isn't correct and the country should first go to UN before going to war.
North Korea is now a potential threat to America...
Do you think US will attack it?? they even proclaimed in contrast to Iraq that they posses WMD. I dont think so, US can't even handle a bunch of rebels in Iraq, so starting an other war is out of order.
I think this is kinda ironically, US attacked the wrong country, it was better if it went to North Korea and stopped kim Jong il. By attacking Iraq , America created a threat that is capable to fire rockets to the westcoast of US.</p>
<p>George S, you are insanely hypocritical. You told me to stop posting verbose arguments on CC...</p>
<p>you then follow by posting an insanely long comment in which your only goal was to defend president Bush. I don't care if you like President Bush and want the United States to force democracy upon foreign nations without respect for autonomy...we do live in a free society, so go ahead and betray the freedom that our country works so hard to preserve. And while we are at it, why don't we just ban gay marriage federally because we don't want homos to ruin the white christian male ideology that you have stuck in your head? Lets cut taxes for the upper 2% income bracket and let the rich afford another mercedes while the middle and lower brackets work hard to make ends meet. And finally, why don't we ban stem cell research on the premise that it is "murder" even though the party in question is not living. We wouldn't want cripples to have a chance at walking again...no, we will let our christian ideals supercede what could be done to better society.</p>
<p>"I have found that looking at things with the conservative perspective is the definitive way to go."</p>
<p>And need I mention the conservative oxymoron of Business Ethics? Hello Haliburton!!</p>
<p>"I think this is kinda ironically, US attacked the wrong country, it was better if it went to North Korea and stopped kim Jong il."</p>
<p>lol. Go watch Team America. Kim Jong Il was hilarious (and crazy) in that movie as well as in real life. And you would also realize that he is a complete madman (one of the few accurate things in the movie) and attacking his country would be a big mistake.</p>
<p>I think that the reason the U.S. is hesitant to attack NK is because the casualty rate will be catastrophic in comparison to Iraq. NK has a 1.1 million man standing army and an unknown number of troops in reserve. Their weapons technology is inferior to the U.S. but far superior to what the Iraqis had.</p>
<p>NK could also decide to take down all of its neighboring countries with it by nuking Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia. That would surely become a global disaster, and the U.S. would be put to blame for provoking North Korea.</p>
<p>Not even Bush has the balls to mess with Kim Jong Il.</p>
<p>new stuff just added...still working on more. no need to reply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My compliments GeorgeS,
That were very good arguments...
I am sorry that my English skills are very bad, so that I am not able to write my arguments without grammar errors. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's OK deference, we're just friends here. Let's talk about the next point you brought up here:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The United States failed the UN, it went to war without approvement of the UN. US said that it was all about selfdefense.
I think this is wrong, because US is the policeman of the world, by doing this it gave all other countries the wrong impression that you can go to war without caring about the UN and can invade an other country simple because of self-defense. I dare to assert this, that in the near future there will be a war where a country will do exactly the same as US did now. But this time the US will say that this isn't correct and the country should first go to UN before going to war.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The U.N. is a body that originally had pure intentions, but since then has failed to serve its purpose. I admit that having an international body that tries to mediate the bitterness among nations and prevent unjust wars between them is good, but I am obliged to ask everyone in this forum the following question: What good is the institution if it can't enforce its own resolutions? The U.N. failed to uphold its own resolution 1441 (the resolution demanding that Iraq comply 100% with weapons inspectors), and as a result of their inadequacy the U.S. was FORCED to defend itself by its own means. Bush even made the argument he was upholding the institution by legitimizing its own resolutions by actually enforcing them. Remember, also, that initially the coalition of the willing was comprised of 40+ nations across the globe. Although the U.S. was obviously the leading force in this coalition, it wasn't JUST the U.S. acting unilaterally.</p>
<p>Now that we're talking about the U.N., I have a few further questions to raise about its supposed legitimacy as an international regulatory body. First off, LIBYA is the HEAD of the HUMAN RIGHTS commission. Libya is one of the most despicable nations ever to disgrace the face of this earth when it comes to human rights, yet the all-glorious, sacrosanct United Nations elected it as the leader of one of its most exalted "functions" (preventing human rights abuses). How then, one MUST ask, can this happen? The answer is that the other members of the human rights commission elected Libya so they wouldn't have to worry about violating human rights themselves. Yup, with nations commission members such as China, Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe, what's the point of electing someone that might get on your rear for breaking those pesky human rights rules you don't even pretend to follow anyway? If the U.N. were truly legitimate, it would start off by kicking nations that don't even have a minimal respect for human rights OUT THE DOOR. I cant even begin to tell you how much respect would flood in from powerful nations like the U.S. if this were to happen, but unfortunately the U.N. continues to exist in its hypercritical state and tug the U.S. (which funds the majority of the institutions endeavors) along with it. Sad, but true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
North Korea is now a potential threat to America...
Do you think US will attack it?? they even proclaimed in contrast to Iraq that they posses WMD. I dont think so, US can't even handle a bunch of rebels in Iraq, so starting an other war is out of order.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We'll go to war with North Korea only if we have to. So far, diplomatic relations is very sour with this backwashed, war-obsessed government, but war is still a long ways away and of course hopefully will never have to happen. One thing is for sure, however, and that is the fact that going to war with Iraq like we SAID WE WOULD sends a strong message to other rogue nations like North Korea that if you mess with the United States national security, we will fail to appease your wishes. </p>
<p>Then, madskier says:</p>
<p>
[quote]
George S, you are insanely hypocritical. You told me to stop posting verbose arguments on CC...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Madskier, settle down buddy. I was being sarcastic in that post, not serious. If anyone is guilty of having a grandiloquent writing style it's definitely me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
don't care if you like President Bush and want the United States to force democracy upon foreign nations without respect for autonomy...we do live in a free society, so go ahead and betray the freedom that our country works so hard to preserve.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahah, the U.S. does NOT work hard to preserve the autonomy of rogue, human right-abusive states like Iraq and North Korea. The U.S. works hard to preserve the natural rights of its citizens, period. Read any founding document and it will spouse the same principles I talk about in my posts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And while we are at it, why don't we just ban gay marriage federally because we don't want homos to ruin the white christian male ideology that you have stuck in your head?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know why you think I am in favor of any "white Christian male ideology", but you're free to get mad about it if you think thats the case! If you really want to talk about gay marriage, then yes, I am against the notion that two males or females can unite into a bond that is inherently contradictory to the procreational principles marriage is designed to defend. I have nothing against gay PEOPLE, but I have everything against gay "MARRIAGE". Which, according to Merriam Webster, is defined as</p>
<p>"Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" </p>
<p>And according to Cambridge:</p>
<p>"Definition
marriage [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:
"</p>
<p>And according to dictionary.com:</p>
<p>"
marriage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n. </p>
<p>The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
"</p>
<p>Only recently has the "gay marriage" lobby tried to trample this definition with its blatantly illogical argumentation that unions of the same sex should be granted the same status as a procreational merger protected by law for reasons other than "love expression". Just to be clear, I have nothing against gay PEOPLE, but everything against gay "MARRIAGE" (perhaps civil unions would be an appropriate way to deal with this issue without totally disregarding logic).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lets cut taxes for the upper 2% income bracket and let the rich afford another mercedes while the middle and lower brackets work hard to make ends meet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First and foremost, that money is THEIRS rather you like it or not. They PRODUCED it by their OWN effort and for you to even assert that it is YOURS to dispose of for your own elitist reasons is DISGUSTING. Second off, it just so <em>happens</em> that the top 2% of this nation provides millions of jobs to the poorest of the poor, so giving them a tax break is consequentially going to help out society as a whole ANYWAY. Third off, the top 2% of this nation pays nearly 50% of the total taxes received by the government (if you don't believe me check the IRS for its annual reports!), therefore, if anyone deserves a tax break it is the top 2% who are indisputably, unfairly discriminated against by the government simply because they produce more wealth than their brothers. To this day, I am still shocked that society punishes those who they need the most.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And finally, why don't we ban stem cell research on the premise that it is "murder" even though the party in question is not living.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm in favor of all stem cell research that doesnt involve embryonic cells, which yes, are the most primitive form of human life (that pesky thing the government is here to protect on every level of principle, remember?).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And need I mention the conservative oxymoron of Business Ethics? Hello Haliburton!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I'm not even going to pretend to give your conspiracy insinuations the littlest of credibility. But even if I did, a government giving special favors to ANY group over others, whether it be a big oil company, a race, or a low-level income group, is NOT CONSERVATISM (it is injustice). </p>
<p>CONSERVATISM is the fight to uphold those principles America was founded on (defined by our founding documents and upheld by our Constitution). Again, Im going to have to agree with our founding fathers (at least in principle) on pretty much everything when it comes to politics.</p>
<p>George - I <3 you (In a non mansechs kinda way).</p>
<p>"CONSERVATISM is the fight to uphold those principles America was founded on (defined by our founding documents and upheld by our Constitution). Again, Im going to have to agree with our founding fathers (at least in principle) on pretty much everything when it comes to politics."</p>
<p>Key words: in principle. The ideals of the founding fathers have never been truly put into practice, and they never will be, for as long as we remain human. I believe a moderate course is in order, neither conservatism or liberalism. After all, we do need to protect the environment, not in a tree-hugging kind of way, but as a sort of duty, since we only get one Earth, and we have to make it last. Similarly, embryonic stem-cell research should be considered in an ethical light, but why ban the use of embryos that have already been destroyed? Let their death not be for nought...</p>
<p>Anyhow, I have no problem with having other people use programs on SAT math. First off, I'm guessing that most people will just take one or two programs to do the things they just can't remember, and in my opinion, that's a pretty smart thing to do. Secondly, if you can do it without the programs, don't get mad at the people who aren't able to...it sounds like you want extra recognition for being able to do it. If you really want to feel special, then, show up WITHOUT a calculator.</p>
<p>TI-BASIC may be inefficient programwise, but it integrates quite well with built-in features. For example, I used TI-BASIC to write a program that would print the interference pattern of concentric circles from 2 sources. That might be a little unwieldy in assembly.</p>
<p>I think what you are getting at is Reagan's trickle down economics. "In theory" the rich should received a tax break and will spend more of their money to feed the economy. Guess what? The many rich people would rather stay rich than blow it on useless items to fuel spending. This economic concept has been embraced by many conservative politicians, yet I'm afraid it has failed every god damn time. Its no wonder Clinton faced a large national debt when he took over as president.</p>
<p>On a side note, do you really agree the principle of slavery? Our founding fathers sure did. As a liberal I tend to side with change when things are not particularlly fair for all individuals. What are our constitutional rights?: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"</p>
<p>If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Don't ban it because you feel your ideals are superior to your neighbors. If you are rich, donate a good portion of your money to charity because you really don't need it. If you happen to be a man loving a man, woman loving a woman, or a man loving a woman, you should have the right to marriage. As far as we know (from a non-religious standpoint) we only live once. One should be able to do what one wants unless it directly harms another...I do not consider disagreeing with a majority's ideals to be a crime.</p>
<p>In conclusion, pursue happiness in your life with a brand new TI-89 titanium. This miraculous device can save your life (on a math exam) and graph fancy 3D objects. It even has a function which can solve world hunger, the Iraq Conflict, and polynomial roots.</p>
<p>I don't see the 'world hunger' or 'Iraq Conflict' equation solver on my TI-89 Titanium...(goes to check user-manual).</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>
[quote]
think what you are getting at is Reagan's trickle down economics. "In theory" the rich should received a tax break and will spend more of their money to feed the economy. Guess what? The many rich people would rather stay rich than blow it on useless items to fuel spending.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, this is just a consequence of tax-cuts, not the primary reason for their existance. We recognize that we haven't the right to raise the taxes on a group of people to take the money for ourselves and use it for our own frivolous fancies. Second off, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about above anyway, as there is PLENTY of evidence supporting Reaganomics. Here's an interseting paper I found on the subject that might edify you on the subject: </p>
<p>As for your objections on a heighthened deficit, I ask you this question: what is a deficit? A deficit is when you spend more than you have; therefore, it was the democrats in congress and their frivolous spending that created the deficit, not the other way around. If I remember from my readings correctly, the Democrats in Congress spent on average a $1.83 for every $1.00 that existed. I again ask, who created the deficit? Was it Ronald Reagan's Conservatism or the Democrats' rampant liberalism?</p>
<p>
[quote]
On a side note, do you really agree the principle of slavery? Our founding fathers sure did. As a liberal I tend to side with change when things are not particularlly fair for all individuals. What are our constitutional rights?: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, a lot of our founding fathers didn't believe in slavery. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence even went so far as to directly attack slavery on face, but was later revised to unionize the revolutionary effort (sadly). The key word to note in all of my statements is that I agree with the founding fathers IN PRINCIPLE. In PRINCIPLE, slavery is a detrimental force to the advancement of the founding values of "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness". Slavery is an abomination in contrast to the PRINCIPLES this nation was founded upon. If you need further clarifcation on this disctinction then listen to any speech given by Lincoln during the Civil War. You'll notice that the argumentation used by abolutionists was rested HEAVILY in the founding values of this nation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Don't ban it because you feel your ideals are superior to your neighbors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a rediculous argument as it completely ignores what the purpose of government is about: protecting the weak from the destructive forces of the strong. A government exists to protect those "inalienable rights endowed by our creator," thus, it is an obvious fact that the "weak" life of the unborn holds just as much weight as the "strong" life of its mother. Our founding fathers understood that we cannot arrogate to ourselves the right to destroy the rights of others, yet that is exactly what the abortion lobby is trying to do. Perversly, the abhorrent idea that abortion is somehow a "right" destroys the entire concept of a "right" altogether. Applying the same logic you're trying to use, I could say it's perfectly fine for me to bash your head open with a hammer because it is my "individual choice to do so" and "others shouldn't care". Rediculously sick, isn't it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are rich, donate a good portion of your money to charity because you really don't need it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is fine and something we should all do more of. However, just make sure you leave that up to the consent of the giver, rather than pointing a gun to his head and demanding that he give the money through the government because it is his "civic duty". Remember, that's his money to give, not yours to take. Also remember, by me saying this I'm not trying to divert attention away from your valid point that we all ought to give more to charity to help those who are less fortunate than us, I'm simply questioning your belligerent, unjust means of taking this money by force rather than requesting it by volition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you happen to be a man loving a man, woman loving a woman, or a man loving a woman, you should have the right to marriage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't make any sense at all. Please try to understand what I spent a lot of time writing about in my posts above. Marriage is an institution designed to protect the children that, on principle, always have a possiblity of coming about through the joining of the flesh between a man and a woman. However, on PRINCIPLE, it is impossible for a gay relationship to produce any such children, so marriage between gay people is completely illogical (not to mention rediculous, why would gay people want to get their relationships involved with the government anyways?). Again, perhaps civil unions would be a way to solve this problem, but don't offend logic by proposing gay people can get "married". On final note, please remember conservatives have nothing against gay PEOPLE, only against gay "MARRIAGE". </p>
<p>
[quote]
One should be able to do what one wants unless it directly harms another...I do not consider disagreeing with a majority's ideals to be a crime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Re-read what you just said and re-consider your views on abortion. Then, re-read what you just said a second time and re-consider whether or not you are a conservative (because that statement is as pure as conservatism gets).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Key words: in principle. The ideals of the founding fathers have never been truly put into practice, and they never will be, for as long as we remain human.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The closer we have gotten to following the enlightenment ideals of a government existing soley to protect the people's natural rights, the better off society (as a group of individuals) has been. Liberalism is a disease that spreads when larger groups feed off of the produce of smaller groups. When you say we should be "moderate", you are basically conceding truth for falsety. A comprimise with evil is still evil. Perhaps you may think my rhetoric is harsh, but when it comes to issues as serious as our government I don't think there is any other way to approach it. Hopefully, as time passes and our republic continues to move forward, we will get closer to the ideal form of government our founding fathers envisioned through civilized expression, discourse, and (above all) voting.</p>
<p>updated again. also added ti-dictionary reference and link to download.</p>
<p>You have an interesting way of twisting my logic:</p>
<p>"Re-read what you just said and re-consider your views on abortion. Then, re-read what you just said a second time and re-consider whether or not you are a conservative (because that statement is as pure as conservatism gets)."</p>
<p>Your realize that this post makes no sense at all. Conservatives wish to ban abortion because they feel it is "murder" and the woman who has an abortion should be culpable of a criminal charge. First of all, many conservatives feel abortion violates their religious principles. It is hard to murder something that is not technically alive and breathing on its own (hell it's impossible). Just because a person's neighbors feel abortion is wrong doesn't mean that person should not have that choice. The issue becomes a dillema centered on religious philosophy. Last time I checked we believe in a separation of church and state.</p>
<p>Secondly, Reaganomics promotes greed and led to the worst national deficit the nation has ever seen. It seems like "supply side" economics failed miserably. I know your arguments are completely fallacious because you neglected the time to read your own article:</p>
<p>"It is certainly true that the public debt rose by more under Reagan than in the two hundred years of all previous administrations added together"</p>
<p>Woa! Lets stop right there. Your point was just pwned by your own research! If you wish to learn some of the negative results of a large national debt, please reference: <a href="http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/negcon.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/negcon.php</a></p>
<p>You may notice some of the problems associated with deficit spending include inflation, the lowering of industrial and worker's wages, and international debt.</p>
<p>I will give you some credit; You correctly Identified that a liberal (John F. Kennedy) was the first president to utilize deficit spending. But I will make an analogy. Kennedy::moderation as Reagan::SEVERE MARKET RECESSION.</p>
<p>And as a final note on gay marriage, I would think homosexuals would want to be involved with the government. You ever hear of taxes? Filing single versus married? A couple filing single would pay substancially more to the government every year only to have the government deny their "rights" as americans. Arguing that gays should not be married demonstrates your elitist views as a person and feeling that your cultural ideals are superior to all others.</p>