False dichotomy + straw man argument. Nobody is interested in dishonesty.

Additionally, you didn't respond to the point in any way whatsoever. I think I left out gun rights, for instance. Does any position on gun rights necessarily tie in to particular views on social safety nets, how extensive (and expensive) they are, or how they're structured? No. But the "left" vs "right" oversimplification of political philosophy (also a false dichotomy) would presume you're so base and uneducated as to think so.

That was the point I was making.

I'm against using violence to kill babies whenever it's convenient. Obviously I'm against government funding such violence even before that.

I'm against the use of drugs. They ruin lives and kill people. I merely mentioned the fact that some people think our laws on this topic are unproductive and more harmful than good, if good at all. I mentioned it in light of the fact that their views on this topic do not necessarily tie in to their views on abortion, for instance. They're not a packaged deal. By virtually no conceivable foundations of logic does a position on one necessitate a particular position on the other.

That's the point I was making. That's all I was saying. I offered no positions on these topics I mentioned to make the point. I offered no judgements of others' positions. I showed no interest in the topics themselves beyond their relevance to that point at all.

Have any thoughts on that point? Fallacious arguments aren't furthering discussion or enlightening anyone.

Yeah, let's socialize the cost of care even more and not examine the costs of our exploding healthcare premiums.

Nothing fixes a problem like making it worse.

Don't forget that I can't save money on healthcare through my ridiculously healthy diet and lifestyle. I need to pay just as much as Joe down the block who's 350 lbs and eats garbage. How rude is it for me to not want to pay for his infantile irresponsible idiocy!?

Don't forget that we all need STD coverage too. Because you have no control over whether you suddenly become a trashy idiotic whore tomorrow. No way you could make good decisions to avoid that. Better pay up to be safe. Better pay up to socialize the costs of other people's bad decisions, just as in the case with Joe.

God forbid we grow up and become adults who understand that our decisions have consequences and take responsibility for our own lives. It's not like we're human beings with limitless potential. It's not like we're sovereign members of a democratic republic in which the people ultimately control their own fates.

Then we wouldn't be as good of livestock to be milked for the profits of our labor. Then we'd be harder to control.

It's terrifying that sheeple are so thoughtless that they accept this crap. While we can afford private schooling, and we made it a point to be able to do so, not everyone can. I could be killed in a traffic accident tomorrow. It's possible my children could end up in public schools, if not likely. And, however unlikely that is, I care about my country anyway.

This is hardly a contentious issue, aside from the devout authoritarians of this forum who haven't seemed to give any thought to the topic (they certainly haven't made serious arguments here). This is the type of garbage America fought off and killed to free itself from in 1776.

Government is never going to raise children to be worldly free-thinkers. It's not in government's interests to do so. And literally every measure shows that most public schools fail miserably at this task as much or more than at their primary task (teaching children the fundamentals of language, science, and mathematics).

Of course bad parents are bad for kids. Of course state-raised children are not the solution.

Anyone who needed that to be stated directly for them to understand it, please don't have children.

Good parents and active members of local school boards make for good public schools. Needless to say, most of them are mindless sheeple such as those blindly advocating indoctrination and conditioning of children by authoritarians here. For this reason, public schools are a much larger systematic threat to children than bad parents. For this reason, there's absolutely no justification to infringe upon parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit.

Bad parents are a cultural problem which can't be fixed by government raising children. In fact, government raising children is a far, far more momentous problem to a free society.

It doesn't really matter. Rather than championing ideals such as freedom and the wealth it brings to societies, we're oppressing people by funding dictators and sending emissaries to wish Chavez a happy afterlife.

Going down with the globalist international banks ruining Britain is a slower decline than embracing the local national thugs from Argentina. Whatever: both ways go down.

Justinian I,

Have you any evidence that such horrible parenting is either more prevalent or more harmful than state-run schools which condition children to be mindless drones who keep their heads down and submit to authority, spending a minority of their days learning anything and little when they do?

Furthermore, if what you fear is remotely as harmful as many public schools, how do you propose that children be sheltered from such horrible parents? Such horrible parents still have their children a majority of the time outside of school. Such horrible parents are still the primary role models of their children, responsible for far more of their socialization than anybody else.

You clearly state your position that the state should take over parenting from parents, yet you are avoiding actually stating your position clearly or making any argument for it beyond "some parents are bad." Can we get some more clarity and less cowardice? You're advocating the state as primary holder of rights and sovereignty (the US constitution grants such things to individuals) and primary caretaker of children, yet you've hardly made a case for this draconian, authoritarian position that you are espousing here.

As The Yell points out, parents have every right on earth to protect their children from weirdos like you. Yes, I consider your whore-mongering, authoritarian chicken-sucking views to be disgusting, and I have every intention of keeping them out of the lives of my children until they're ready to understand human history, American history, and how ignorant cowards like you willingly submit to slavery and ruined America.

And that's my right, as protected under the Constitution, which gives neither you nor the collective majority (aka the mob) neither the lawful power to condition nor indoctrinate my children.

The point I'm making by disparaging your views on pretty much everything is that I have very different views from you, and nothing gives you the right to interfere with my raising of my children. I have a bachelors degree and my wife has a masters. Neither of us has ever had an STD. Neither of us has been divorced. Neither of us had children with anyone else. We make plenty of money to support our family. We're honest people; we do not lie, cheat, or steal. In my humble opinion, we're leaps and bounds above average.

And you want to tell me that the state has the obligation to push some collective, ignorant, uneducated mob's (or their sheepherders') perceptions of ideal socialization and morality on our children? Sure, some parents are bad. That's a cultural problem government cannot solve--if you're advocating something more like the Nazis had in mind of collective birthing and raising of children, please elaborate. The notion that government stepping in and pushing out parents in order to indoctrinate children, regardless of and against parents' wills, is an authoritarian atrocity. It's the disgusting filth that happened in the USSR resulting in children turning in their parents for sheltering and aiding political enemies of the state because they're human beings too and some people would prefer they eat warm meals, sleep indoors, and keep their heads located above their necks.

No wonder you haven't made an argument for your position beyond "well some hicks might not teech der childrens good!" I doubt you've given it a thought beyond that reasoning either. Because the notion that a mob can raise a child better than its parents is ridiculous.

You've been given the talking point that some parents are less than ideal, therefore the state must have absolute authority over children in order to ensure that bad parents can never do their children harm. Unthinkly, you embrace this authoritarian ideal without question.

I'm just saying there's literally no way brain-dead numbskulls like you are ever getting near my children, let alone in a position of authority. Public schools have been failing American children for decades, and you're demanding a bigger role for them in ruining future generations' lives and livelihoods. You might wanna think it over.

Thank you for your expert opinion. I'm sure it's just as easy to attack a naval vessel as it is to attack an even more populated civilian one!

"The Department of Justice Did NOT Disclaim Murder of Americans by Drone"

http://www.infowars.com/the-department- … -by-drone/

Breaks down the language of what has been said and implied by the specific language used. (and not used)

Yeah, let's just throw out the fourth amendment. I can't think of any trouble that could arise from living in a police state where "authorities" can search anyone for anything at any time.

I used absolute language for clear and literal truth.

Again you're dishonest, making up claims about how I denied a "real threat" because I questioned how significant the threat is considering how rarely and how ineptly it attacks us. You ignore my questions and make false claims of what I said, because what I actually said is obviously too difficult for you to respond to.

I more than questioned TSA's measures to "protect" air traffic. They're awful and bypassed all the time. Again, you ignore this point and support ineffective and unlawful policies without response to the fact that they're not protecting anybody.

Again, your requirements for evidence are laughably ridiculous. As in the case of toxins causing cancer and organ failure in rodents and small mammals, you have faith in government and the .1% chance that humans are unaffected! Nothing is evidence to you if it's not more than 99.9% conclusive proof!

No, I can't prove beyond 99.9% certainty that terrorists aren't as idiotic and brain dead as you presume they are. But despite this lack of absolute proof, we all know that they're not all as dumb as you claim. We all know that if there were thousands of terrorists, who we know have millions of dollars, determined above all else to harm us, they'd be making use of the countless other ways to harm and kill thousands of us.

But... virtually none of them are. And the very few that do try are poorly, when at all, "trained." And completely inept. Not exactly the strongest indication of a massive terror threat that warrants invading foreign nations without the means to help us. (And we don't even invade the ones with all the America haters.)

The virtually complete lack of wannabe hijackers and terrorists in general is evidence of my point. You just don't like it.

The underwear bomber was horribly "trained." Not even enough to be a threat to anyone but himself. Not exactly a justification for sexually assaulting women and children.

A TSA agent got a fake bomb through security twice. It's in the news today. More evidence that the TSA is grossly ineffective, on top the fact that terrorists have shown virtually no evidence of trying to attack more aircraft. My point isn't solely that next to nobody is trying to attack us, but also that current regulations and violations of rights are ineffective at combating attempted terrorism. You completely ignore this second part of my argument here because you embrace everything the TSA does, which is 100% ineffective at its stated goal while violating the law and subjugating the population further.

Most DHS searches are complete wastes of money, and 0 of them have ever stopped terrorism. They'd be screaming about it from rooftops if they had. You didn't get into the mess because 100% of the facts surrounding it 100% back up everything I'm stating and claiming in this thread.