you cite an article from slate - a blatantly partisan source. likewise, i could cite an article from newsmax and show equally partisan drivel.
the logic you use is full of quirks.. first you agree that religion should not be integrated in public schools - that school "should be a place of intellectual thought not religious teaching". then you contradict those statements by saying that the scientific approach taught in schools might confuse their religious indoctrination... the prime example: evolution vs. creation. scientists just found another missing link, and have lots of scientific evidence of our evolutionary ancestors. why shouldn't public schools teach this? oppositely, creationism has absolutely no proof whatsoever - so how can that be included in science (which is supposed to be based on SCIENCE, not mythology).
then the case about guns... you cannot compare the availability of guns with the availability of drugs. i can grow pounds of pot in my apartment, but i can't build a gun. my assumption is that growing plants is much easier than building your own weapons.
Quote:
| I was commenting on the element in the Democratic Party that seems compelled to speak out about their intellectual superiority. And how it's hypocrisy turns off independent voters. I am certain there are equal unfounded attacks by republicans on democrats how ever is seems to me that the democrats more often than not are the ones who call the others intelligence to question. |
one can complain about the dems' alleged intellectual superiority - and they can also complain about the republicans' alleged moral superiority. what is unfortunate is that these perceptions don't mean a damn thing as far as policy is concerned. those who are intellectually inferior DO like simple messages, and they DO vote on emotion rather than specific policy issues. also, there are intellectual simpletons on all sides of the political spectrum. devil's advocate example - the morons in florida (in 2000) who couldn't understand the fly ballots.
and yes, i'd like to see you explain your comments about the republicans and deficits. i hope you understand that the spending they're currently engaged in WILL cause future tax increases. my opinion is that typical bush supporters focus more on the short-term and virtually ignore the long-term. despite all the misgivings about the dems that came into play during clinton's presidency - he set us on a path to eliminate the public portion of our debt. not only did bush destroy that hope, but he tacked on at least a $trillion in new debt.
we have another $70 billion spending bill on the table now, and the economy is entering another soft patch. inflation is creeping despite the fact that the fed has been raising rates (i hope everyone understands the significance of this point). oil prices are going up, eating into personal consumption habits.. etc..... with this spending bill and future spending proposals, where is this money going to come from? if we continue to deficit spend, inflation will go up - forcing the fed to raise interest rates which will cause another recession. or, they can raise money for federal spending by raising taxes, which is something that they won't do because republicans stake their political credentials on cutting taxes (even if it flies in the face of all existing financial/economic logic).