Typos are not interesting. A wannabe grammar pedant who confuses "as well" and "either" is ... well, not interesting either (or is it "as well", genius?)

Let us not forget that there's nothing inherent to either Christianity or Islam when it comes to fundamentalism. Christianity generated the Crusades, after all...

I think that's an example of cultural relativism that is as dangerous to the West as the people who are anti-math or anti-science. It is part of the deluded unscientific mythology of the left just as intelligent design is on the right.

There are obvious differences between Christianity and Islam that make Christianity able to coexist with a modern secular state while Islam is showing all over the world that it can't. For example Sharia is a comprehensive legal framework that observant Muslims are supposed to put above the secular laws (you know the ones brought about by a democratic process). There is no such thing in Christianity.

Also, Jesus mythology beats Muhammad mythology hands down as an example to follow (regardless of how much if any of it is true). Jesus' teachings were generally peaceful and kind and never attempted to spread Christianity by force, preferring to suffer himself instead. Muhammad slaughtered and enslaved thousands, explicitly permitted murder, stealing and lying (as long as directed against non-Muslims), kept 13 wives, including a 9 year old one, in addition to sex slaves.

Yes, there are obvious differences in the implementation at the present time which can possibly change: can you imagine the Pope leading a frenzied crowd in the St. Peters square in chants of "death to infidels" the way legitimate Muslim leaders do, rather than urging them to love and respect their neighbor? But there are also many doctrinal differences that make Islam more dangerous which is why in literally every place in the world where Islam is in contact with another civilization there is conflict. Just look at the map.

It is untrue thought and you are stupid.

I wonder with 4 million voters who tend to overwhelmingly prefer Labour to Tories gone will Labour eventually cease to be a factor in the UK elections? UKIP: right, Tories: centre-right, Lib Dems: centre-left, Labour: loonie left.

What will UK be called if Scotland secedes? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

I certainly did not single out any party. I stated fact and that was all. One president used off budget and another put it on budget. No mention of party was made at all despite plenty of oppertunity to do so.

I suspect you know the parties of the names mentioned and are somehow offended by one of them. But that is all you- not me.

Your claim that I am a 'terrible human being' noted. So what does that make you given the fact that your claim is based on my comment, which states that no human should be forced to be a slave to another human by anybody, especially by the violent power of the state?

What does that make you, a 'better' human being, to want to use the violent power of the state to force people to give up portion of their live involuntarily for any supposed benefit of anybody at all or for any reason whatsoever for that matter?

At the very minimum it makes your position extremely inconsistent within itself, claiming that being what you are a 'better' comparing to what I am, while declaring that people need to be forced by violence (that is what state is - violence), subjugated to the will of the collective and not be allowed to decide how to control their own lives?

Then again, no socialist ideas are consistent within themselves. The so called 'green' socialists are of the opinion that people are destroying the planet. They want to use the violent power of the state to subjugate the individuals, to turn their productivity to the state, so that the state would decide what to do with it, supposedly for the benefit of the environment somehow (while the worst damage to the environment comes from the operation of the state, nuclear disasters, wars, pollution). They do not see the inconsistency of their ideas at all. They want the state to control the resources, but obviously for the state to do so, it needs to throw bones to the subjects, the bones being subsidies.

So tax those, who are productive, steal their productivity (lives, time on this planet, creativity) and allow the state to subsidise others? How is that consistent with the 'green' ideology, which is of the opinion that human activities cause ecological problems on this planet? They would be consistent if they in fact decided to completely remove subsidies, we get more of what we subsidise.

Providing subsidies causes an influx in births, those who live on subsidies do not have to care as much how to provide for the offspring, their birth rates are higher. It is an inconsistent position to provide for more subsidies from those, who already control their own birth rates to those, who will not if given subsidies.

But of-course socialist positions are never consistent.

As a side note, I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago, I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago, I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me, which is, by the way, why I am an individual, not an ant in a colony.

If you have a degree from a top liberal arts school and a working knowledge of the tech, many corps will hire you "to manage the MIT kids" whom they do not trust to get anything done on their own.

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with WSJs track record soley because they are connected to fox news whos track record is largely only tarnished because you disagree with their politics and little more when compared to other sources.

If the story is untrue, point it out. If you ignord it all because of some association with another news source, you are a moron.

Increases in old spending is new spending.

And i'm more concerned with on budget verses off budget where one makes it permanent and the other makes them pretend at least to put some thought into it regardless of what party they are.

I know what you do NOT do, you do NOT put a gun to OTHER people's had to steal their money from them to 'help' anybody whatsoever under any circumstances. No amount of misery can be justified to destroy individual freedom.

If a person is irresponsible and has children, too bad for those children, however that's what other family members are for. Beyond that there are private organisations that try to help children. Governments cause massive pain for children by destroying the economy that they and their parents live in.