Because education is not about empowering with knowledge to make independent judgments. Why ask a libertarian question about a Progressive institution?

As a libertarian-leading Conservative I'm not so much against the legalization of drugs as I am against the destigmatization of them that would follow. I'd generally be fine with it if only the current batch of losers doing them, like that fat, over-rated actor, did them afterwards. But I'm afraid of the message it would send.

Dissipating beneficial negative associations and taboos, like those involving teenage pregnancy and homosexual relations, is a major way in which the Devil, through the Left, corrodes this world.

Well when you get to Heaven, pick that bone and find out. I'd love to hear the full reasoning for Free Will.

When I get there, I'm going to ask Him if He really needed to make gravity so strong. Just something I've long wondered about the necessity of.

I kind of fancy the winning Song of the Year. It's interesting in its simplicity, and even seems to have an anti-decadent message.

But knowledge is not the same as liberty. Knowledge just gave us more to do, good and bad, with our liberty.

Or as well the cognitive dissonance over believing in self-rule and despising(/distrusting) the self-ruled.

While I would somewhat agree, in our lifetime only, that the general trend with each new president has been downhill, it's how bad the populace has become that bothers me more.

I don't think they're mad on the Left. I think they know what they're doing. The madness is all in the Center, because that's what they've been driven to by the Left.

To both the Left and Right it's completely transparent what that show was about. Both sides still have their wits about them. It's the mushy middle, the dummies, the LIVerals, whatever, who fall for these hysterae [a completely made-up pluralization].

Maybe that's because the Right sees little to nothing good in the ACA and so can scream unhesitantly about it, whereas it was hard for the Left to feign with much convincing force an opposition to something amounting to more intrusive and larger government.

Well in the *very* first place, we had near infinite liberty; only one prohibition (which we then were stupid enough to be talked into violating).

I guess neocons, but of faith, are who you would be supporting. People like Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, who could be seen as willing to use the power of the state to try to enforce morality on progressively more ambitious scales. Too bad for you that the by far most authoritarian category of people are the most godless.

Yes, his show on FNC for that year or two was deeper and more educational than their primetime opinion stuff, and more my style. Unfortunately a basically Tea Party network can probably never go mainstream. OTOH I think just a no-fluff and all truths laid bare network ought to have some indeterminately wider level of appeal.

I think it's all melting pots. The Right wanted an America of blended cultures and assimilation and access to (economic) opportunity and a common language. A social and economic melting pot. The Left opposes those, as we know, because it can stand in the way of what they seek and were building, a political melting pot, where everyone adopts the common, prevailing political culture. Because the former means power for that individual, but the latter means power for the (p0wned) collective.

You missed the golden years of /. journals, latecomer. Thank goodness, too, else they would've been a little less golden. Like how Usenet eventually became unusable, with spammers and trolls. This is just one small cranny of the entire web, but I guess we still gotta have a faker who thinks it's funny to just post shit and be a pest. Believe it or not, at one time the journals were thriving with legitimate JE's and not almost all just badly-translated spam, and intellectual comments instead of ploys like you and DR engage in. I don't know who released the fustakraken upon us, but trouble and grief is definitely the result. And I've not even gotten the worst of it; you play and torment smitty so much he must be the most patient person in the world or something.

we're addicted to it, but don't really want to know how it's done. Like the supermarket, where animal flesh is neatly cut and wrapped in plastic for us; it feeds one of our insatiable appetites while insulating us from the reality of it. Vons and Planned Parenthood, both conveniences of modern life dressing up slaughter to be something where death is barely involved.

I'm questioning your morality (and wondering who's taken over your account; you still sound like a Lefty, but not the non-serious jackoff of I guess now several years ago*). More precisely, I mean to imply that you're a product of pop morality. If you had lived back where and when Black people were held as slaves, you'd have been cool with that too, responding with, oh, I don't know, it's just a wild guess but maybe something like:

What is it exactly that makes your [moral] assessments any better or more correct than mine?

Basically this thread started with you unmistakably suggesting that you are a moral relativist, that point being raised to you, and you confirming it. I.e. you thought you were defending yourself by arguing that who can really judge morality, when in actuality you were convicting yourself of the horrific way of going about it that was assumed of you . The rest is just you being grumpy for some reason.

*Or maybe you're just trolling with a fake persona, like fustacrackers does. That is, from a quick peek in your journal you appear to be the same classless buffoon you always were. It's like you're trying to sound like an indignant adult, here.