Quote from: TrussingDoor on November 06, 2014, 03:57:37 PM

Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PM

So what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.

It's right because it is right

Oh my God, stop dodging the question.

Is it right by virtue of being the constitution, or is it right because of its contents?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:50:08 PM

Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:48:12 PM

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do so

Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?

Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S

That wasn't what I asked.

You either think the Constitution is important because it is the constitution, or because the contents of the Constitution are agreeable. It's either axiomatically right, or right because it includes right things. So which?

Also, what does that have to do with anything?

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do so

Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?

I still do stupid shit now.

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on November 06, 2014, 03:04:01 PM

For Reagan, you forgot to add the fact he armed and supplied our enemies

lolno

Reagan sent supplies to the Mujahideen who were people against the invasion of the Soviets. After Russia left, the Mujahideen set up a legi and sovereign government called the Islamic State of Afghanistan. After this, extremists rose up and are what we know as the Taliban. They ousted the real government and set up a non-recognized governemtn

ohai

Whoooaaaa there Meta, you're missing a whole lot of lows with Reagan.

Just keeping it balanced.

No mention of Truman? I mean come on he has the record of high and low.

Don't know enough about him.

Natural selection is in many parts survival of the fittest. My example perfectly displayed such. And evolution is divided between mico and macro. We have not observed macro, but have observed micro which is known as adaptation; take the moths in Britain that changed.

The fact you're taking biology doesn't count for shit when micro- and macro-evolution are identical processes looked at from a different temporal frame.

So, unless you want to try and pedal the idea that the Earth is 10,000 years old, there's really nothing more I have to say considering your astounding deficit in this area.

I'm surprised you consider the New Deal to be good economic policy.

It's. . .

It's acceptable. It's better than the assumed counterfactual of inaction.

I'd stop short of explicitly calling it "good".

While we all have a vague conception of the quality of most presidents, almost all have exceptionally good and exceptionally bad things about their term(s). So, pick a few presidents and then one or two of the best and worst things about their presidency.

FDR
The Good:
- Kept America afloat, if not prosperous with the New Deal.
- Was incredibly charismatic and was able to lead the American people.
The Bad:
- Internment of Japanese-Americans at the beginning of the War.
- The Roosevelt Recession of 1937, chiefly as a result of monetary tightening and slashed fiscalism.

LBJ
The Good:
- LBJ's Great Society.
The Bad:
- Gulf of Tonkin

Nixon
The Good:
- Ended the draft
- Ending segregation
The Bad:
- Affirmative Action
- Watergate

Reagan
The Good:
- Reduced inflation to 4.4pc
- Reduced federal income taxes
The Bad:
- Took advice from an astrologer
- War on Drugs

Bill Clinton
The Good:
- Good economic growth
- Free trade
The Bad:
- Bombing pharmaceutical companies in Sudan.
- Doing nothing about the genocide in Rwanda.

Dubya
The Good:
- Iraq
The Bad:
- Everything else

Except evolution is a theory, not a fact

LOL

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 02:03:41 PM

It changes my view of them, but I can certainly still enjoy their work.

Mostly the same for me. I think it's dumb that Jason Lee is a big scientologist, but it doesn't stop me from loving My Name is Earl.

It's certainly not as important with actors, and even less so with musicians (unless they're religious).

The only real issue I have with a public figure's political views is when they're writers or journalists.

I can't tell if you're serious.

You must be able to see the danger in allowing the government to choose who can or cannot vote beyond the imprisoned and legitimately insane. Not to mention, the concept of "good" and "bad" policies is often negligible, since differing values often precede conclusions. Most Republicans don't want environmental legislation because of its potential impact on the economy, not because they think eco-fascists are trying to impose a communist regime.

Not to mention, most othet examples aren't as clear cut, especially when it comes to economics. Do we rule out the people who want a gold standard, or a gift society, considering such ideas are pretty bankrupt in intellectual circles? What about people who define fairness as proportionality instead of equality? Or those who value tradition over liberty?

Like, seriously?

3/5 offers, nigga.

Goml