Search results

I think you're all making this question too difficult, because it's been around for so long, and people believe that it is an irresolvable paradox. However, the issue is actually fairly simple to resolve: 1. A group of non-chickens became geographically isolated from some other non-chickens...

I think that the original question unnecessarily assumes that we are involved in a struggle for the triumph of democracy. The Bush administration's consummate failure of leadership, thus far, has been the inability to inform the People, that our war with al qaeda is about the survival of the...

The current U.S. leadership has made the continuous mistake of trying to "moralize" the war, as being a battle between good and evil. The natural result is to view us, the Christians, as good, and them, the Muslims, as evil. This sort of demonizing of an enemy does not ring throughout the...

Perhaps you're right that this wasn't the column's thrust at all. But, it's mine, nevertheless. To me it's not about ideology. It's just about survival.

What you are describing is just another ideology. In a perfect world, it would be great to be able to apply ordinary due process to the 911 terrorists. But, this isn't a perfect world, and those terrorists cannot possibly be "arrested" in the sense of a typical criminal arrest, while they reside...

Pat seems to be getting considerably more astute in his old age.

Declaring that I am wrong without any supporting evidence, demonstrates rather effectively that you are not above attempting to force your personal opinion into the law. Show me where in the Constitution, it is written that historical precedent, fixed at the time that the Constitution was...

The trouble with the conservative's view of judicial activism is that only the conservative is permitted to identify it. A judge is activist if he rules against a Biblical display in a courthouse, because this gores the conservative's ox. Yet, the Constitution only states that there shall be...

Five stars.

Rights are granted by a sovereign, either at the will of the people or because the sovereign has power sufficient to overcome the people's will. Among different nations, where no single sovereign or popular will exists, there can be no "rights." The USA has the "power," not the "right," to...

I agree with almost everything you say here. But, I'm wondering if perhaps we are misjudging the leadership of the enemy. Generally, the reason why a person gains leadership authority is because he believes that he is right and that he knows the "way," that others should follow. The...

Most "reasonable" voters can't balance their checkbook, much less understand a concept like inherent executive authority. As far as the constitutional right to talk to a terrorist is concerned, constitutional "rights" are not impacted by the ruling. There is a statute, and it expresses...

Fair enough. I will bow out.

You are welcome to your belief. But, your reasoning mind should suggest to you that the interpretation is not to be taken as a literal statement of fact. It certainly could be fact, of course. But, so could Peter Pan and Never Never Land. And, that is not a deliberate insult. It's simply a...

There was nothing unreasonable about Judge Taylor's ruling. She merely found that the AUMF does not expressly authorize the President to use "all necessary force" to determine who committed the 911 attacks, but rather that it only permits the President to use all necessary force "after" he...

"Educated?" Did you happen to read what you just wrote: "God consulted with the angels to avoid provoking jealousy..." If we were discussing anything other than religion, and someone had written that statement to you, you would have probably called the men in the white coats. You cannot...

The flaw is the same for every religion. The theist wants to believe, so he puts forward earthly evidence of his belief to prove his religion correct, even though the God of his religion would suffer no earthly evidence to limit His almighty power. If God exists, then He certainly has the...

I am agnostic. I take no position on the existence of God. I try to do good works and live a reasonable life. While living my life, I accept evidence based on its being provable via natural means. I'll take my chances on whether or not God approves of my behavior and/or whether God exists. If...

You've just made my point: with respect to the existence of God, "nobody 'knows' anything." Science and natural perception can only prove that which is natural. God is supernatural, thus He is unprovable via any science or perception. Knowledge of God is only available via personal faith...

First you attempt to prove your faith without resort to science, and then when I demonstrate that your position can be defeated without resort to science, you jump back to science as a means of proving your position. Make up your mind about how you wish to support your beliefs, because...