SuperJerk

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries? Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was. The bedrock of nuclear non-proliferation hasn't changed since I posted it an hour and a half ago. It's still the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I was justifying why I asked the question in the first place, not re-asking the question.

All I can say is: Thank goodness for teacher's unions. *waits for typical right-wing response*

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries? Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was.

Its also a crime to do the Nazi salute. As I'm *sure* we all remember.

I guess you can say that we were Fuched over. **rimshot**

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

But don't the union wages from other jobs influence the going market rate for labor in general, which has the effect of driving up the cost of specialized labor? The relationship is indirect, but I still believe its there.

Implying that there was no organizational Holocaust in Nazi Germany is a blatant and obvious lie. There are too many captured documents from the Nazis to even permit a different conclusion then that the Holocaust was a well-planned out operation from the highest levels of the Nazi regime. -=Mike Absolutely. Saying the Holocaust in a history class, if he did in fact say it, is professionally incompetent enough to warrant termination. But that's not what I'm discussing, though. I'm discussing whether or not he should be fired for bad-mouthing the people who died on 9/11. Bad-mouthing 9/11 victims is protected by free speech.

I'm going to take your word for it that the original post that I questioned means what you now say it means. I'd don't like you, but I'll admit you've been honest with your facts when you present them, and only differ with you on the conclusions you reach. Having said that, let me apologize for misinterpreting your answers as being beligerent, since I am willing to take your word also that you were only trying to explain to me what your intent was, and that I was taking your post too literally. Having said that, I think the reason I misunderstood your point was that your point was based on your own misunderstanding of what JOTW said. I was basing my understanding of your reply on what he said, rather than what you thought he said. JOTW is implying, correctly in my opinion, that the U.S. is trying to move more to the right of the political spectrum while the rest of the world moves to the left. He also implies that we are the closest on the political spectrum to the Middle Eastern countries. You're answer implies that socialism and other leftist ideology would be considered traditional in Europe. This is somewhat correct. However, JOTW's post says he is talking about the WORLD, whereas your post only talks about Europe being traditionally socialistic. That's where I got confused, since you changed the subject from the World to just Europe, and I incorrectly assumed you were trying to make a direct comparison between Europe and the Middle East. Saying the world is becoming less traditional, and saying that Europe is becoming less traditional are two different things, since they are starting from different points on the political spectrum. In other words, I misunderstood you because I thought you were making an honest comparison, rather than changing the subject to something else.

According to what I've read, what this guy is telling people were not lies. They were really stupid conclusions based on moronic reasoning, but they were based on facts.

Again, I'm not going into this further with you. If you think I was calling a Middle Eastern country liberal, then you're simply intentionally misreading things and are being intentionally dense. I'd suggest re-reading everything --- but it is unlikely to do any good. Hell, go ahead and point to where I ONCE called a Middle Eastern country liberal. Go ahead, point out where I said a Middle Eastern country was liberal. Ahem

I don't remember seeing the words "only if its not offensive" in the First Amendment. I don't see speech codes in the First Amendment, either --- but colleges have those all over the place. Colleges have some quite strict speech codes. Hell, look at the heat Larry Summers got for stating that it might not be a bad idea to study if genetic differences might explain why women are at the top levels of science disciplines at lower levels than men are. And he said that to OTHER professors and listed it as one possible explanation. He has yet to stop apologizing for it because of all of the complaints. So if a professor says "I think this book is really good" in a literature class, does he legally have to be right? When you're a history prof and state that something is the case --- yes, you need to be accurate. Accuracy should be somewhat important to professors. Except they're not. If a college kid uses a racial epithet at another student --- what happens to him/her? They're disciplined. Why? Do you oppose speech codes, too? Yes. If I had a biology teacher that said that, I'd ask him why he thought that.

Mike, are you completely unable to grasp the fact that I understood the analogy, but just want to know what Middle Eastern countries are considered liberal? I asked a simple fucking question, but instead of answering it, you decided to be a smart ass and re-explain the entire analogy over and over again. This is why people don't like you. You make idiotic points and then get mad at people for questioning them and start insulting them.

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region. Now quit being a dick and just answer the question. It wasn't. It was asking why is it considered bad for us to continue our conservative tradition when it's not considered bad for Europe to continue their liberal tradition. Since "continuing your tradition" makes you like a "Middle Eastern country" according to JOTW. Stop being a dick and intentionally missing the point. -=Mike Quit re-explaining your point. I got it the first time. What I didn't get is why Middle Eastern countries in particular were used in the example you gave. You keep saying its because of something JOTW said. Since I don't remember JOTW claiming that Middle Eastern countries were liberal, I don't see why you said they were either.

I don't remember seeing the words "only if its not offensive" in the First Amendment. So if a professor says "I think this book is really good" in a literature class, does he legally have to be right? Like I said, college age kids need to be exposed to different ideas, and hopefully they'll be smart enough to be able to figure out the difference between fact and opinion.

Just how high exactly do you think union dues are? Considering that the salaries they secure are not higher than the ones I get without a union, it's not material, really. It's a percentage of your salary, if memory serves, but the exact percentage is forgotten by me. -=Mike But would you get that high salary had the union not been around? Many people get the advantages of the union (higher pay, insurance, etc.), without having to join.

Just how high exactly do you think union dues are?

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region. Now quit being a dick and just answer the question.

If we want kids to think for themselves, shouldn't they be exposed to both good and bad ideas? Churchill has said that there was no organized Holocaust. Don't you want teachers who don't teach outright lies? And ask people like Michelle Malkin how willing to listen to opposing viewpoints college campuses (or is it campii?) are. -=Mike I think we should draw a distinction between what is taught in a class as fact, and what is written in an essay. If a teacher is saying "the Holocaust never happened", then he is giving inaccurate information and I would question his professional competence. If a teacher is giving his opinion in class, or in an essay, then I say its free speech. The trick is that college students should be able to distinguish the difference. Free speech protects opinions, but we still have libel and slander laws to prevent people from saying things that can be factually disproven.

There was a time when America was the only country with nukes.

If we want kids to think for themselves, shouldn't they be exposed to both good and bad ideas?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal? If you're attempting to continue your tradition --- which they do with social liberalism --- then that is all it takes to be comparable to a Middle Eastern country according to JOTW. Can you give examples of which Middle Eastern countries you consider liberal?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal?

Not all unions prevent firings, though. You only said they do so "if the union shop is sufficiently strong". If an employer is justified in firing someone, there is usually a due process which is followed that will result in the termination of the worker in question.