Hillary for President

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Banning gay marriage is a lot more than society not granting them official sanction to call their unions "marriage". You can call it whatever you want, but banning gay marriage is homophobic. They created a divisive issue to bring out religious voters. I've never been offered any evidence of gay marriage harming society. It doesn't matter if today is the best day ever in the life of a homosexual. They are still not given all that we heterosexual people enjoy.

Banning abortion is sexist. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I'm sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Incidentally, I don't like abortion and wouldn't advocate it. I just don't think it's something for a politician to decide. I don't want government making decisions about my body. Abortions should be debated in homes and churches, not congress.

How will you have evidence of something that doesn't exist?

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Ah, it looks like my persistence has paid off. The mystery of "Dr." Lawrence Britt has been revealed by Ryan Cragun, a blogster sympathetic to much of what you believe. Here he unveils the great "Dr.":

Ryan Cragun's Blog

The pertenent info:

"As it turns out, Dr. Lawrence Britt is actually just ‘Lawrence Britt,’ a contributor to Free Inquiry, a magazine published by The Council for Secular Humanism. The article is freely available online. But as far as Mr. Britt being a political scientist, there is no reference to this in Free Inquiry. In fact, it says he is writing a novel to be released in 2004. While Lawrence Britt may have come up with these points, I’m hesitant to accept his analysis without the confirmation of actual political scientists. If his 14 points were published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d believe them. As they stand - propaganda!"

Another writer sympathetic to your cause, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, wrote this of Britt's 14 points:

"The Britt article started with what is happening in the U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that only highlights those points that will support the thesis. This is a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that are similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects)."

His full review can be found here:

Reviewing Britt's 14 Points

So he's neither a political scientist nor a doctor, and is prone to logical fallacies.

I'm not a doctor either, so what? Can only doctors make comments on fascism?

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How will you have evidence of something that doesn't exist?

My point exactly. Why would you ban something with no evidence of it's harm?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

My point exactly. Why would you ban something with no evidence of it's harm?

I don't have a lot of evidence that eating shit sandwiches is bad for me, but I suppose I shouldn't ban something I haven't tried. And why should heterosexual people be the only ones who are miserable. I suppose you have a point.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't have a lot of evidence that eating shit sandwiches is bad for me, but I suppose I shouldn't ban something I haven't tried. And why should heterosexual people be the only ones who are miserable. I suppose you have a point.

Well it's been pretty well established that e-coli kills. But I submit that if people want to eat shit sandwiches, then let them! I suppose their breath could be a detriment to society.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Banning gay marriage is a lot more than society not granting them official sanction to call their unions "marriage". You can call it whatever you want, but banning gay marriage is homophobic. They created a divisive issue to bring out religious voters. I've never been offered any evidence of gay marriage harming society. It doesn't matter if today is the best day ever in the life of a homosexual. They are still not given all that we heterosexual people enjoy.

Banning abortion is sexist. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I'm sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Incidentally, I don't like abortion and wouldn't advocate it. I just don't think it's something for a politician to decide. I don't want government making decisions about my body. Abortions should be debated in homes and churches, not congress.

I can see why you would want to move away from Britt's 14 points.

On abortion, since we don't ban abortions anymore, wouldn't that be evidence, according to Britt's flawed 14 points, of movement away from fascism? Shouldn't you give Bush his due credit?

On homosexual rights, how can you argue that Bush has denied a "benefit" that never existed? Doesn't the fact that lives for gays and lesbians have gotten much better over the past six years mean anything? Shouldn't Bush receive his due credit?

It appears that we are indeed moving away from those fascist days of Clinton. Why return to that?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I'm not a doctor either, so what? Can only doctors make comments on fascism?

I suppose any schmo can write anything he wants and it will get its due consideration.

The good "doctor's" thoughts come up wanting, even according to his friends.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I can see why you would want to move away from Britt's 14 points.

On abortion, since we don't ban abortions anymore, wouldn't that be evidence, according to Britt's flawed 14 points, of movement away from fascism? Shouldn't you give Bush his due credit?

On homosexual rights, how can you argue that Bush has denied a "benefit" that never existed? Doesn't the fact that lives for gays and lesbians have gotten much better over the past six years mean anything? Shouldn't Bush receive his due credit?

It appears that we are indeed moving away from those fascist days of Clinton. Why return to that?

I thought you said Clinton was a socialist.

On gay marriage, he went out of his way to make it impossible for them to get the benefit. Why ban something that doesn't exist in the first place?

As for the 14 points. I don't think they are any more flawed than any other piece of writing. Which points exactly are flawed? Which points did he make that did not exist in the fascist govenments? I think all 14 points were rampant in Nazi Germany. I'm not an expert, but I think all 14 of the points accurately describe fascism. If you want to discredit the points, just saying he isn't a scientist or doctor isn't good enough.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The good "doctor's" thoughts come up wanting, even according to his friends.

Which thoughts exactly come up wanting? I can buy that he picked only points that he could see there were similarities with the United States. I don't think he claimed that the list was comprehensive. Any writer is going to point out the things that agree with his hypothesis.

[BlueHair]

Just for clarification:

I am not a Democrat. I just think Hillary is better than the rest of the candidates. Mostly because I think that she is the exact opposite of George Bush. I do have a fear that she will keep all the extra presidential powers to promote her socialist agenda. I would like to see a Libertarian minded President that would work to re-balance the branches of government. I just don't see one in the race. Let's get government the hell out of our lives and churches the hell out of government (and vice versa). Let's protect the rights of all people, not just the ones we agree with.

Maybe there should be a law limiting the number of laws we can have. Kind of like the rule at my house that when you buy something, you have to donate or throw something out.