No, Jan, there is no touchstone in that these apply even to the French Resistance versus the German occupation. Objectively, a hoodlum claiming that not ratting out his pals is -not equivalent- to a political resistor refusing to identify his propaganda cell for the thought police. The key word is "equivalent" and in capital-O Objectivism, the "error of equivalence" is known and understood. In other words just because two people commit the same act does not mean that the objective context of their actions is at all equivalent.

That being as it is, nonetheless, Jets versus Sharks is indeed equivalent. And people who wrap themselves in the American Flag to commit acts of aggression - even taking lives - are indeed equivalent to those who take lives for Islam. The objective standard is the absence of censorship. Websites and discussion boards such as this very one still do exist. So, no foundation exists to justify open, armed rebellion.

Ayn Rand made the same point many years ago, at Ford Hall, when she said that she did not care one way or the other about gun control. If you think you are going to start a rebellion, think again...

Yah, that's what I'm talkin' about. At least the dog was saved, and those that outran the fire ball. I suppose some others were saved that remembered "duck and cover" too. Remember what a farce that was? I noticed too it was in DC, that would be a good place to start.

I am registered Republican, and I do not want any Venn diagram representing a group that includes me to intersect with the KKK. There are groups that should not be part of any sane outlook, and the KKK is one such. I am less interested in who-that-was-called-what group started the KKK than about all modern parties repudiating them and opposing their goals.

Jan

Thank you, Mike. I recall that it was frustrating as a child to be told that my valid reasons for something were 'excuses'. Since some of these bullet points can pertain to an actual factual response...Is there some touchstone you use to tell the difference between an excuse and a reason?

Jan

you might go first ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nahdy9Sjb...

Good story. The comments following are quite interesting also. I see no objective rationale for concluding that right, left or in the middle are immune to "violent terrorist" nutcases. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the left are more disposed to throw fits and use government force and when that doesn't work, violent street demonstrations and intimidation...

Just another example of "never let a good crisis go to waste". In this case, the recent murders provided an emotional audience looking for people to blame. And they give them someone to blame.

With the overwhelming control of the media, the Left has realized that their lies have the desired effect whether debunked or not. Lie and lie again.

I'm rather getting tired of these accusations, I've done none of it. Someday the left may get exactly what they are claiming the right is doing. Someone said Democracy will eventually destroy itself. I think it's happening now right before our eyes. Things are not getting better, they are getting worse. If only we could have an invasion from creatures of outer space.

Imagine a media bent on censoring free speech. Oh wait you don't have to imagine.

It has been my experience that every outrageous, stupid, inept, comment by the left must be countered. If left by itself, the zealots will repeat it and use it until no matter how stupid, it becomes accepted. I'm sure everyone can find their own examples of items given as fact that are, when looked at rationally, idiotic beyond belief. It simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged by rational persons. Paraphrasing Hillel. "If not us, who?"

I'm going to pick on churches a little here. I agree that church can be a very appropriate place to discuss politics. However, in order to enjoy non-profit status, they may not engage in politicking. They can lose their status if they do. There was a push leading up to the 2012 election by the feds to silence religious organizations on this basis. The one that comes to mind is Focus On the Family out of Colorado Springs. They enjoy a healthy business. I kinda expected them to say alright, we'll go for-profit. But they haven't.
I think your last idea could be great or could go very, very wrong. Who makes the test? who grades it? I think in part, it was why the first voters in the US had to own property. They had skin in the game. Now if you get food stamps and an Obama phone, you have skin in the game.

Disagree. When our nation was founded, they didn't have the Internet to spread news, they had to rely on criers and hand-carried messages. It took nearly three years to distribute and ratify the Constitution, yet the people back then revered their opportunities to debate politics at every occasion - even in church! Town hall meetings could go on for days debating even simple matters because everyone in town literally showed up to participate! Now the only people who bother to attend school board meetings are parents with an axe to grind or Boy Scouts trying to pass their Citizenship in the Community merit badge.

The reality is that today's society is just lazy with regards to their rights. They don't get taught in schools how precious these rights are, how rare they are, or how to appreciate them. Kids get taught instead that they are outdated or inapplicable, where back then part of your basic education (non-government sponsored I might add) was a thorough grounding in basic government according to the Constitution. You walk up to 99 out of 100 people on the street today and they can't even correctly cite the rights of any of the first ten amendments!

I would fully support a Voter Interest amendment that cited that unless you could pass a basic test about your Constitutional rights, you couldn't vote. I don't see any need to coddle ignorance nor to award those who profiteer from it.

Did you not read my quote above?!
I am not suggesting her goal was abortion-though she said many provocative things about babies already born to poor families. But certainly she was in favor of pushing population control, especially with certain minorities, immigrants. She openly advocated it.

Do you tell him that he is an active force in ruining the freedoms of this country? He just admitted he is ignorant of current political events and freedom cannot prevail in an ignorant or lazy society.

No Way! LOL

Would you lend him your tools?

Some of us lived through the 60s maph and you are just wrong. Byrd and the Dems who became publicly embarrassed by their place in the KKK renounced their membership, but they never changed how they voted in congress. You need to talk to people from the old south. There was one reason they did not want blacks to be able to vote, they were afraid that the blacks would vote them out of office because they were members of the KKK and when it seemed inevetible that blacks were going to be voting in a free election, byrd and his buddies renounced their public membership, but they still took campaign contributions from the same people. If you think for a minute that the Kennedy's were anything except leftists then, now and always, you are very confused.