From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-07-11 15:14:50

Comment:

1. "The falicy of the 'regime' notion" has not been explained, certainly not by you. The fact that you said the Bush administration is a regime is not an explanation, just a poorly supported opinion.

2. I didn't contradict myself, and I'd like to know where in my post you think I did.

3. Before you get your emotional panties in a wad, look up the definitions of "republic" and "democracy." A democracy has no head of state, such as the President, but it may have representatives to represent the people.  A republic must have representatives, and does have a non-monarchic head of state, such as the President.  Athens was a democracy, my friend.  The United States is a republic.  Go back and read the Pledge of Allegiance if you're unsure; it doesn't say, "and to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands."

4. This has nothing to do with believing you or not believing you. It has to do with me being right and you being wrong.

5. When I commented on abortion, I was attempting to interpret what you said about the current administration trying to take away "rights like ... freedom of choice over one's body." If you weren't referring to abortion, please expound on what you DID mean, because you did a poor job of it the first time.

6. The only "inalienable rights" which the Constitution guarantees you are the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are rights which the founding fathers felt every human being is entitled to.  The rest of the rights you inherit as an American are not inalienable, but are part of the blessing of living in the country we do. That said, it doesn't give any weight to your argument about the Bush administration trying to take away your right to your own body.

7. If you can find for me in the Constitution where you, as an American, are guaranteed an education, I will stand corrected and pat you on the back. And no, you weren't just implying that you need an education before lecturing others.  Go back and read your own post, you accused the Bush White House of trying to take away your right to an education (which, shockingly enough, is asinine).

8. I wasn't responding to your comment about liberals not being able to think for themselves. I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative, and if you can't tell that from my posts, you need to speak less and listen more.

9. Strangely enough, YOU are presenting the liberal side of this argument. And I agree, most liberals can't think for themselves, the reason being that they are the product of a public education system which, year after year, graduates mediocre students.

10. If your goal is to convince people that you are right, try using valid explanations instead of emotions and profanity. And, by the way, I didn't have to research anything to respond to your claims. The holes in your argument are big enough to walk through, and require very little effort to refute.

I predict that your response to these claims will sound something like, "Dude, are you f***ing stoned?!?!" or perhaps something as articulate as "Whatever, man, you're just a right-wing a**hole." It's what we've come to expect from you.