GeorgiaDon

Hi Adam, It's almost always the case that thieves will not have the resources to pay any reasonable restitution. For example, around here we are having trouble with thieves who do an incredible amount of damage to property to steal a few dollars worth of copper, which they sell at metal recyclers. It's not unusual to have tens of thousands of dollars in damage (torn out drywall, or destroyed air conditioning units) to yield less than $100 worth of copper wire. Perhaps you could force the thief to work at a wage-paying job until his debt is paid off, but then you would yourself, or through a proxy you would have to pay, have to make sure the thief does get a job, pay back the money, etc. Perhaps you would care to spend the rest of your days policing the bastard to make sure you got reimbursed, but I only have one life and I don't care to spend it following some thief around to make sure I get paid back. Who would contribute to such a "collection"? Why should one's access to justice be contingent on having a big enough circle of friends/family to be able to raise a big reward? How could you be assured that the suspect brought in by such a process is actually the guilty party, and not just some poor hapless schmuck nabbed off the street to cash in on the reward? This is exactly what the criminal justice system does. We "buy into" the system by paying taxes. I respectfully disagree with the voluntary part of your answer, though, for the following reasons. Everyone benefits from a system where criminals are at least somewhat dissuaded by the threat of being caught and punished. It's true we do still have criminals, but I think the problem would be much worse in the absence of any meaningful deterrent. Now if "buying in" was completely voluntary, several things would happen. First, a lot of people would not buy in, figuring they could just pay up later if and when they needed to access the system. This would shift the cost of creating and maintaining the system (police, courts, prisons) onto a smaller (possibly quite small) number of people, so the cost to them would be unsustainable and the system would degrade or collapse. Then when something did happen and the "cheaters" (those people who don't pay) try to retroactively buy in, the people who have been paying for the system have two unpleasant choices. They can let the cheater buy in, which just encourages everybody else to cheat too, further decreasing the pool of people willing to pay to maintain the system. Alternatively they can refuse to let the cheater in, which will likely result in no-one investigating the crime that was committed against the cheater. This creates a pool of victims for criminals to prey on, and supports the growth of a criminal element in the population. Ultimately the protective effect of having a generalized deterrent against a criminal livelihood will be lost. How do you define/measure "consume"? You might say only those people who are victims of crime are "consumers" of the benefits of the criminal justice system. I would argue that the more you have (material goods, investment wealth, even relationships with family and friends), the more you have to lose to criminal activity, and so the more you benefit by having the justice system keeping most people honest. Just as you pay more for fire insurance if your house is worth more than the average (and so you lose more if it burns down), you should pay taxes in proportion to what you have to potentially lose. Personally, I really do think of a lot of government services as insurance. I support the CDC because of the risk of disease outbreaks. I pay for the sewer system because I am familiar with the risks associated with contaminated water, and because I am sufficiently moral that I do not want to expose people who happen to live downstream to the risk of drinking my shit just so I can save a few dollars every month. I pay for the USDA so that I don't have to pay a lot more to get my food tested for E. coli before I dare feed it to my kids, and I pay for the FDA so I can have some confidence my pharmacist isn't selling me snake oil. I'd rather have an air traffic control system in place than trust pilots to figure out for themselves how to organize takeoffs and landings from busy airports. And so on... Now I can disagree with government spending priorities as much as anybody. I think prisons are full of people whose only crime is to themselves (most drug convictions), and I think we spend too much on the military. What I don't agree with is that people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of life in an organized society, without paying a fair share of the cost for those benefits. I asked this question in another thread, and I'll ask it of you: What system can you propose that would allow people to opt out of paying taxes, at the cost of not being able to enjoy any benefit, in any manner whatsoever, of any government provided service. So if you want to drive somewhere, you have to buy land/pave the road/build bridges yourself, or only drive on privately constructed roads. No taxpayer funded interstate highways for you. If you run a business, you can't hire any people who were educated in the public schools or state colleges. If you get sick, you can't access any treatments or drugs that were based in any way on any knowledge that was gained through NIH grants or publicly funded research. And so on... How could you do it? How can you build a wall between yourself and each and every taxpayer funded (local, state, and federal) service? If you can't do that, why should you be allowed to benefit from those services and not pay a fair share to support them? Isn't taking something (services) and not paying for it theft? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How would this work (for one example) in relation to the criminal justice system? Let's say your house is burgled. Doesn't "pay for it yourself" mean that you are then faced with hiring some private agency to investigate, track down the perpetrator, and try to get your stuff back? After that, if you want the perp punished, do you pay out of pocket to hire the prosecutor, judge, etc; and if the perp is convicted, do you then have to pay the cost of incarcerating them? Of course you could skip some of that by abandoning your job, devoting yourself to tracking down the burglar, and then administering whatever punishment you feel appropriate. No need to worry about "constitutional rights", just the law of the jungle. Also better hope you're a good enough detective to be sure to get the right suspect. There are many things that virtually everybody needs that can be efficiently provided by working together cooperatively, and almost all of those things would be either prohibitively expensive or outright impossible for each person to do on their own. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'll admit I don't know much about SOX, but I think sometimes simple straightforward regulation is passed over in favor of needlessly complex systems that just "feed the lawyers" to find ways around the rules. I believe the major reason why Canada escaped the financial meltdown is that lenders have to hold on to their mortgages for a period of time before they can sell them to another lender. If you know you have to hold a mortgage for a couple of years, you will do the due diligence to make sure the borrower can pay. If you know the mortgage will be someone else's problem before the ink is even dry, and that you will make a commission both at the closing and when you sell it off to someone else, why would you care if the borrower can make the payments? Two years before you can sell the mortgage (even one year would be sufficient!); simple and effective. Canada also has a wider range of mortgage products, including 40 and even 50 year mortgages. Lower payments, as so little principle comes off, but a great return for the lender over the lifetime of the loan. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, I can see that you're answering the question from the perspective of personal experience, and perhaps it's natural to think of the question just in terms of your personal experience, slightly expanded in your case to include the experience of close relatives who happen to be engaging story tellers. In that case, though, there's no point in including anything other than the 20th/21st centuries in the poll, as none of us (I'm guessing a bit here) has personal experience of living in the pre-1900 US. I'm guessing that Wendy's post was inspired by other recent threads that seem to indicate a longing for the "old days" in some of our conservative fellow SC inmates. I still think it's interesting that, when presented with a question like this, some people seem to respond as if the question was specifically in reference to themselves, and others seem to go right to the perspective of what was "best" for the largest number of people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So what you're saying is that you are unable to see (or have no interest in seeing) injustices committed against those who are different from you. However, let anyone point to the 1st Amendment and question the use of taxpayer-funded resources to impose Christian beliefs/practices on the public, and then it's "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It probably was a pretty good time to be be a straight white male. Damn those progressivists, they sure went a screwed up a good thing (for the straight white males). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What "assumptions" are those? The one based on your comment "Of course I'm sure you will find a way to blame the US for starting that war too." How should I interpret that, other than by concluding that you are saying that because I think Operation Ajax was a mistake, I must be anti-US across the board? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think the US had more reason to support Saddam in that war, besides just having our nose out of joint regarding the hostage situation. My understanding is that we felt it necessary to prevent the regime in Iran from spreading to Iraq, and possibly further. I know of no reason to blame the US for starting that war. It would have been preferable, in hindsight, had we followed through with support for anti-Saddam factions after the war ended and our aims in the region (containing Iran) were achieved. Of course at the time Saddam was "our guy"; he only became a "dangerous madman" later, when it was politically expedient for him to be so labeled. Your reply suggest that if someone criticizes the US for one thing, then they automatically must be anti-US in all things. That's just the sort of narrow-minded "my country right or wrong" patriotism that dissuades people from objectively analyzing outcomes, so as to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over. If you actually cared about a person, or a country, you wouldn't want them to keep repeating the same dysfunctional behaviors, would you? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

An entirely predictable result of the fact that the only place that was not completely infiltrated with the SAVAK (the Iranian secret police) was the mosques. This had the consequence of forcing the association of political dissent against the Shah with the religious leadership, and virtually ensured that any possible replacement for the Shah would be dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. Interestingly, SAVAK was founded by the CIA, and their tactics of torture and execution of political dissidents was initiated, and supported through the duration of the Shah's reign, by the CIA. The Iranian revolution, and the regime that resulted, is the bastard child of US foreign policy from the 1950s through the 1970s. Why did the US destroy a democracy, led by a Western educated and indeed pro-Western leader (prime minister Mosaddegh)? As a legacy of British occupation of Iran (Persia at the time), British Petroleum (now BP) was extracting large amounts of oil from Iranian territory without paying royalties to the Iranian government. Mosaddegh initially tried to negotiate royalty payments with BP, but when he was rebuffed he moved to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. Diplomats in the British embassy tried to organize a coup against him, but they were discovered and expelled. At that point the CIA took over the operation. So the primary motivation for the operation was ensuring Western access to cheap oil. Also, I am an American, not Iranian, and the US is "my people". Unlike many of the right-wing-leaning types who post here in SC, though, I believe it is worthwhile to examine the past to see what worked and what screwed up royally, so we can learn from our mistakes. Operation Ajax was a disaster that has made the Middle East a much more dangerous place, and it underlies much (though not all) of the anti-US sentiment in that part of the world. I believe that we are off, in the long run, to allow countries to control, or at least to benefit from resources within their territorial boundaries. I also think a useful lesson it that it is usually better to allow societies to develop in their own way, at their own pace; the best way to try to influence outcomes by providing an example of the benefits of our political and economic systems that they can see and emulate if they so choose. That worked well in Eastern Europe, which discarded Soviet rule through home-grown efforts inspired by knowledge of economic and political disparities with their Western European neighbors. Indeed, many of Gorbachev's ideas the led to the dismantling of the Soviet communist system came from his time spent in the West, which shows the value of allowing people from all over the world access to Western education. Sometimes being a good citizen means admitting that we screwed up, and vowing not to make the same mistake again. The notion that America never gets anything wrong is simple minded, against America's long-term interests, and so is actually unpatriotic, IMHO. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And maybe "your people" (who are also my people) should think twice before overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of civilians during a reign of terror that lasted more than two decades, supported the whole time by US (double meaning intended). For the sake of oil, we destroyed the first democracy in that part of the world, and so much of the trouble that has followed is just reaping what we sowed in 1953. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

tr027, building a bridge to the 19th century one quote at a time! I would argue that the real thief is the one who wishes to avail themselves of the benefits of an organized society, yet shoulder none of the costs. I'll repeat to you the question I asked above: if you regard taxation as theft, then how do you propose to ensure that you, personally, do not derive any benefit whatsoever, in any way, from the services provided by the institution you so disdain? Mr. Spooner lived in a day and age when the total population of the US amounted to less than 50 million people. There were no cars, no highway system, no medical technology to speak of. Industries just dumped their waste directly into the same water people relied on for drinking. If you didn't like living in one of the polluted Eastern cities, there was plenty of land for the taking out West, as long as you didn't mind clearing off the natives. If you wanted to be an "island unto himself", that could be done. Most of the population was illiterate, but that didn't matter too much as most jobs didn't require much reading and writing anyway. How well do you think that description translates to today's world? What do you imagine the life expectancy would be today with no public health infrastructure, no restrictions on industry's ability to pollute common resources, no investment in medical research? How wealthy do you imagine America would be if 80% of our workforce had less than a 3rd grade education? Would the rest of the world really step aside and let such a country, unwilling to invest at all in the health and education of its population, be a leader in anything? The problem with all you tax abolitionists is that you were born 200 years too late. Either that, or you do expect all the benefits of living in the wealthiest society in the world to be handed to you for nothing. Who's the welfare bum here? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

These comments are directed not specifically to Davjohns, but to all who argue that taxes are "theft". Can you suggest a mechanism by which you would be able to completely separate yourself from all the tangible and intangible benefits that you receive from government (i.e. taxpayer) funded services? On the direct side there is of course law enforcement and firefighting, but also there is access to relatively safe food, water, and air. The situation would be very different if not for enforcement of laws and standards regarding food safety and pollution of water and air, as was the case in the past before those laws were enacted. In cities, massive epidemics of water-borne diseases such as cholera, with horrendous death tolls, were commonplace before the development of taxpayer-funded sewer systems and clean water supplies. The fact that average life expectancy has more than doubled compared to 150 years ago is mostly due to these public health resources. On the less direct side, we all benefit from the wealth that is generated by private enterprise having access to an educated work force. If nothing else, this helps ensure that the "talent pool" is not limited to small segment of the population who can afford to hire private teachers to educate their children, as used to be the case before the development of public education. We all benefit from the medical advances funded by the NIH, as well as from the pool of trained scientists whose graduate training is supported by NIH, NSF, and other government agencies. We have all benefited from the taxpayer funded defense of our country. If you don't want to pay your share for any of this, why should you derive any of the benefit? It seems to me that everyone who claims that taxes are unconstitutional or "theft" should present explicit alternative mechanisms for either funding such services, or ensuring that those who can pay but refuse to do so derive no benefit, direct or indirect, from these services. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You're getting mixed up on the units. 11,930 uSv/hr (microsieverts/hr) is only ~12 mSv/hr (millisieverts/hr), which is actually no-where near a lethal dose. micro is 1/1,000th of milli Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's an understatement in the extreme to say your statement was "inaccurate". You seem to be shockingly ignorant of history. Here is a random sampling of African countries, their date of independence, and the European country they were previously ruled by. Virtually the only sub-Saharan countries that gained independence before the mid 20th century were Liberia, founded by repatriated American slaves, and South Africa, which has hardly been a shining example of "black majority rule". Where is this "300 years of black majority rule" you speak of? Ghana March 6, 1957 (Britain) Cote D'Ivoir August 7 1960 (France) Liberia July 26, 1847 Republic of Guinea October 2, 1958 (Britain) Mali April 4, 1960 (France) Niger August 3, 1960 (France) Republic of Benin August 1, 1960 (France) Nigeria October 1, 1960 (UK) Cameroon October 1, 1961 (France and UK) For an intelligent discussion of why some societies, including African societies, lagged behind Western European and Asian societies in technological development, I'd suggest you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Africa, like South America, had several factors going against it, particularly the absence of domesticatible animals (therefore requiring that all labor including transport of goods be done by human labor), the fact that the north-south orientation of the land mean that domesticated crops were slow to spread as they had to be adapted to different climatic zones (which tend to vary more with latitude than with longitude). Asia and Europe, on the other hand, benefited from the fact that similar climates extend all the way from Europe to eastern China and Russia, allowing domesticated crops and animals to be moved long distances and still find suitable growing/living conditions. Also most of our domesticated animals come from the area of modern day Iran/Iraq, or the Russian steppes in the case of the horse, and domesticated animals provided a cheap source of labor and the possibility to move long distances quickly, which amongst other things changed the nature of warfare and so stimulated the development of related technologies such as metal working and explosives (fireworks). It had nothing to do with Africans being "inferior" or of "lower IQ". It's all about the resources people had available to work with. Also don't forget that the European colonial powers created countries that had nothing to do with the indigenous populations, but were accidents of who managed to plan a flag where first, and subsequently played on traditional tribal rivalries to subdue the locals and make them easier to govern. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

An eye-opener for anyone who thinks "ukulele" means "Hawaiian music": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOJLhK1NOL8&feature=related Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

O'Keefe's lies. Editing the video to make it appear as if people said things they did not say. My understanding is that the Koch impersonator released a recording of the conversation as it actually occurred. If you have a link showing that the recording was edited so as to make the governor out to be saying things he did not actually say, I'd like to see that. I don't have a problem with investigative journalism, and sometimes that means deceiving the target of the investigation. Not too different from undercover police work. In both cases lying about the outcome of the investigation is what is unethical. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And you say you're not defending O'Keefe. Is a fall based on lies a good thing? I guess for you any means justifies the ends. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I know lots of conservatives who think of themselves as intelligent and enlightened. Just because you think those are negative qualities doesn't make them so. Schiller did say it would be an ideal situation if NPR could divest itself of any government funding, and that the "head office" would probably be able to do that. Local stations in smaller markets would probably have a very hard time, though. I suppose having local stations off the air, replaced by commercial top-40 crap playing franchised stations fits well with the tastes of some. For my part I do find them overwhelmingly non-political. The fact that they don't preface every mention of Obama's name with some pejorative adjective doesn't make them left wing. I guess if O'Reilly is your idea of "fair and balanced", though, you might find the lack of personal slurs against the president or democrats in general to suggest a leftist leaning. The point of the exercise is to eliminate the censorship and bias that comes with having to appease corporate sponsors. Listeners do judge their content. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As I'm sure you are well aware, there is a difference between "illegal" and "unethical". Reporters who lie lose their jobs, as they should; they don't usually go to prison. If O'Keefe wishes to present himself as a "reporter" doing "undercover investigative journalism" he is ethically, not legally, obliged to present a factual accounting of the substance of his interviews. It's clear from the raw footage of the interview that he has absolutely no interest in doing that. Coming from you, that's really really funny. Thanks for the laugh, I'll be chuckling all day. Nice waste of bandwidth, considering my post is directly above yours. So you consider an expectation of some semblance of truth from those who call themselves "investigative reporters" to be "self defined moral superiority"? Perhaps you consider a view of the world founded on outright lies to be preferable? Of course, I guess it's all OK (to you) if those lies conform to your "reality". Thank you. Thank you very much. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A few days ago we were "treated" to an undercover expose' from James O'Keefe that purported to show NPR fund-raising executive Ron Schiller making outrageous comments about republicans, tea party members, etc. Now a detailed comparison of the edited version of the sting meeting with the raw video has been published by Scott Baker, a reporter who works for "The Blaze". Interestingly, The Blaze is a news outlet founded by Glen Beck as a conservative response the the Huffington Post. Baker concludes with "...even if you are of the opinion, as I am, that undercover reporting is acceptable and ethical in very defined situations, it is another thing to approve of editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented." Details; 1. Muslim brotherhood connection. In the raw video O'Keefe makes it clear there is no connection between the organization he purports to represent and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but then he edits the video to make it sound as if Schiller is knowingly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate. O'Keefe (in the raw video) makes it clear he is a very low-level employee in the organization he purports to represent, but in the edited version it sounds as if he is in a policy-making position. 2. Schiller laughing at spread of sharia law. In the edited version of the video, Schiller laughs and makes a light-hearted comment after O'Keefe tells him his organization has a mission to spread acceptance of Sharia law around the world. In the raw video, you can see that Schiller's comment is from a totally different part of the video, in fact at the very beginning where he is reacting to confusion over the name on the reservation at the restaurant where they were meeting. 3. Tea party members "racist and xenophobic". The edited version of the video shows Schiller describing tea party members as racist, xenophobic, etc. The raw video shows that most of these comments, and the most inflammatory of the comments, are actually Schiller recounting conversations where life-long Republicans (one a former ambassador) told him why they felt they had no choice but to support Obama in the last election. This is a favorite tactic of Ann Coulter as well: take a news article where a reporter is reporting about a statement made by a person who is a subject of the story, and then attribute the statement to the reporter in an effort to prove the newspaper is "liberal" or whatever. Lots of other examples of intentionally deceptive editing are given as well, regarding the education of conservatives, NPR's need for federal funding, and basically everything that made O'Keefe's hit video so inflammatory. Schiller does say some things conservatives may not want to hear, but he makes it clear that is his personal opinion and not the opinion of NPR. Of course that is edited out in the video O'Keefe released. For the conservative posters here in SC, I'd say if you give O'Keefe any credibility at all, if you consider him anything other than a lying unethical scumbag, then you also have to accept Michael Moore as the epitome of fine reporting. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What about "All things considered"? Can you get more liberal than admitting you consider all things? Now if it was "One side considered" that might be balanced enough for some. Especially if the one side is "Zerobama is a muslim communist Kenyan surrender monkey who probably believes in evolution and global warming, and who sticks American babies in the blender feet first so he can see the expression on their faces while he's whipping up some watermelon and burritos to serve to his Mexican drug lord buddies when they sleep over in the Lincoln room". Programming like that might possibly be centrist enough for rushmc et al. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think it's kind of funny that so many of the same people who get their panties in a wad about "political correctness" impeding their right to use racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just rude/offensive language are so quick to jump all over some so-called "liberal media member" for stating his opinions. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, if the gander happens to be "liberal". Would NPR be better off if they could get free of federal government funding (which is about 10% of their overall budget)? Sure, why is this even controversial? Isn't it a conservative dogma that everyone would be better off if they didn't need "government handouts"? Is the Tea Party racist and xenophobic? To the extent that the Tea Party doesn't seem to even have a coherent platform, except "I'm angry, and I'm going to make sure everybody knows it", how could they be inherently racist? Does the Tea Party, as the party de jour of the disaffected and angry, tend to disproportionately attract people with racist and xenophobic points of view? Of course. The only people who will be angered by this "stealth video" are the people who are looking for something to be angry about. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you have a source for that? I'm highly skeptical of that number. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And once again, there is no "there" there. Not that the "birthers" have ever let facts get in the way of their ODS. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

One would think that the court would be free to award $1.00 damages. I'd think it would be hard for them to prove they had suffered any monetary damage by being forced to exercise their free speech rights from across the street. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)