Ashcroft is a fascist

I'll be honest I "hate" Bush and Ashcroft because I oppose their policies.

Aschroft seems like a tight ass who I wouldn't like personally-- no fun. Who knows perhaps appearances can be deceiving? Generally that type of born again type and I have not have much fun together.

Bush looks like a fun guy to have partied with and he looks like he could still be pretty fun even if he isn't drinking. That internet clip of him drinking at the weding 7 years after he claimed sobriety showed a witty side of Bush that I like a lot.

You know not even all conservatives accept the idea about restrictions on civil liberties because government knows best.

 

Molly Ivins from 12/06/01 Chicago Tribune discusses Ashcroft as Fascist

Austin, Texas -- With all due respect, of course, and God Bless America too, has anyone considered the possibility that the U.S. attorney general is becoming unhinged?



Poor John Ashcroft is under a lot of strain here. Is it possible his mind has started to give under the weight of responsibility, what with having to stop terrorism between innings against doctors trying to help the dying in Oregon and California? Why not take a Valium, sir, and go track down some nice domestic nut with access to anthrax, OK?



Not content with the noxious U.S.A. Patriot bill (for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act--urp), which was bad enough, Ashcroft has steadily moved from bad to worse. Now he wants to bring back FBI surveillance of domestic religious and political groups.



For those who remember COINTELPRO, this is glorious news. Back in the day, Fearless Fibbies, cleverly disguised in their wingtips and burr haircuts, used to infiltrate such dangerous groups as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Business Executives Against the War in Vietnam. This had the usual comedic fallout, along with killing a few innocent people, and was so berserk there was a standing rule on the left--anyone who proposed breaking any law was automatically assumed to be an FBI agent.



Let's see, who might the Federal Fosdicks spy upon today? Columnist Tom Friedman of The New York Times recently reported from Pakistan that hateful Taliban types are teaching in the religious schools, "The faithful shall enter paradise, and the unbelievers shall be condemned to eternal hellfire." Frightful! Put the Baptists on the list.



Those who agitate against the government, constantly denigrating and opposing it? Add Tom Delay, Dick Armey and Rush Limbaugh to the list.



Following the J. Edgar Hoover Rule (anyone who criticized Hoover or the FBI was automatically targeted as suspect), we need to add the FBI alumni association. According to The Washington Times: "A half-dozen former FBI top guns, including once-Director William Webster, have voiced their dismay at Ashcroft's strategy of detention and interview rather than prolonged investigation and surveillance of those suspected of terrorism. They contend the new plan will fail to eliminate terrorist networks and cells, leaving the roots to carry on. The harsh criticism seems calculated to take advantage of growing concerns in Congress about Ashcroft's overall anti-terrorism approach."



Harsh criticism? Put the ex-FBI agents on the list. Come to that, "growing concerns"? Put Congress on the list.



I cannot commend too strongly those hardy, tough-minded citizens ready to sacrifice all our civil rights in the fight against terrorism. It's clear to them anyone speaking up for civil liberties is on the side of the terrorists, and that's the kind of thinking that has earned syllogism the reputation it enjoys today.



Some of us are making lists and checking them twice to see who stood with us on this particular St. Crispin's Day. And when next we see you Federalist Society types at some debate over, say, strict construction, we'll be happy to remind you how much you really care when the chips are down. With the honorable exception of the libertarian right (William Safire, Rep. Bob Barr), the entire conservative movement is missing in action, and so are a lot of pious liberals.



And what could be better than the insouciance with which the attorney general himself approaches the Constitution? During his six years in the Senate, he tried to proposed no fewer than seven constitutional amendments. Since we've only managed to amend it 17 times in the last 200 years (that's leaving out the Bill of Rights), it's an impressive record. Of course, one of John Ashcroft's proposed amendments was to make it easier to amend. Another was the always helpful flag-burning amendment, which had it been in effect, would have done so much to prevent the terrorist attacks.



Yep, if we had a constitution largely rewritten by John Ashcroft, as opposed the one we're stuck with by such picayune minds as Madison, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, etc., we'd be a lot safer today.



Wouldn't we? How? you ask. Well, for example, uh . . . And there's . . . uh. Well at least we could have had a better visa system. So that has nothing to do with the Constitution: picky, picky.



In this fight for our cherished freedoms, those cherished freedoms should definitely be the first thing to go. Sieg heil, y'all.

 

Yeah, it tells me a whole lot about Haven. He's an elitist bully with fairy tale values and a screwed up view of the world. I've quite often pointed out the errors in many of his arguments including this one but it's become apparent that he'd rather not deal with concrete facts and would rather hide in his world of academia where all of society's problems are solved every day at the neighborhood coffee shop study group. He can hide his head in the sand if he wants and I really wouldn't expect any less from him. That won't dissuade me from posting my thoughts if I strongly disagree with something. Hope that answered all of your questions.

 

Question for those of you who fall on the side of "We trust Ashcroft because he's the Attny General":

What would it take for you to loose that trust?

Thanks in Advance.

 

haven -- i could not disagree with you more. The US Constitution, like the Magna Carta before it, is absolutely a contract. Yes it's based on some lofty ideals, but ultimately it underscores exactly what powers the government has and the Bill of Rights says specifically what they can not do. The Constitution is the origin of all govt power in this country. The US government funded by US taxpayers is under absolutely no requirement to secure the liberties of those they believe might be involved in attacking the citizens whom the govt is specifically set up to protect. It is simply unworkable for any country to set up a Constitution which protects the liberties of the entire world, particularly when others in the world wish to break apart the Republic described within said Constitution! "We the people" does not mean the entire world...the commerce clause does not give Congress the right to set up highways in Nigeria so American businesses can conduct trade...the 10th Amendment is largely useless to the rest of the world (does any other nation give one hoot about federalism?)...the courts have already interpreted this issue...FDR's administration won...yes, you can conduct military tribunals to determine the guilt of non-citizens whom you suspect being involved with acts of aggression against the Republic. I think pointing the finger at Ashcroft 60 years later is a tad silly.

otto - i don't trust ashcroft because he's the AG...i didn't trust Reno because I saw her stomp on due process in Waco and every concept of "prosecutorial discretion." I trust Ashcroft because I think he makes this country a bit safer for my son to sleep in each night, while at the same time respecting the liberties of American citizens guaranteed in the Constitution.

glynch -- the article you posted assumes the federal govt owes duties to secure the liberties of non-citizens...liberties they don't even enjoy in their home countries, for the most part. I simply don't agree with that logic.

 

Just a couple of minor issues that've been sticking in my mind. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

1.) Re: Whoever's arguements about 'if it's good enough for our military' it's good enough for the bad guys.

It seems to me that following this arguement, then if it's good enough for our soldiers it should be good enough for all of the true criminals of society as well. I hope you'll agree with me that this is simply not the case.

I would think that the salient feature involved here is that the individuals have willfully and expressly signed away a large portion of their rights when they joined. They are makeing the willfull decision, as it seems that you've done that they accept that the government will be fair.

While you can make all sorts of arguements about our murders as well as theirs signing away rights by commiting these actions, but that is clearly different than what occurs with military types.

2.)It seems that in the end, all of these arguements come down to whether you think that justice and liberty, as expressed in the constitution, is for Americans only, or is a universal goal.

I actually am a little scared at what restrains those of you who don't think that justice and liberty don't apply to non-americans would do if given the chance. Really. I can't imagine, for instance, how you draw the line. Since, say, people from Mexico are on the B-List, what prevents you from driving down to the border and bow-fishing for illegal imigrants? I can't see how you cross the line, and don't stop short of full on whacko.

Following this reasoning, why did we get in such an uproar against the practices of the Deathshead regiments in Nazi Germany in the Concentration Camps? Once you make non americans less human, you can justify anything.

Maybe I've been innundated with words taken out of context, but I go back to the preamble to the constituiton:

The stuff in bold stands out to me as stuff that screams that all of the rights given to US Citizens are intended to be applied to all mankind..

3.)Mad Max, thanks for the reply. I find it enlightening. I am a little bit concerned, however, by one thing. Your explanation seems to me that you're primaraly concerned about the constitution when it applies to you or people like you. (I am assuming that the religious tones of Waco resonate with you?) I wonder if you could ever seeing yourself being upset like you were at Reno if the rights of someone who you personaly found replulsive were being violated? (I'll spare you any stereotypical suggestions and let you come up with your own hypotheticals.)

I do find the 'son' thing to be quite interesting. Would you say that having a child greatly changed your entire worldview down to things like this? I can only imagine that it'd do that to me and more, which is why I don't think I'd ever be able to deal with having children. I spend a large enough portion worried about my cats as it is.

 

From Slate.com on Friday.

Ashcroft Deconstructed
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Friday, December 7, 2001, at 8:54 AM PT


As someone who was actually prepared to listen to Attorney General John Ashcroft's defense of military tribunals and other security measures, I have to say that I was completely disgusted by his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. It was an arrogant, bullying performance that went a long way to substantiating the views of his harshest critics. Ashcroft declined to be drawn into any kind of substantive discussion of military tribunals or anything else. To fair question after fair question, his answer was essentially, "Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us?" He haughtily dismissed those of his former colleagues who dared to suggest they had some kind of standing to participate in a discussion with him. With his slurs against "Miranda rights," "flamboyant" defense attorneys, and "Osama TV," the country's top lawyer suggested that our entire system of criminal justice is an unworkable sham. Sen. Chuck Schumer was right to point out that the only part of the Constitution that seems to excite his sympathy is the Second Amendment.


But the very worst of it was the way that the attorney general cast defenders of civil liberties as witting or unwitting traitors. Ashcroft did this at the very outset, when he declared any skepticism about what he has done to be, in the infamous formulation, objectively pro-terrorist. "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this," he said. "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

To understand how ugly, disingenuous, and detached from reality these comments are, it is necessary to go through the AG's distortions phrase by phrase. First of all, the current loss of liberty, however tolerable or intolerable, amounts to something more than a "phantom." In the United States, wars have always meant a curtailment of civil liberties, usually in excess of any defensible necessity. The proper extent of this loss of liberty is an essential subject for democratic debate because we are not just a "peace-loving" people but liberty-loving ones as well.


To describe genuine concern about the loss of liberties as a scare "tactic" imputes ill motivation without any evidence to Ashcroft's legitimate critics on both the left and the right. And to claim that concern for constitutional rights is eroding national unity and resolve is especially twisted. National unity and resolve remain strong. But if there is any real threat to them at the moment, it comes from Ashcroft's excesses, not from the critics of those excesses. Indeed, to contend that it is somehow the defenders of civil liberties who threaten our national unity takes some chutzpah. It's the mugger blaming his victim for contributing to crime.

The same goes for Ashcroft's complaint about giving "ammunition to America's enemies" and "pause to America's friends." The best ammunition America's enemies have had since the war started is evidence that we don't take our own liberties completely seriously. With Ashcroft's help, these enemies can make the case that Arabs have no civil rights in the United States. And to be sure, our friends in several European countries have been given pause lately. But the source of their disquiet isn't bellyaching by the American Civil Liberties Union. It's Bush's executive order setting up military tribunals, an order that may conflict with international law.

As for "encouraging people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil," there's only one prominent person trying to intimidate legitimate critics into shutting up about actions they feel to be both wrong and deeply un-American at present. He is, unfortunately, the attorney general of the United States.

 

haven -- first of all...ease up...the pretension isn't cute at all. if you're trying to earn my ear to your argument, you fail when you take an insulting tone. there's no need for that. for all your complaints about the way I address you, you take half of my point and fail to include the rest numerous times.

First...the Bill of Rights does specifically say what the govt can not do. I don't really see how you can argue against that. Yes, there were some who were concerned that this enumeration would somehow result in them leaving a right or two out...but ultimately, the Bill of Rights, despite reservations, was included in the Constitution. And historical legal analysis from English common law can point you specifically to each of those rights. You can try to argue in court that you have rights beyond the ones enumerated, but it all depends upon the judge you ultimately deal with as to whether or not that argument will be successful.

Second...and most importantly, I think...the argument that the Constitution is this document that can't be contained in words is just that...an argument!!! Just because you believe that to be so, doesn't mean we all do!! Hell, we've been arguing over the construction over the Constitution and whether or not there is more than meets the eye for years in the courts of this nation. People argue that the courts have gone too far in "creating rights" that didn't exist. You can declare victory on this issue if you'd like, but there are many (me, included) who would dispute that. The truth is, people read more into the Constitution when they find it politically-convenient to do so. And if you're on the other side, you argue, "wait a second...it's not enumerated!!" So please don't state your CONTENTION as if it is FACT. You may be a very bright, intelligent person, but I'm sure all of your opinions don't qualify as fact.

Third...this goes back to my point about you taking half of my argument and failing to include the rest...or the fact you've likely read previous posts of mine and how I feel about security vs. liberty for the most part (like gun control threads). You say I like Ashcroft only because of security..or only because he makes the nation safer for my son...but you fail to include the rest...that I don't feel he's curtailing the liberties of citizens. The fact is, we've seen foreigners detained for limited periods of time...and after a brief period of time they're released, assuming the govt doesn't feel them to be a legitimate threat. We saw that in particular with the doctor from San Antonio. I don't think we're creating a police state here. I do think we're at war...a very different kind of war...a war that has forced us to learn as we go. I'm sorry but it's completely unrealistic for non-citizens to expect the treatment that citizens are afforded during wartime..particularly if they have violated immigration laws.

Fourth ....I didn't realize my argument had to have all the solutions to this problem. There are people far smarter than me working on both sides of the fence, who I am sure can figure it out, one way or another. I didn't realize that Clutch BBS was of that much importance that all the practical solutions to guarding rights while maintaining national security would be presented here! You're asking for a bright line test...gee, haven..do you have any idea how long it takes a court to write an opinion?? and you're asking me to devise a bright-line rule for this delicate situation?? I didn't sign up for that!! I was simply commenting on a messageboard that is connected with a basketball team. I didn't realize that I was expected to be Chief Justice. If you have a solution, great!! I don't. But I do think that in wartime, as I said before, non-citizens should not expect due process that we might afford for them when we're at peace.

I don't know where it stops...I'm not sure. I can only tell you that what I see does not scare me yet. Am I mindful of the expansion of govt power because of this...absolutely! But I'm not ready to label Ashcroft a fascist just yet, thank you! I think that's a drastic reaction the same way you think his policies are a drastic reaction. I think that a govt at war is very different than a govt at peace...I think the US went to far in imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII...I think Lincoln went too far in suspending habeas corpus...I feel that because those actions took away real, distinct Constitutional rights of United States citizens. I do not see that from the current policies.

Otto --

I was the one who made the "if it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for them" argument. And no I would not extend that to common criminals. Our criminal justice system presumes innocence. Military tribunals do not afford the same protections to the accused that our justice system does. The key distinction is war, in my opinion. If you catch Taliban officers out in the field, I don't want them coming back to the US for trial...certainly a military tribunal for such folks makes sense.

Second...while the Constitution does speak to the rights of man, it uses the macro to apply to the micro. It seems quite clear that the US Constitution is not meant to be applied to everyone across the globe. The Constitution sets up how we elect Congressmen...but it doesn't allow non-citizens the right to vote.

Third...the religious tones of Waco do not resonate with me. I think Koresh was absolutely blasphemous (remember, he equated himself with my Lord while he had sex with little kids)...my problem was that they had ample time to abduct this man as he went into Waco all the time to buy supplies...instead they holed him up, drove him crazy with 24/7 strobe lights and loud music, and led the whole situation to a point it could not recover from. I think Voltaire was right when he said, "I may disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it." So I am concerned about Constitutional rights, to be sure. But I don't believe it is the job of the US government to protect the rights of the world. The Constitution binds the government to US citizens...not to the citizens of the world. We should not be in the business of "political rape" by forcing the govt protection of rights that not all cultures accept as inherent, as we do.

Fourth - having a son did not change my worldview really...not as much as you might think, actually. I was with my son, taking him to a little pre-school thing, on Sept. 11th. I remember beginning to cry a little bit as I was taking him to school and hearing the reports come in of one plane...then two planes..then three..then four...crashing in attack on our nation. The picture of the world crashing around my car with me and my little 2 year-old son was really impressed in my mind.

 

Again, thank you for the reply. I didn't mean to imply that you were a Branch Davidian, just that the idea of religious persicution is a theme well worn into the Christian's mind by the inscescent recanting of tales of being thrown to lions.

Off Topic: You, therefore are convinced that the situation in Waco was 1)A calculated plot to kill Koresh and all of his followers and not an exercise in bureaucratic laziness? and 2)This plot was hatched by the Attny general as opposed to an FBI/ATF gung-ho plot where the Attny general accepted the advice of her advisors? I guess if I saw both of those things as being most likely then I, too would be a little bit more anoyed about it as well.

So, I guess that the whole concept then comes back again to 'fundamental human rights'. If the concept is that everybody has fundamental human rights, but the United States shouldn't concern it's self with enforcing those rights for non-citizens, I would imagine that it would inspire a pretty beligerant world view, where everybody grabs for themself. Is this how you see things? Also, do resident aliens that were legaly admited to the country lie anywhere on the 'rights scale' between one side and the other, or are all 'non-citizens' in the same boat?

The other option, I guess is that nobody but Americans have human rights, in which case, I go back to the Serbian thing, and the German thing. How can we justify international punishments in these instances, and what's to prevent us from using things like nerve gas on the talaban?

Finaly, how do you feel about the geneva convention concerns? Should we even obey these 70 year old treaties? One thing that bothers me is how it seems that the gov't tries to portray these people as alternately criminals or soldiers when it best suits their intrests. Do you see this at all?

I'm sorry for drilling you like this but I find your point of view enlightening. I'm increasingly seeing alot of national policy issues as the clash of those who feel the US should not even concern itself with world comunity, and those who feel it should. I'm trying to understand 'your' side of it better. Thanks.

 

# of civil liberties any US citizen has lost to date in this war: 0

# of civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to non-citizens in either peacetime or wartime: 0

It's all to do about nuttin'...

 

otto -- there's a difference between choosing to do something and being duty-bound. the govt of the USA is duty-bound by the Constitution to secure the liberties of US citizens...the Constitution does not bind the govt to secure the rights of the citizens of the world...that would be completely unworkable for a thousand different reasons. does the fed govt sometimes use resources to try to secure the rights of those in foreign countries? yes..but they're not duty-bound by the Constitution to do so! do i believe that God blessed people with free-will and certain rights...absolutely!! but that does not mean that the US government has the job of securing those rights for the entire world. much of the world doesn't buy into these very western thoughts of rights pre-existing government....frankly, I don't want the new Afghan government defining what they perceive to be "rights" and then deciding they need to secure me as well. No, thanks...and I imagine much of the world feels that way about the U.S.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument for ethical duty at times for the most powerful and priviliged nation on the face of the planet. I'm not saying that the US should close up its borders and not participate in the world economy. But I am saying that it is the job of the US govt to be accountable first and foremost to the citizens of the US who carry the tax burden of sustaining it. I am saying that the government exists at the will of the people of the US, not the will of the people of Chad or France. We the People is we -- U.S. citizens. I simply don't see how one can read the Constitution and get the idea that somehow it binds the US We the People to secure the liberties of the rest of the world through our federal government.

as for waco -- i don't see it as a big plot...i just see it as completely mishandled due to a lack of real policy to begin with and due to a lack of discretion and respect for people with different ideas. i find those ideas absolutely awful, quite frankly...but i think the situation didn't have to blow up like a powderkeg if it would have been handled a bit more delicately. i'm much more concerned with the rights of those US citizens whose ideas I strongly disagree with than I am this current situation.

 

All, excuse me for this rant:

The radical left seeks to make US citizenship a nonissue. Their goal is a single, global government unencumbered by the US Constitution, and they will use a rather loose interpretation of constitutional principles to achieve it.

This is the root of all communism, of course. Unfortunately, this is what is being taught in US universities right now. It's blanketed with the term "social justice theory", which has a nice ring to it, and draws a good number of otherwise well-meaning and not-too-stupid people. Everyone wants social justice, after all...

But the end goal is to eliminate US sovereignty. Eliminate the United States as a cohesive political force. Eliminate US hegemony over world politics. Eliminate the US military in order to achieve world peace (never mind everyone else's militaries). Make the UN responsible for the security over the 50 states and the world. Black helicopters...

As ridiculous as this sounds, there is a small core of activists on the left that wants to make it so. Their goal is to see to it that the US loses any war it engages in, and in the mean time eliminate the concept of "common sense" in the hope that republican government (what we have) will be overthrown by the masses and intellectual elite. Not surprisingly, this impetus is coming from academia - who stand to become the new leaders and power brokers in the event that the US government is overthrown by leftists.

Hint to anyone with a working brain: avoid Noam Chomsky.

A couple of years ago - when I was in college - I'd have read a post like this and arrogantly snuffed it off as right-wing bulls*it. But over the past couple of years I've noticed a pattern that I wouldn't have noticed in my 'revolutionary' days. There is a systematic attempt underway to erode the cultural and hence national identity of this country; that can be seen in anthropology and political science classes where they try to drill into your head the idea that no culture is superior to another, and "common sense" does not exist. Anyone with half a foot in the real world realizes that both of those ideas are BS, but they are prominent items on most academic (social science) agendas.

I am actually educated as a social scientist, and I still find such teachings repugnant. Because I am also an American...

The new Left disgusts me. I am to the left on many issues, even far left on a few (religion and abortion, for example - no self-respecting Republican could associate with me because of my views on those), but I have no desire to team up with the leftist groups or ideologies that are assembling today.

They have - unwittingly, in my opinion - been hijacked by Marxists, and I for one just can't side with people who want to see the good ole USA come to an end. Whether they realize it or not.

 

i had a professor tell me in undergrad that there was no such thing as common sense. i remember mentioning that to my father and his sharp reply: "don't believe everything they teach, son." i remembered that when another professor made the exact same claim in law school.

 

MadMax - I didn't think I'd imagined that...

There's no such thing as "common sense"... I'm just waiting for someone to say that gravitons don't exist. Reality and the far left (and the far right, for that matter) don't coexist too well...

Thank your daddy for pointing out early that reality is more important than any idealistic thoughts you might have had...

 

There is actualy no experimental evidence that gravitons exist. Gravity may not exist in distinct quanta, and may rather be a wave or somesuch. Qantum Theory is the most overwhelmingly inelegant physics theory ever invented, and most theoretical physicists at least are open to the idea that it will someday be supersceded by something like one of the various string-like theories.

Links:
here
here
and
here (at the bottom)

again


MAD MAX:

Ok, I understand your 'duty bound' arguement mad max. Perhaps I agree with you more than it appears. I agree that in no sense are we duty bound, to do any of these things any more than I'm duty bound to smile at the clerk, or even look at the guy who accosts me on the corner for change. I just sort of see this as my country seeing a dirty, stinky guy walking towards me outside the local 'Stop 'n Go' and screaming out something about 'get a job!' before they guy makes any actual indication that he's going to ask for change (in the proverbial sense, of course).

People act like this towards bums all the time, and there's no law or even social stigma against it, but I'd kind of like to think of my self as a nicer guy than that and that damn John Ashcroft is just making me seem so rude .

I choose to intentionaly bind myself (not always successfully of course) to a code of conduct that I would consider more rigorous than that which I see from the average person when in public. I wish my country'd do the same. Perhaps I see the constitution as a necessary code of conduct for 'family life' and an 'Emily Post-esqe' gide to manners when in public. I certanly don't, however, feel quite so alienated from your point of view anymore (despite the fact that I still disagree).

TREEMAN:

I find it intresting that you label yourself a 'revolutionary' in your younger days, and still consider yourself a liberal many things. The question that obviously comes to mind is, do you consider yourself a 'moderate' on any issues. You seem to be attracted almost magneticaly to one side or the other of any issue.
Just a thought.

BTW, I think you guys are taking this 'common sense' arguement perhaps out of context. I believe it centers around a documented cognative lesson that goes something like this:

Professor A asks the students whether the sun rotates around the earth, or vise versa.

He polls group 'A' before telling them the answer. They respond perhaps 50-50, citing 'common sense'.

He polls group 'B' after telling them the answer. They respond 100% correctly, also citing 'common sense.'

This effect has been documented, and in this way, 'common sense' as the saying goes isn't so common. Or, if you will, the universal commonality of common sense is nonexistant. What passes as 'common sense' in the United States would not pass as 'common sense' in, say, Finland, as the commonality of experience is not there.

 

Ottomaton:

Superstring theory has a few counterpoints to graviton theory, but that's pretty irrelevant until someone figures out to open a fu*king wormhole...

My goal was not to make a point in physics, but to make a point that those on the far left will use any argument to discredit "common sense".

You have just argued against commonly held theories about gravity. Thank you for making my point.

I am not religious, and my greatest fear is a theocracy in the US. I am pro Choice. I support affirmative action. I support spending on the arts to a point, and education is more important a legislative item than a tax cut in my mind. How liberal do you think I am?

I am not the right wing nut you want me to be. I am just not ready to surrender my citizenship and my country's sovereignty, despite your efforts to paint me as a right wing lunatic. Sorry.

BTW, are you actually trying to explain to me why "common sense" doesn't exist?