Well, to defend myself about the global warming thing, large areas of cooling offset warming in other areas. I've heard the same exact argument from every single person, even the "experts". And the fact is that there are massive areas where temperatures are way below average. When warming happens somewhere and cooling happens somewhere else, it doesn't mean the globe is heating or cooling. Its hot somewhere and cold somewhere else. The facts that I DO know are that climate always changes and there's no more reason to be alarmed this time than there ever has. A whole other side to the argument is that the trends are based on modelling, which can also be hugely wrong even if small data points are wrong.

I pretty much agree with you about everything. But I would say that freedom is the most precious thing we have, and yes, it relates directly to knowledge. We have the ability to understand that we are free, and that means others have the ability to recognize they could control freedoms. Without freedom of thought, it doesn't matter how you can solve a problem because your ability to think cannot be used. Without freedom to asemble, it doesn't matter that we can organize to achieve goals. Without freedom to create, your thumbs serve no purpose. So, I think freedom does trump everything, and the reason is because unlike other animals we understand freedom and we can cherish it.

The sieve was created to sort small rocks from big rocks in the first place. Selection happens because something decided to selcet or as you argue shake tue sieve. It doesn't shake itself and it didn't create itself. I don't believe there is random selection it seems like that would contradict itself would it not?

As far as dna...

Of course it takes more intelligence to create in the first place. Dna is a code and therefore could not be random. There were no individuals in the first place for "nature" to replicate. The computer analogy actually has some relevance. In the first place how was the computer made? The parts were brought together. In my opinion dna proves intelligence. Not to say it is intelligent. Again I am under the impression that species were coded to stay the same in the first place. If nature was truly random and things fromed randomly in the first place, there would be nothing to say that something that starts as a tiger would not breed a lion or an ant or any other thing because their dna could randomly turn into that thing. Could it not? Species are coded to be species that is wuere intelligence comes in. this is obviously a huge generalization but I think it exprsses my point

Couldn't agree more. And, some might not want to hear this, things like the displacement of Indians (Andrew Jackson), Asian internment camps (Herbert Hoover?) and even racism in government (Hoover as well) was supported by...the progressives and democrats. I would love to know where the idea that people who believe in the constitution are racists, sexists and whatever ists people come up with. I believe in the crazy idea that freedom is the best policy and that the United States was established to protect just that.

You bring up great points and I as well believe were pretty much in agreement about everything.

The point I was trying to make as I'm sure you understand is that freedom is the most precious thing we have as humams. I don't think anyone would argue that. Although I could think of some. Sadly, people dont realize that giving their freedom can be the most detrimental thing they can do.

I often get into arguments with students (I'm a senior in highschool) about my country. I go to a boarding school with students from all over. A german in particular does not understand our country aside from what the Marxist teachers spit out to him. He's a proclaimed socialist. The one thing...aside from god...that he doesnt understand is freedom. he believes the classic socialist doctrine that freedom is second to equality. That is a fatal error in belief. Nobody is equal, there are only equal rights. Without understanding a creator one cannot understand equality and inequality and that's why hes a socialist.

As you could guess I'm not a believer in global warming. i can look outside and tell it's not happening. Tue sad thing is, which you point out, the facts are clouded by statistics, propoganda and plain ignorance. It would be ignorant on my part to say use up everything and live as you please. however, this is where my argument comes in, I have that freedom to be ignorant. I understand laws are also there to protect but I am under the belief that more so they are about justice. And creating laws because there may or may not be a problem is unjust. It would be like me creating a law that you cant eat doughnuts because you could get fat (Mrs. President). Sure you can get fat, but you cab also eat doghnuts. Sure second, third and frankly anyhand smoke harms, but you have a right to smoke wherever you want. you should take it upon yourself to smoke outside in the firstplace because you have the knowledge that smoking harms others.

I went on long too but you are very insightful and bring up good points

Well as far as high school students who can't read...public schooling...mass education...socialist policy. We've turned into the farthest thing from a true capitalist society. Most of our policies have over time adopted big government style. The policies that all have failed have involved government and have been as a result of the rise of progressivism.

The idea of the open market is that if the company is taking advantage of your money, don't buy their stocks. Monopolies occur in one way or another and the free market allows competition to those monopolies. And who's to say they're always bad? If they are bad, will people work for them? probably not. Also, its waaaayyyyy more easy for the government to take advantage of people in the form of Socialsim. People often forget that a government is made up of people and works for the people, however, when government is giving the rights and taking them and distributing the money and regulating the business, that alone is giving them enough power to manipulate.

The tax laws we have here do not favor the rich...they are proportionate tax systems. The rich should "help pay" because it is the right thing to do. Charity. This whole thing does back to a loss of morals. The problem with socialism, communism, fascism or anything other ism that doesn't being with capital, is that they all favor the ones in power, so essentially you are promoting a system that is more exclusive than the one one you're arguing against. I would much rather have a wealthy business man taking all the money than, say, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini or whoever else. Founders once again; the system is also flawed because who regulates the governing? No one. They end up in power forever because there isn't a stable system. Socialism and Communism are the results of an unsatable system in which a ruler says, "I can help". Hmm...sound like Obama. The governing are concentrated and subject to the same things as any one man. Further, they are positions of excessive wealth. Benjamin Franklin understood that political positions offering wealth were automatically flawed.

Please explain capitalist sbatoge? The first country to successfully, and not fully, use capitalism is the United States and that country, in 200 years, propelled itself to the most prosperous nation on earth. A feat that takes most countries thousands of years and most never get there. Even under crippled capitalism, our nation still did this. Tell me that would've happened under a Socialist system. Those parables mentioned are completely correct. Competition isn't evil!!!! who comes up with this stuff? oh yeah, the text books, written by Marxists. All fellow Americans should start educating themselves about what this place is about and stop getting it from these textbooks and teachers who...wait for it...WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

I would argue further that it is in our interest to find the easiest way to accomplish a task, as that is usually the most efficient. Capitalism is the only econimic and social system where human nature is allowed to take effect. If these impoverished people you are talking about need help, let MY religion help them, let MY money help them, let MY morals be MY guide to, as the example of the fisherman puts it, teach one how to fish.

If no one on earth feels that they should help anyone else, well it is their fault and simply their demise. No one can get anywhere without help, I agree completely, however, help, as you mention, should come because it is the right thing to do not because a government can dish it out. The thing everyone forgets is that when a government gives somebody a thing, they are taking it from somewhere else. Socialism and Communism are in essence systems that promote theft. Capitalism, on the other hand, takes into account morals. The money isn't taken from someone else, it is simply un-owned and there for the taking.

As previously stated, it should be because it is the right thing to do to give charity or teach someone how to run a business. Once again back to the founders; they understood that strong morals were the keys to an efficient and good society. The three things they wanted in schools: knowledge, religion and MORALITY (EVERYONE READ THE 5000 YEAR LEAP!!!). We have lost our sense of morals because increassingly people have relied on government and we no longer have a need for charity, its only take take take. That, my friends, is not moral.

I would argue that it is common sense we should use and that laws should be minimal. Laws are seemingly put on anything that could cause a problem rather than leaving up to people's best judgement as to what they should and shouldn't do. Say the state of Georgia has the worst energy policies imaginable and it affecting the country, would it not be in their interest to change their policies? Instead, when Gerogia has a bad energy policy, everyone must adopt an energy policy to "protect" their bad policies from being adopted in the first place. The idea of liberties means that you have certain responsibilities that you are trusted with to have freedom in the first place.

The most effective way to learn is from our mistakes, and I argue that government is not the one to tell me that I'm hurting the environment, I should recognize that I am. That is part of the responsibility, recognizing the wrongs.

The government has gotten involved the the free speech issue in that the FCC has, via the net neutrality act, sought to control sources of media and communication. The FCC has no place in the constitution nor should it be allowed to regulate any sort of media. If I want to start as conservative website and want to block any liberal-leaning websites from being advertised, that is my choice. If I offend people with my broadcasts or blog posts or whatever, I can offend that person it is not the FCC's job to regulate what I put on my site or broadcast. Further, things like prostitution, gambling, smoking, drinking, are all choices. Judge Napalitano (sp) stated that these are all habits and really shouldn't have laws against them. If you choose to gamble, that is your bad. If you choose to hook up with a prostitute, it is at your own risk.

I understand that laws are meant to be the framework of morals, however, what our founders thought was that only certain laws shouls be handled by the State and the rest should be handled through retribution and direct contact with those who you've committed the crime against. Laws can and should be streamlined, which brings me to my point. Although I understand what you are saying, the point is that you are right. Every law is an infringement on freedom, therefore laws should be minimal. Even though it might not be good to do this or that at the time, someone will notice and do something about it.

we are at the point now that laws are becoming global. Cap and trade is a perfect example. My point is that we should really start to consider what laws we are supporting and how many there really are. On the FDA's website alone there are some 30 laws dealing with food. While they may be in the interest of people, where did the FDA aquire the right to create these laws. Further, are they really necessary, as you stated, they are infringements on freedom. If a company makes bad food, they're not going to sell much. The contaminations have, and will continue to happen no matter how many laws you have.