1. Post #41
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Personaly, I am really tired of being called an evil racist bigot for not wanting welfair.
    So do you have a replacement or do you want them to just die?

  2. Post #42
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,799 Posts
    It's sort of sad to see the weak impeding the strong.

    By having seven kids on the taxpayers' dollar you're not helping anyone.

  3. Post #43
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    I'm writing up a thread on welfare that will cover a lot of it. It can't cover most of the issues in detail as that would take a while. I've heard hour long lectures on single topics, and there is no way I'm going to go to that extent, but I should cover the basics of the argument against it, and the opposing side can make their argument as well.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,957 Posts
    I presume you mean "Republican" in the sense that you want a republic to be the type of country you live in, not "American Republican".
    Exactly, those terms mean different things in different countries.

  5. Post #45
    Soviet Bread's Avatar
    January 2011
    365 Posts
    I assure you not all of them are evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots. Just look at me, my best friend is homosexual and liberal.
    But seriously, we're not all that bad.
    Unfortunately the party IS evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots with economic polices that have never worked.

    Edited:

    I'm writing up a thread on welfare that will cover a lot of it.
    Is this going to go like your 'removing minimum wage increases wages' bullshit?

    Because I want to see you try and say removing welfare helps people.

    Edited:

    Really the only candidates I can support at all are Johnson and Paul, and they are libertarians running on the Republican platform, which is the closest to third party you can get.
    Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative?

    Because both of them are.

    Edited:

    I've been called racist for not liking Obama.
    People tend to throw out the race card because they often have no clue how to argue their side, or they use it in a desperate attempt to make their opponent look bad.
    Beats eight straight years of calling anyone who doesn't blindly support Bush being a traitor and anti-american. Oh wait, that's still going on.

    Edited:


    Gave up a long time trying to advocate conservative views anywhere on the Internet, but the lack of flaming and relative balance in this thread so far makes it feel a bit safer.
    Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,628 Posts
    Unfortunately the party IS evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots with economic polices that have never worked.
    This... is a debate forum?

    Is this going to go like your 'removing minimum wage increases wages' bullshit?

    Because I want to see you try and say removing welfare helps people.
    Yeah that thread you ran away from, that was funny. Do it Pepin!

    Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative?

    Because both of them are.
    It's not mandatory anybody think a specific way, but they all legislate in similar ways.

    Beats eight straight years of calling anyone who doesn't blindly support Bush being a traitor and anti-american. Oh wait, that's still going on.
    Yeah so let's call people who don't support our guy names because they called us names, because that makes logical sense.

    Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.
    Oh hey, it's still a debate forum, and you're still being stupid!

  7. Post #47
    Soviet Bread's Avatar
    January 2011
    365 Posts
    Wow! A whole lotta nothing, as per usual, sobiet or whatever.

    Edited:

    I'm rather surprised you're not valiantly defending the Republican party.

  8. Post #48
    Derubermensch's Avatar
    August 2009
    1,267 Posts
    Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative?

    Because both of them are.
    They have both stated that they would leave it up to localities and states, and if they were in charge of such a small scale they would probably take on liberal stances. Ron Paul PERSONALLY holds older moral values, but he doesn't wish to implement them into law. God, I hate it when people try to imply what you said, because it just shows how ignorant they are of libertarian philosophy.

    Edited:

    I'm rather surprised you're not valiantly defending the Republican party.
    Implying Sobeit is a republican. Us libertarians tend to despise the bible-thumping idiots in charge of the GOP. We are just more likely to find agreement with republican candidates than with democratic ones.

  9. Post #49
    Soviet Bread's Avatar
    January 2011
    365 Posts
    They have both stated that they would leave it up to localities and states, and if they were in charge of such a small scale they would probably take on liberal stances. Ron Paul PERSONALLY holds older moral values, but he doesn't wish to implement them into law. God, I hate it when people try to imply what you said, because it just shows how ignorant they are of libertarian philosophy.
    First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level. Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much.

    In reference to Libertarianism, I only said it wasn't social conservative. Unless you're implying it is...


    Implying Sobeit is a republican. Us libertarians tend to despise the bible-thumping idiots in charge of the GOP. We are just more likely to find agreement with republican candidates than with democratic ones.
    Ron Paul is a bible-thumping idiot, but you seem to support him.

  10. Post #50
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level.
    Quite incorrect. I've been over this so many times with people, they give me quotes and what he supported and I strike them down very quickly. Really if you want to try it go ahead, but it's pretty pointless.

    Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much.

    In reference to Libertarianism, I only said it wasn't social conservative. Unless you're implying it is...
    I don't even think you're aware of what libertarianism is, so I don't know how you could make that judgement. Libertarians are in favor of states rights and small government, and many are in favor on the the constitution. It is actually difficult to say to generalize because many are in favor of no government, but given the choice between a larger federal government and smaller one, and more state rights or less, it's obvious what they'd pick.

    I can imagine some predictable examples of human right violations done by the states, yet I can give just as many if not more human right violations done by the federal government. Also, slavery as an example doesn't make sense as an example of states rights as it was allowed by the federal government.

    Ron Paul is a bible-thumping idiot, but you seem to support him.
    Which shows that you don't understand libertarianism. His religious views are meaningless because he does not wish to force them upon anybody. Even the issue of abortion which is considered to be a religious issue, he'd leave it up to the states.

  11. Post #51
    Danny Lol's Avatar
    June 2008
    577 Posts
    Which shows that you don't understand libertarianism. His religious views are meaningless because he does not wish to force them upon anybody. Even the issue of abortion which is considered to be a religious issue, he'd leave it up to the states.
    I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic..._Paul#Religion

  12. Post #52
    Derubermensch's Avatar
    August 2009
    1,267 Posts
    First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level. Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much.
    That just shows me you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever as to what libertarianism is.

  13. Post #53
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic..._Paul#Religion
    Direct quote:
    "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state."

    So he claims that the left wants a separation of church and state because they hate that churches "teach morality and civility, and do what government never could"?

  14. Post #54
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic..._Paul#Religion
    I'm not sure what you're trying to claim given what you replied to, your statement, and the link. Make an argument.

    So he claims that the left wants a separation of church and state because they hate that churches "teach morality and civility, and do what government never could"?
    To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. There are many means here, such as education, discrimination laws, profanity laws, sin taxes, prohibition of certain products, and so on. This is pretty true of the right as well. Paul would prefer the government not to be the moral authority of anything and would rather for the moral authority to default to the churches, who cannot use force on anyone.

    I will admit it's a bit of a weird phrasing. He's probably trying to appeal to people who go to church, or maybe he believes this, eh doesn't really matter, the point is that the government shouldn't try to instill morals into the people, but rather the people should be left act on their own moral judgement.

    Oh, also, I think argument regarding the government never being able to create a moral society hinges on that in order to do so there must be force, and force is immoral, and therefore it is impossible to create a moral society that requires immorality to make it. That might not be what he had in mind, I don't know.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    Canesfan's Avatar
    July 2005
    1,404 Posts
    Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.
    What a high quality argument. You have contributed exactly nothing to this thread at all. You obviously read maybe one sentence of my post. No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american. Do you get your political views from 4chan posts?

    Congrats on being the inevitable bandwagoner to come in with no real arguments whatsoever.

  16. Post #56
    N-12_Aden's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,852 Posts
    I was pretty liberal in high school, but once I graduated and saw the world for what it was (a bad joke in my opinion), I figured that blindly following one politcal mindset is a foolish endeavor.

    The elections of 2008 and this batch of GOP candidates (sans Paul and from what I have heard Huntsman) only prove that politics is a nasty business.

    Gay soldier getting booed, people saying they want others to die if they cant pay is bad.....but that doesn't mean the whole of America is like that. This is the end result of almost exclusive control of politics by the Idealouges of the left and right.

    There can be no middle ground, because politics is fundamentally the allocation of powers and power can sway any human being.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    Boba_Fett's Avatar
    August 2007
    9,190 Posts
    What a high quality argument. You have contributed exactly nothing to this thread at all. You obviously read maybe one sentence of my post. No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american. Do you get your political views from 4chan posts?

    Congrats on being the inevitable bandwagoner to come in with no real arguments whatsoever.
    I have a hard time arguing with him, because he tries to make his opinions sound like facts, and he seems to think generalizations are the truth.
    Normally I try to avoid personal insults, but god damn, he's just dense.

  18. Post #58
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. There are many means here, such as education, discrimination laws, profanity laws, sin taxes, prohibition of certain products, and so on. This is pretty true of the right as well. Paul would prefer the government not to be the moral authority of anything and would rather for the moral authority to default to the churches, who cannot use force on anyone.

    I will admit it's a bit of a weird phrasing. He's probably trying to appeal to people who go to church, or maybe he believes this, eh doesn't really matter, the point is that the government shouldn't try to instill morals into the people, but rather the people should be left act on their own moral judgement.

    Oh, also, I think argument regarding the government never being able to create a moral society hinges on that in order to do so there must be force, and force is immoral, and therefore it is impossible to create a moral society that requires immorality to make it. That might not be what he had in mind, I don't know.
    The part of this I really, REALLY don't like is the "the church should eclipse the state in importance" part. How can you account for this?

  19. Post #59
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,837 Posts
    They may as well be. Bachmann for being batshit insane and Obama for sucking her and other republicans' metaphorical dicks.
    of course if he didn't suck their metaphorical dicks to a certain extent, the country would be fucked. Stop the republicans from gumming up the works in key parts of the government and stop them from shutting down the debate before you blame obama.

  20. Post #60
    Soviet Bread's Avatar
    January 2011
    365 Posts
    Every single thread that has Libertarianism mentioned has at least one little hardcore Ron Paul fanboy who tells everyone else who makes any comments on Libertarianism that they don't understand it. Then they proceed to give a different definition of it than the last person.

    Why the fuck does the definition of that ideal fluctuate SO much on this site? Pepin, you've given literally a different description of it then others I've seen.


    To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government.
    Okay, you're saying I don't understand libertarianism, yet you're saying this stupid shit?

    Do you not understand the leanings of a social leftist?

    And they favour ethics, not morals. Morals is a right wing thing.

    Edited:

    I have a hard time arguing with him, because he tries to make his opinions sound like facts, and he seems to think generalizations are the truth.
    Normally I try to avoid personal insults, but god damn, he's just dense.
    You don't even fucking argue, you provide your opinion and get all offended when people try to argue against it. Why make points if you're not willing to defend them?

    Edited:

    No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american.
    You must have been living under a rock for the 8 years under bush. not even those in particular. The whole 'you're with us or against us' attitude.

    When you had shit like this daily:

    (And his whole rant against Hollywood)

    Plus if you recall entire protests with poorly spelled signs declaring liberals to be traitors.

    It was very, very prevalent.
    Do you get your political views from 4chan posts?
    I don't see how you get that conclusion but no, I hate 4chan and everything it represents.

  21. Post #61
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    The part of this I really, REALLY don't like is the "the church should eclipse the state in importance" part. How can you account for this?
    You have to keep it into context, that the church is the moral authority and the subject being about people banning religious items during Christmas. If you quite anti religious it might seem like a bit much, but again, he's more saying that the government shouldn't be a moral authority and the church doesn't have any force to exercise. It is kind of like saying Denny's is the moral authority.

    I personally would have liked it more if he would have just said that the people are the moral authority. If you're very pro-state you may not also like it as you believe the state has a role in making people better. It's one of his more iffy quotes as you kind of have to accept the church as a legitimate moral authority to accept what he is saying, and it is very easy to misunderstand. The root of the argument, that the state shouldn't be the moral authority is something I quite agree with.

    Every single thread that has Libertarianism mentioned has at least one little hardcore Ron Paul fanboy who tells everyone else who makes any comments on Libertarianism that they don't understand it. Then they proceed to give a different definition of it than the last person.

    Why the fuck does the definition of that ideal fluctuate SO much on this site? Pepin, you've given literally a different description of it then others I've seen.
    I would have assumed you would have looked it up by now. There are two principals.

    1. The non aggression axiom
    2. Private property rights

    There has been a lot of thought in so many different areas you'd be surprised. A lot of it goes into the best system that would allow for these two principals to be upheld most effectively. There are a lot of books on it, and if you want some recommendations I can give you some.

    Okay, you're saying I don't understand libertarianism, yet you're saying this stupid shit?
    I was providing clarification as to what Ron Paul was saying in that statement as it seemed Megafanx13 misinterpreted it.

  22. Post #62
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government.
    uh that's absolutely wrong.

    any kind of leftist is anti-government and that included libertarians which are by no stretch right-wing. the model communist country is 100% stateless and socialists that are more center include state socialists. the right-wing is the corporatist or collectivist faction as both status quo and common-collective in the form of nationalism are right-wing tenets. you've got it 100% completely fucked up even if we took the US as a model.

  23. Post #63
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    uh that's absolutely wrong.

    any kind of leftist is anti-government and that included libertarians which are by no stretch right-wing. the model communist country is 100% stateless and socialists that are more center include state socialists. the right-wing is the corporatist or collectivist faction as both status quo and common-collective in the form of nationalism are right-wing tenets. you've got it 100% completely fucked up even if we took the US as a model.
    I was simplifying what Ron Paul was saying in a quote where he was describing the left. But as far as what you're saying, I can't really make any sense of it. A person cannot be opposed to an entity and at the same time use it as a means. I don't really understand.

    Also, I don't believe left in this instance refers to socialist or communists. I believe it refers to democrats.

  24. Post #64
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    A person cannot be opposed to an entity and at the same time use it as a means. I don't really understand.
    the left does not use the government as a means, in that context neither the libertarians could be opposed to the government while using it as a means.


    Also, I don't believe left in this instance refers to socialist or communists. I believe it refers to democrats.
    democrats aren't left in any regard.

  25. Post #65
    Ask me about my .gif fetish
    st0rmforce's Avatar
    February 2008
    3,594 Posts
    The amount of information in the OP has overloaded my brain.

    You're not helping the American stereotype much (Here's a hint: not everybody in the world follows US politics, we don't always know what you're talking about).

  26. Post #66
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    the left does not use the government as a means, in that context neither the libertarians could be opposed to the government while using it as a means.
    That wouldn't make much sense as the left you're talking about would have to take more power, such as the means of production, which can not be considered anti-government since it is an expansion of government power. The only true way to be anti-government is to oppose the expansion of its power.

    I suppose you're argument would be acceptable on grounds of a revolution or some similar change in which the people people dump their current government and quickly move to the new one. But I'm having a difficult time accepting that people can be anti-government while at the same be time expanding its powers, which is as far as I'm aware, is necessary in most transitional plans where the government already exists. Where I think I'm getting hung up with the claim transitional phase.

    A libertarian wouldn't support expansion of government power and would like to shrink the role of government, which is in essence being anti-government. I can certainly say that Republicans aren't anti-government, of course some are, but in general...

    democrats aren't left in any regard.
    Left and right usually refers to Democrats and Republicans. It also refers liberals and conservatives, which is a bit different but kind of the same. That's how it is most used, at least in the news and in politics. It could have a different meaning in different circles or at a different time, but that's how it is most used.

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    Boba_Fett's Avatar
    August 2007
    9,190 Posts
    You don't even fucking argue, you provide your opinion and get all offended when people try to argue against it. Why make points if you're not willing to defend them?
    I can't really argue with you, since you usually respond by comparing me to President Bush, or by telling me that I've apparently been living under a rock.

  28. Post #68
    Smug Bastard's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,651 Posts
    So do you have a replacement or do you want them to just die?
    He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage.

    What I would do is require those who really need help to apply for a government program that helps with that, and they would be checked on every month or so.

    It'd save the people that really do need help and create jobs.

  29. Post #69
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage.
    Actually its less then 2 percent. Your acting like those gym teachers that make everyone run a mile because one kid said something stupid.

  30. Post #70
    Smug Bastard's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,651 Posts
    Actually its less then 2 percent. Your acting like those gym teachers that make everyone run a mile because one kid said something stupid.
    My gym teacher actually does that

    I wasn't aware of that however, but still, in this economy we should improve in any areas we can, even the smaller ones.

  31. Post #71
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    What I would do is require those who really need help to apply for a government program that helps with that, and they would be checked on every month or so.
    the money it would take to check every month wouldn't really have you save that much. Basically checking on everyone who has welfare would cost more then supporting the 2 percent that can get a job.

    Edited:

    My gym teacher actually does that

    I wasn't aware of that however, but still, in this economy we should improve in any areas we can, even the smaller ones.
    Your saying you should reform the whole system (which would cost time and money) to stop a small 2 percent. It would ruin it for the ones who really need it.

  32. Post #72
    Smug Bastard's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,651 Posts
    You understand that woudn't be possible because most of the people on welfare are on it because they can't have a job right? Not to mention the money it would take to check every month wouldn't really have you save that much.

    Edited:

    Your saying you should reform the whole system (which would cost time and money) to stop a small 2 percent. It would ruin it for the ones who really need it.
    You have a point, I was posting before thinking which happens pretty often. Still, assuming the economy wasn't in its current state, how would it be ruined for the ones who really need it? The ones who really do need it would just need to apply for that program, they would not be harmed in any way.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    [sluggo]'s Avatar
    May 2010
    2,689 Posts
    His point is an insane exaggeration. I haven't seen anyone call him an "evil racist bigot" for not wanting welfare, but he has quite a few posts so I guess I don't know every single one. If anyone's calling him a racist or a bigot, it's probably in a scenario like this:


    Not to be specific, but a situation like that.
    Look at any thread where I say welfare in bad, I've had everyone call me racist. Especialy Starpluck, he doesn't like me.

  34. Post #74
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    You have a point, I was posting before thinking which happens pretty often. Still, assuming the economy wasn't in its current state, how would it be ruined for the ones who really need it? The ones who really do need it would just need to apply for that program, they would not be harmed in any way.
    Well I guess it wouldn't ruin it but it would be pretty annoying if it was a personal check and the like.

  35. Post #75
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage.
    Welfare, as in welfare specifically? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit right now, I've searched pretty extensively for unbiased statistics on social service fraud, and the closest one I got was one for Unemployment Insurance, and that was less than a 2% fraud rate.

    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy...2/6-11find.htm

    "1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program. By any standard, these figures add up to a lot of money. That is why the Department of Labor has been hard at work on the problem."

    Edited:

    Look at any thread where I say welfare in bad, I've had everyone call me racist. Especialy Starpluck, he doesn't like me.
    The reason people call you names for what you say is because this is the usual chain of events:
    You: "welfare is bad, it creates dependency and why should we give people money for doing nothing?"
    Others: "Can you cite a source that states this?"
    You: Either you stop posting or post something that isn't logically sound, ala Fox News.

  36. Post #76
    Smug Bastard's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,651 Posts
    You're right Megafanx, I didn't bother to look up my facts which was incredibly stupid of me.

  37. Post #77
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    You're right Megafanx, I didn't bother to look up my facts which was incredibly stupid of me.
    I don't blame you, non-partisan fraud statistics are difficult to find.

  38. Post #78
    I don't think i've heard them say they want to completely remove evolution. Thought it was only have creationism taught side by side. Though I wouldn't doubt Bachmann saying something stupid like that.
    personally I would prefer the states to decide to what degree they each are taught (Even though it should stay out of schools and in churches) but I have a feeling some schools would end up treating one of the other in the same fashion Colored schools were treated and neglected in the Civil Rights era.
    Federal Regulation? People tend not to like that. Precedents to set a standard? in the past it hasn't worked.

    I for one want states to take care of education rather than the government though. Is that more of a republican or democrat view?

  39. Post #79
    Smug Bastard's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,651 Posts
    I don't blame you, non-partisan fraud statistics are difficult to find.
    Still, me assuming that the percentage of those abusing welfare was a large amount with no knowledge on the subject whatsoever was incredibly stupid.

  40. Post #80
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    personally I would prefer the states to decide to what degree they are taught
    But doesn't that go against the state not supporting a religion? Personally I think schools shouldn't be able to teach anything that isn't supported by evidence.

    Edited:

    Still, me assuming that the percentage of those abusing welfare was a large amount with no knowledge on the subject whatsoever was incredibly stupid.
    Is this a fluke or is facepunch actually maturing?