Tough One To Crack, Or Just A Crackpot?

That depends on the ability of the person to provide his own healthcare. If the person is unable, due to disability, etc., I would not be opposed to a healthcare safety net for the indigent or disabled. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

I am not opposed to a food stamp type program that provides necessary nutrition for those who cannot, due to disability, provide such nutrition for their families. But "nutrition" does not include junk food, cigarettes, and beverage alcohol. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

If the poor cannot, through disability or other issues beyond their control, care for themselves, I have no problem with providing temporary housing, coupled with a job training program, to assist those in need to get beyond the unfortunate circumstances they find themselves in. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

The death penalty is an admission of failure. The failure of families to instill proper attitudes and conduct in their children, and the failure of society to identify and correct the problem before it becomes necessary to render the final verdict. But as with all such evils, sometimes we have to admit our failure and proceed with the necessary evil of capital punishment. I would strongly oppose the death penalty if there were another option to protect society from those who prey on the weak and helpless. But our courts can't be trusted to keep such predators locked up. And a "life" sentence is described as "25 years." If 25 years constitutes a "lifetime" I am almost through my 3rd lifetime. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

Why are they refugees? Who are the fleeing? Where are their parents? Insufficient data for a meaningful answer. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

It is already illegal to allow children access to firearms without adult supervision. I keep my firearms locked up, even though there are no children in my household. I do not oppose those common sense laws. So, as with all such questions that require an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer, the actual answer is a bit more complex than the "professor" seems to understand.

And you, professor, are a liar. How many at need children have you adopted? My wife and I are adoptive parents. We have done, and continue to do, our part. How about you, "Professor." Have you opened your home to adopt needy children? If not, why not? Could it be that you are a hypocrite?

Ph.D. "Piled higher and Deeper." And she is not an educator. She is a propagandist. An indoctrinator. She is trying to teach young people what to think rather than doing the work of a legitimate pedagogue, teaching them how to think. Then allowing them to come to their own conclusions rather than forcing her conclusions on them.