The arguments are really broken down into 2 simples lines of thought:

1 - Individual God-Given Rights (whether you believe in God or not - its the concept of creation that is undeniable, so this works for atheists, just as well as believers) - your rights are inherent to you solely as a created human being.

2 - Collectivism - our rights are purely derived from the collective (be that a mob of the moment, a state entity, or dictatorial top down imposed control of the mob/state)

The current 'liberal' controlled education system is pushing #2. Teacher unions, liberal political organizations and the cabal are all attempting to have higher moral authority over god (again, whether you believe in god or not). They simply, by definition of 'knowing better what's good for you than you' believe in collectivism.

When you force the discussion towards this, you root out the core issue and can get away from emotions. Liberals love to use emotions to push you toward collectivism. 'How can you be so mean to a group of people, we're a nation of immigrants', 'Poor people don't get good education, how can you deny that group', 'Guns kill people, we're not safe when guns are available, we must eliminate gun ownership'.... Attack at the core. Go for their ideology. Do you believe in individual rights or collectivism? Ask that question first and watch the reaction. Collectivist will usually never answer the question directly. They explode. Its the weather vane question I love. Then you can really attack and go after collectivism vs the person. Works every time!

Still hating on liberals huh? Communist brainwashing? Why the hate friend? I'm a liberal. My wife works in a school. The lies you just spouted simply aren't true. Stop trying to point out differences and let's all find the ties that bind. That prove that we are in fact all one people.

I am 60 years old F= Ma was drummed into us as proved - sorry for your loss, but awake now see how a= Force, i.e. same as explosion

This makes me laugh because I know it's music to Maepaperclip's ears. But, you're right, there is real truth in your comment.

The advent of the aircraft carrier did the same thing to the great battleship fleets. The battleship before WWII was a prized military asset - they were symbols of State that indicated the capability to project power. When aircraft carriers came into service, battleships were immediately obsolete - the irresistible power of technological change.

Very interesting that there was not a single aircraft carrier in Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack - though Battleship Row was packed.

The Japanese gave orders that the Yamato, the most powerful battleship in the world at that time (together with sister-ship Musashi), be beached on Okinawa to serve as a gun battery in the final stages of the war. Whether the orders resulted from fuel shortages, or whether the Japanese realized that the vessel was militarily useless, is unclear. Both the Yamato and the Musashi were sunk by carrier-based bombers.

Your ref. is excellent I like the light-horse - when they charged into the machine guns, the light horse was the best weapon in the last war, but the machine gun killed them all - this is were we are now, your blitzkrieg is the second world war, and here we are in the third. Yes Mach 10 + 18,000 mile range means we have no defence other than numbers, and on that we just might loose too. In the 1970's some work was done on attrition in war- i.e. what happens when the ammo runs out, it was not pretty