gc1765

You didn't answer the question.

So perhaps you have an answer of your own to my previous question: why do you think Bush decided to invade Iraq? He didn't have WMDs, he wasn't behind 9/11, and if it was humanitarian (to help the Iraqis) the half a trillion dollars could have been MUCH better spent and helped WAY more people. So what do you think?

It's a "vast left-wing conspiracy"...

If a liar told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you believe him? Or would you assume that he is lying and therefore 2 + 2 must not equal 4?

I'd say that there is at least one more issue at play here. If the child is too young to make a responsible decision on their own, should that decision then be made by the parents or by the state? (especially on an issue as controversial as undergoing the pain of treatment for the possibility of survival)

Ah yes, the old "playing the man instead of playing the ball" arguments... We know that the Iraq war wasn't about WMD's. We know it wasn't about 9/11. We know it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. So someone please explain what the war WAS about if it was not about popularity/legacy??

And? What does that have to do with anything?

I had often wondered how much of a factor this played in the reason for going to war in Iraq. According to McClellan, the reason for going to war was to create a "legacy" for Bush, a legacy he would achieve if he could bring peace to the middle east, and that WMDs were just an excuse: link Do you agree with McLellan's assessment? Did Bush's legacy play a role in the decision to go to war? It is interesting to note that Bush's approval rating increased greatly prior to the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps he decided to double down in the hopes that a war in Iraq would further increase his popularity? His approval ratings also went up prior to and during the war in Iraq. link The irony is that if there is one thing which will give Bush a bad legacy, it is the war in Iraq.

Gomery on this inquiry: link

Don't you think that the Jews deserve to be compensated for at least the money/property that they lost? Or are you satisfied with the compensation, even though it is much less than what was taken? Also, as for the "offending events", I think you must have accidentally added an extra zero.

Sounds good. So how should we pay for this adaptation? Through a carbon tax perhaps?

A carbon tax does neither of those things.

Bicycle. Why?

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the earth is warming. Good example. Who should pay to build this dam? Should it be the people who depend on those glaciers for water? Or should it be the people who caused those glaciers to melt in the first place (assuming for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide played a significant role)?

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

I don't think Layton understands economics, or else he is doing this because he thinks it will win him votes: link If I remember correctly, there was a poll that suggests the majority would be in favour of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Seems like the Liberals and Greens are the only ones offering it though. I don't think that the NDP can claim to be the best choice for the environment anymore...

I don't know how well known Richardson is. But he is a very likeable guy, and I think that the more people get to know him they more they will like him. Come to think of it, Obama is the same way...I don't think anyone would have predicted a year or two ago that Obama would win the nomination.

The difference is that those "other inhabitants" didn't simply take the land from them. If they own land, they purchased it from the previous owner, who purchased it from the previous owner, etc., who purchased it from the original owner.

True. Perhaps we should head over to Europe and declare the land as ours, since the people who live there didn't originate there and therefore don't have any claim to the land.

You didn't originate here either...so can I have your house?

I don't think Europeans want to go back to living like they did in the 17th/18th/19th century, so what's your point?

I think Obama just might pick Richardson as his running mate. If he does, I don't think he has to worry about losing the Hispanic vote.

Canadians prefer Obama to McCain by almost 4-1 margin: Canadians don't seem to like Bush either: link

Don't you see that pollution control and carbon dioxide control go hand in hand? Where there is carbon dioxide being formed from the combustion of fossil fuels, there is also pollution being formed.