gc1765

Yes. edit: compliments of Wikipedia (emphasis added): "The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them."

Huh? I'm confused. By the way, the Universe by definition would include God (it includes everything)...

Why are you amazed by that? God does not exist (well, probably not). The state does exist. Now, whether a God as a creator would be a good thing if it existed is a different question. I don't believe in unicorns, but that doesn't mean that I think unicorns are bad.

I can agree to that. The first thing they need to do is stop scaring people when it comes to booze or marijuana. I've known quite a few people who bought into all the propaganda about how bad pot is for you, and then tried it. When they realized it wasn't nearly as bad as what they had been taught, they figured that other drugs must not be bad for you either. Big mistake.

Interesting question. Here's an interesting link . Granted they weren't injecting the stuff, but still...

While I agree with you to some extent, what about the argument that it's only really a choice the first time...after that it's an addiction. Pot and beer are not really addictive, so purchasing them is a choice. But when you're a junkie, how much is it a choice and how much is it simply filling a need?

That is a good point...

I'll add one more: people who talk on their cell phones in the library! I can't figure out if those people are so clueless as to not realize that there are other people trying to read/study and are disturbed by hearing people yak on their cell phones, or whether they are just so inconsiderate as to not care. I tend to think it's the latter. No one can be that clueless...

Anyone have a link as to what the life insurance policy for an MP is? As for pensions, he would have been eligible to collect most of it after 6 years (I think he was an MP for 8 years?)...

We have so-called "experts" claiming that 9/11 is a conspiracy. 'Nuff said...

I agree. However, I think the government investing in businesses is a policy usually associated with the "left", and McGuinty is trying to show that many "right-wingers" also agree with this policy. I think what McGuinty is trying to say is much different than what the OP seems to be implying...

I think what he's trying to say is that many left-wingers and right-wingers both agree that the government should invest in businesses...

Who cares if he stole words from someone else, after all it's "just words" right...

Uh, yes you did:

I heard Hillary give this sort of argument about caucuses vs. primaries, and I must say she's full of it...unless of course she is willing to give up all those "superdelegates" that are currently putting her in the lead...

You're concerned about people in third world countries, but you want several billion people to die? Give your head a shake.

I disagree that Clinton is a tougher campaigner. Just look at Obama's rise and Hillary's drop in the polls over the course of the campaign.

Interesting twist: Link

Well, I hate to say it but most of the people who would not vote for someone because they are half-black live in states that the Democrats have no chance of winning, and most of them vote Republican anyway. Besides, you mentioned earlier that minorities don't vote in huge numbers, but if they finally have the chance to vote for a black man, maybe voter turnout will increase. That could more than make up for people who say they will vote for Obama, but don't. Besides, I don't understand why anyone would tell a pollster that they would vote for a black man because they feel ashamed to admit that they are going to vote for a white man It's not as if they haven't voted for a white man in every other election... Well, the point is Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. Clinton's support is mainly from democrats who would vote democrat no matter what. The fact that Obama has an extra few percent up on Clinton proves that he is better able to win votes from Republicans and independents - which is key to winning an election. Secondly, we've had this debate about electoral college votes favouring smaller states, and I think we both agreed that it is very hard for a president to win the election without winning the popular vote.

I disagree. Here's the latest polls: Link Link Also a bunch: Here

It's not about who was here first, it is about who is the rightful owners of the land. If it were all about who was here first, I'd go back to the person I sold my house to and demand my house back since I was there first!!

I think your heart is in the right place, but your thoughts are a bit misguided. I strongly recommend that you read the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs. I think you would enjoy it. Let me know what you think of it.

Can you expand on that? The word "socialism" often has different meanings...

Why? Got a better system?

I disagree. Liberals want smaller government in a lot of areas. Liberals typically want the government out of their lives on social issues - abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, prostitution etc... You could argue that liberals want bigger government when it comes to spending, but there are many people, like myself, who most people would consider to be "liberal", that believe in small government. IMO, authoritarianism is not really left vs. right. Just because someone who is authoritarian has left-wing or right-wing views does not mean that most left-wingers or right-wingers believe in authoritarianism. That would be like saying thieves are people who like money, therefore anyone who likes money is a thief.