ikol

Yeah, the government should equally not subsidize all charities.

Conservative policies in general, yes. Whether this applies to McCain remains to be seen.

Apparently not.

So, "How can you look at yourself in the mirror?" is constructive? I'm sure you do. Gore must be pretty bright to be able to pull off this whole global warming rockstar thing all while running up the electric bill of 20 households. It's pretty bad when the evil Republican President whose in the pocket of Big Oil has a more environmentally friendly house than the Nobel Prize-winning environmentalist. Wait, are you talking about Bush or Saddam?

In all fairness, the post he was responding to was pretty ridiculous. p.s. thanks for nominating two tools to run against Bush, ensuring that he would be elected (or insert talking points about stealing elections or something).

11. Ban handguns and smoking.

Just got back from this, and yeah, pretty much what you said. There were parts of this one where I could almost swear it was real and not CGI.

Yeah, there's no telling how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere to fuel this frivolous discussion.

I would go with either American Water or Tanglewood Numbers. They're all pretty damn good, though.

That one statement may have been mistranslated, but do you doubt that it's a very popular opinion among Arab nations and their leaders? Well, that was the only thing that happened in the 90's, so it must have been responsible for the economy.

Yeah, that's kind of the problem. The people that hate government tend to not be in it.

Yeah, I guess when you publicly talk about eradicating a nation you should probably have some insurance against them attacking you.

I think he finally did suspend his campaign and is concentrating on getting libertarian candidates elected.

"They" as in Miamians?

Castro? Mao? I tend to believe that the government can either stay uninvolved in the economy or they can interfere with it. So, yeah, the president can lead the economy to the degree that he doesn't fuck it up.

It's possible to lead an economy?

If you view both good and evil as positive qualities (i.e. they are both things), then you might be right. However, if only good is positive, while evil is merely the absence of good, then God is no more the source of evil than He is the source of nothing.

I don't see anything contradictory about that. If you view God as the source of all good, it doesn't follow that He is the source of all evil, especially if you view evil as a lack of good rather than a positive quality.

I don't think they would've considered owning guns to prevent crime to be crazy. But the more liberal justices don't think their interpretation is the right one?

Which is fine. I just don't see how Scalia's interpretation is spinning. If you look at it in the context of the time it was written, the main threat to the right to bear arms was a colonial government trying to suppress militias. The idea of taking away individuals' guns for safety reasons or to try (and fail) to prevent crime would probably have been viewed as crazy.

At least not within the realm of the natural.

That sounds like a "How many times do you beat your wife?" type of question.