First of all, those pot smokers that want it legalized are total idiots. All that will mean is that it will be heavily taxed. And this is why the war should continue, because there are plenty of other drugs far worse than marijuana, which will become much more desirable and widespread when the demand for pot decreases because of the increased cost. Basically, the legalization of one drug will help to advance the cause of other drugs, making them more acceptable to society. I personally don't want to live in a world where meth is a legal drug.
Biden definitely won, but Palin certainly held her own and stayed strong and on the offensive, despite predictions that she would crash and burn.
But the fact is, I do not base my decision for whom I am going to vote for on the outcome of a debate or the charisma and speeches made by the candidates. My decision is made based upon the issues that are of utmost importance to me. The candidate who best aligns with those beliefs will receive my vote.
The sole purpose of the Democrat and Republican parties is to provide platforms for people to run for political office. These two parties are not rooted in the issues, but in winning elections. They are exactly the same in this way, and in the fact that (despite what some may have been lead to believe) both love America and both want to see Americas succeed. Issues arise, however, in the fundamental difference of the two parties; Republicans believe that government should be less involved, while Democrats believe government should be more involved.
The bottom line is that languages evolve. It would be foolish to say that English as we know it today will go on forever. Texting and internet slang is simply the product of the need of people to get across a simple message quickly. I do not believe that it is inappropriate or devaluing to the English language, so long as it is not used in an improper situation.
However, one of the major problems of internet slang, is that it only further dulls a message. It has been said that communication is 55% body language, 38% vocal tone, and 7% actual words used. This is why talking on the phone is less reliable than talking face to face, writing a letter is less reliable than talking on the phone, and improper grammar and spelling is much less reliable than a well written message. Point in case, texting and internet slang is great when their is a need to send a quick, simple message, of which the meaning would be difficult to confuse. But, when the message is more complex and elaborate, and miscommunication is a major issue, then it is very important to write in full and correct sentences to ensure proper interpretation.
I completely agree, it would be total sad, but maybe it's what Hillary wants. After all, what did you expect from a Clinton.
I am sure McCain dearly hopes so.
Hey, maybe Hillary hopes so too, that way she can have a serious bid again in 2012.
Um... Suicide is not legal. You just can't be punished for committing it. Suicide is the only crime that is only punishable if attempted.
I will take this question to be referring to people who do not have an established opinion on the matter. The fact is those who have thought out the issue and have fully established their personal position often have many reasons for arguing both sides, the reason never being lack of opinion or neutrality. But the person of more shallow reasoning will often argue both sides, not because they desire to remain neutral on the issue, but because they have no opinion on the matter, and therefore, have no foundation on which a single-sided argument can be established.
"Disregarding all politicians," regardless of how good they are.
I do not at all believe that sex is a dirty thing. It is one of the most wonderful things that two people can experience together. However, when people engage in it outside of the commitment of marriage, all that results is pain and hardships.
Additionally, you should judge people at all, whether by your standards or theirs. That is not the issue here. In our free country, everyone has the right to whatever they want to, within the confines of the law. My argument is that pornography degrades our society.
You have yet to point out exactly how pornography actually benefits our society, which is the issue of this debate.
Hillary will run for president again, duh.
Wait... then... maybe it will be the end of the world!
Of course pornography is degrading to our society. What is pornography other than our body's sexual desire and our lack of control over it. All that it does is teach us to treat people as sex objects, not as equal human beings worthy of our respect. It essentially turns us into animals, which is the exact opposite of what human society is, the distancing of ourselves from animal like behavior.
Kind of an awkward question, as being politically correct and freedom of speech are not really connected. The reason that people subscribe to political correctness is not because our free speech is inhibited but that as social human beings we fear going against the tide, saying something that nobody wants to hear, and getting crushed for it. The question really is, who is bold enough to stand in opposition and stay true to their beliefs.
I would rather risk the extinction of a few animal species than continue to enrich and rely upon middle east oil. All that would do is bring our enemies closer to nuclear capabilities, which could threaten to destabilize the entire planet and life as we know it.
No, but I would certainly die for them, at least the ones worth dying for.
First of all, it may be true that government had a part in the development aviation and computers. My point was that these were such promising inventions that government was not (or would not have been) needed to bring it to the consumer.
Additionally, I never said that atomic energy or space exploration served corporate purposes. I never even mentioned either one. What I said was that in the midst of a world wide war, the government had the will power to go from a minimal amount of research into the atom to a fully functioning atomic bomb in a matter of a few years. This was an incredible demonstration of the power and efficiency of government when the right motivation is present.
So true. Why does the government have to fund something that is so "promising." Did they have to fund the creation of the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer? You would think that private corporations would be swarming for a piece of the pie that will one day "make the lame walk," but that's not happening. Instead what you're seeing is people begging government to spend billions of taxpayer's dollars on an emerging science that is untested and largely theoretical, because nobody else is willing to take the risk just yet.
People have to understand that unless the government or a corporation really wants it, like they really wanted the atom bomb, then like all scientific advances, it will take time.
