McCain has, in recent years, voted with Bush 95% of the time. That's not what I call a maverick. That's what I call "following with (and implicitly agreeing with) party line most of the time".

Ron Paul is a maverick. McCain isn't.

I can find a few ways it could be more, or equally, useful...

1. Ice cream for everyone everyday!

2. Money pool so we could swim into it like Scrooge McDuck...

3. Giving it all to... me

Jokes aside, I just think the Iraq war money is a huge waste and just about anything would be better. The only way to waste money better than by throwing it down the drain is to use it to destroy a country.

Paying for young people's education, eradicating the national debt by not spending it (a lot of money used was money the US didn't have to begin with, and shouldn't have been used), grabbing a technological edge over the Asian countries, better healthcare, etc... Whatever's on the list is good.

McCain has been speaking of Obama's lack of experience all along, and here he brings us someone whose experience mostly consists of less than 2 years as governor of Alaska, a state of less than a million people. If McCain thinks Obama is not experienced enough for the presidential office, I don't see how Palin would fit as a vice-president.

This looks like a desperate attempt to grab some Hillary supporters and I think they'll mostly see through it. Their positions on important issues are, after all, totally different. Her pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-creationist record contrasts with Hillary's, for instance...

Most worrying is the fact that John McCain is 72 years old: The possibility of him passing away while in office and leaving the presidency, the economy and the foreign policy to this woman few people knew before today will certainly scare a few voters.

McCain has been speaking of Obama's lack of experience all along, and here he brings us someone whose experience mostly consists of less than 2 years as governor of Alaska, a state of less than a million people. If McCain thinks Obama is not experienced enough for the presidential office, I don't see how Palin would fit as a vice-president.

This looks like a desperate attempt to grab some Hillary supporters and I think they'll mostly see through it. Their positions on important issues are, after all, totally different. Her pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-creationist record contrasts with Hillary's, for instance...

Most worrying is the fact that John McCain is 72 years old: The possibility of him passing away while in office and leaving the presidency, the economy and the foreign policy to this woman few people knew before today will certainly scare a few voters.

There is only one reality; We simply each have our own perception of it, shaped by personal experience, knowledge, intuition, what we've been taught... Nobody has or will ever have a full perception of reality, but we all live in the same world which is factually one.

This argument seems awfully circular to me. The author first believes that democracy is what determines right and wrong, and thus he will rely on other people's sense of right and wrong.

But, as democracy determines right and wrong, would the rest of the world not turn to everyone else? How would a decision be reachable?

I'll also give a counter-example to show why direct democracy is still not able to determine right and wrong: Should there be a world of 10 people, and 7 of them decided it was okay to kill the 3 others with the aim of stealing their wealth, the act, we can probably agree, would be immoral despite the majority arguing it isn't.

She's made it pretty clear she was never going to give up, and by doing so, she's letting her party down. She's turning around and hurting her own party, making many cry instead of saying goodbye. She'll continue to tell lies and hurt her own party until the end.

While that is an entirely legit reason to dislike Chavez, I point your attention to the question itself. The question is about whether or not Chavez should be allowed to govern. Opposing Chavez' rule due to his socialism is entirely justifiable, but opposing his right to rule due to his socialist ideals and policies would be unfair. I don't consider socialism (or liberalism, or conservatism) by itself a good reason to disallow someone's rule.

To specify, I'm Canadian and this isn't my government. I dislike the US' current government, and I think it has used 9/11 as an excuse to start a phony war.

This said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none that shows 9/11 was an inside job. It sounds like another conspiracy theory to me, like the fake moon landing or the bigfoot.

Moreover, the one reason I see to stage such an attack would be to earn the support needed to strike back at someone, like those mentioning Northwoods say. But if that's what really happened, why frame Afghanistan? I would think they would've directly framed Iraq...

Any metal with non-growling vocals and progressive rock seem to fit me best. But then again, I could just mix them - Progressive metal!