People in favor of torture love to bring up situations in which America is teetering on the brink of catastrophe and the terrorist in his jail cell has information to stop it. Whenever I hear this, I have to laugh. I mean seriously, this never happens. We are never moments away from cataclysm with a terrorist who can give us info to stop it. This is the stuff of 007 movies and Dick Cheney's dreams. Enough with the reactionism already.

We have to realize that not only is torture ineffective and unreliable, but morally unacceptable 100% of the time, regardless of the situation (as if the aforementioned situation ever arises at all)

No, I think nuclear war or overpopulation will kill off most of humanity before global warming does.

Why is this a question? No offense, but seriously? Is anyone going to legitimately argue for the other side? I don't think so. This "debate" is absolutely meaningless.

I suppose ideally museums ought to be free for everyone, but in reality people are probably not going to donate anywhere close to enough money to adequately fund museums, pay for security, maintain collections, ect.

I worked all night. No fireworks for me :(

Oh well, there's always next year.

You're wrong, there is nothing wrong with using "an historic" because the 'a/an' rule is a matter of pronunciation, not spelling. It is used more commonly in British English than American English, but there is nothing wrong with it. And what is this business about McCain starting it??

Not even close. Country is one of the few genres I cannot stand at all. Rock is definitely where it is at (mostly)!

Larry David is the greatest living American. He's an absolute Genius!

That is exactly how I felt! Honestly, MJ was cool, but whatever. Billy Mays was the man! I absolutely loved that guy, and he will certainly be missed.

I really don't even like Slipknot very much, but AX7 just sucks it so hard, I have to argue for Slipknot on this one.

I don't think you're answering the question. You have a good point, but the question was not whether or not the current post-secondary education system is relevant or effective, but whether it is a good decision for an individual to make use of such a system, as it currently is.

This is clearly not a yes/no question, because it depends on what you want to do in life, but whatever. I would say that for most people, such as myself, college is a good investment, because it opens up an entirely different strata of career opportunities that simply aren't available to non-graduates. Four years of your life and some student loans in exchange for a higher paying, more rewarding career (hopefully) seems worth it to me.

1. I personally believe her to be unqualified for the presidency, as well as generally annoying and unappealing. So as for if she should run, I say no, there are many other republicans I would rather see in the race than her.

2. As to whether she will run, I think the answer is yes, but I doubt she will win the nomination of the party. I think at this point it is almost settled that her future includes an attempt at the presidency. However, I really don't see the republican party trying to ride a candidate like Palin after her debacle this last time around, and I think it would be a sign of poor judgement on the part of the party, especially if Obama seeks a second term.

Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes. I love it here, and I hope never to move away.

If the allies had been less harsh in their reparation demands after WWI, the German economy would not have suffered as large a setback as it did, leading to extremist policies and the rise of the Nazis. However, once Hitler assumed power, his foreign policy was clearly one of aggression, especially towards the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, and there was not much that could have been done to prevent his action fro that point on.

Haha, well you have just about the most f-up sense of Christianity I've ever encountered. But whatever, I really don't think we're making any progress on anything at all, so goodnight, and enjoy your "religion."

So you just ignore parts of scripture then? And scripture is the Holy word of God? Your directly ignoring God then you know. And that doesn't sound like a good Christian now does it?

How can you call yourself Christian without believing in Christian doctrine? I mean, pardon me, but isn't that kind of the point? Because if your just going to make up your own rules as you go, why do you need Christianity?

Then how can you claim to be religious. Aren't you supposed to conform to religion, and not the other way around. Sorry but you sound so full of crap.

Honestly, your argument is that, "I agree with the parts of religion that sound nice, and disagree with the parts that don't." I mean, come on, what's really the point then?

I'm sorry but i have to call bullshit on this one. I guarantee I know more about Christian doctrine than you. Christian doctrine is definitely against gays, and that simply isn't debatable. Honestly, no mainstream christian will allow homosexuality. It's just so absurd, because it is directly condemned so many times in scripture.

Did you read this at all? Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.

That takes care of "there is no proof a black convicted criminal is any more or less likely to get the death penalty than someone convicted of any other race."

How can you not think it's a sin if you religion claims that it is?

You seem to have a pretty convoluted idea of Christianity.

Really? Well it looks like you haven't been paying attention:

Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Jude 7 - So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

...Dozens of others.

So were you really just ignorant of these, or did you just try to brush them off?? Especially the Jude one clearly refutes what you just said. How do you explain that??

I really don't think there is a new meaning. I think it has always meant an ideology of using violence against the population at large to influence the decision making of the state. Am I wrong? Is this not what it currently means?