Yes.

Marijuana hasn't been proven to be more dangerous than Alcohol or cigarettes but the US government acts like it is. I think Marijuana should be regulated and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.

This will provide income for the states by means of taxes.

It will also mean that states don't need to spend so much money and resources putting people in jail (often private for-profit ones).

Also police officers can focus on actual crimes and and do a better job of responding since their resources won't be so strained.

Finally, a jail time record, for even something like having marijuana can doom an individual's future. It makes it much harder to get a job and stigma is stuck on that individual. With a large population of people not able to get a job partially due to the 'criminal' record they may be forced to live in poverty and turn to actual crime. This in turn will cost the states and government more money and only hurt society.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol but the government seems to be ignoring history and trying to prohibit marijuana and in this instance, it is doing a great job of just messing everything up and making people's lives worse, except for the ceos of private prisons.

Norse gods rule. First off having gods and goddesses is much cooler than just one god or savior.

And then they fight far more exotic and dangerous monsters. Who can say one of their gods defeated a serpent that coiled itself around the world. Or Another of their gods killed a wolf that swallowed the moon? Or what about a god who plucked out one of his own eyes to gain knowledge? Only the Norse people I believe.

But the most awesome thing about the Norse gods, I think, is that they all knew their moment of death and they bravely prepared for that final confrontation. Oh, and they did all of this to save humanity. :)

I don't think so. I understand evil as acting to intentionally harm another being where the main purpose is causing harm. Animals can be dangerous such as when they are hunting, sick, or protecting their offspring, but I don't think they ever intend harm so I don't think of them as evil.

The arguments while appearing similar are not.

I slavery there is a minium of 2 roles, the slave and the master. The master projects his authority over the slave.

However in the case of the pro-life view there are a minimum of three roles involved, the woman, the unborn child, and the pro-life church. Your argument tries to link the unborn child to the slave and the mother to the master, but you fail to take into account the relationship of the pro-life church. The role of the the pro-life church like the slave master over the mother.

This of course all relies on the the belief of when fetus is considered a person. If you look at the pro-choice view, there is a longer period of time before the fetus is considered a person. In this view, the slave analogy, the only relationship left is the mother as the slave to the will of the pro-life church master.

The problem that many pro-choice people have with people trying to take away abortion rights is that the pro-life church is using the Government to impose the church's will on a selection of other people that there is absolutely no doubt to them being actual people. The government should not enforce religious ideology on those who do not agree with that Ideology but the pro-life stance demands just that. Many good Christians detest and are outraged with the state mandated religious laws forcing Muslim women in Iran and Afghanistan to wear hijabs or burqas. Why should the Christian church be able to force it's views on the women of the United States?

Abortions should be a last resort, and it is something only a woman with the accurate and honest advice of a doctor can decide on. No church, no government, no body else has the right to insert themselves into this situation. And even if we agree that the fetus is a person much earlier, that still does not mean the church or a politician can speak for that unborn child so they still have no right to interfere.

Obama can't work with those who won't work with him. Obama has tried to work with the republicans, he has made offers that contain proposals the republicans have expressed interest in such as the Chained CPI.

Also during the Fiscal cliff fiasco Obama originally said he wanted to raise the income taxes on those making $250000 or more a year. That is what he ran on in his campaign. The then offered to make the threshold $450000 or more because the republicans wanted it higher. Eventually Biden and McConnell made a deal but it was after the president attempted to work with the republicans and his offer of $450000 for the threshold was used.

Obama has tried, and compromised quite a bit with the republicans but you can't shake hands with somebody if they don't extend theirs you know.

I support President Obama because he has tried to help the country and succeeded in several places. He helped to prevent the economy from crashing and he has managed to prevent us from going in to more pointless wars where our service men and women needlessly die. He has stood up for marriage equality and gender pay equality. The more equal a society the better every individual does as well. For instance, gender pay equality would mean that women would have larger paychecks equal to their effort which they could then go out and spend at a local store or restaurant and help the economy. Is he a perfect president, of course not, and there are several things I disprove of his handling, especially when it comes to the banks and healthcare but overall I think he has done a good job in a tough global and political environment.

Too often it seems that people cling to one thing they don't like about a person and then decide to hate that person because of it. At one point, I couldn't say anything but how much I hated Nixon but I've found that he's done things I agree with such as founding the EPA, and opening relations with China, and ending the war in Vietnam. I still would never vote for him, but I wouldn't blindly accuse him with false information or make damning accusations without first finding proof about them.

Unfortunately, president Obama hasn't seen the respect a current or former president deserves. Disagree or agree with the president, but at least respect the office.

Terrorism is a tricky subject because any reaction to it acknowledges it exists and the effect it is having.

I think how you react, however, is what further promotes it or not. Negotiating or just talking to them, I don't think emboldens them or tells them they won. Talk is cheap and easy, making a war on them is expensive and hard. If a terrorist act can get a nation to make war on a group of people or another nation, then that reaction affirmed that terrorism worked in that case with that group of people.

Also, terrorism often breads terrorism in the various forms of retaliation. Take for instance the shock and awe strategy. Are not the overwhelming show of air power and massive explosions all methods to subdue and demoralize the enemy? To terrorize them against a force they can't possibly beat and thus they must succumb and give in. Sure its on a larger scale but the primary means of using fear as a weapon is similar.

Waiting/enduring the terrorists out seems like a emotional tactic of stubbornness which will only encourage the terrorists to devise greater, in magnitude, acts of terrorism in an attempt to create a volatile reaction.

There are terrorists who will never negotiate with us but reacting first with violence carries the potential to further their cause. The current US wars both are demonstrating that terrorism works against the US and gives the terrorists more potential recruits who are marginalized by the reckless attacks by the US.

While the terrorist cells are a problem we need to look deeper. Why do these cells exists? What possible policies(US or other) is giving people a motivation for violence and suicide? The idea that we can eradicate terrorism is foolish, but we can certainly reduce it as well as reduce the sympathy some terrorists receive.

While the distinction between states laws verses federal laws, and who enacts them is important it shouldn't factor heavily into this debate.

The states nor the federal government should deny same-sex marriage, that comes with the same government rights of conventional marriage, based on a religious interpretation of marriage.

The government, by not protecting and giving the equal rights to same-sex couples, is in effect marginalizing a group of people as lesser citizens with unequal rights. This government is also accepting the full influence of religion in its proceedings and thus acting on the behalf of one religion and thus group of citizens to deny equality to another group of citizens.

If the government keeps the term marriage, all it needs to do is allow any two people to receive the same rights and recognition. It doesn't not need to require that a marriage ceremony takes place in a religious venue or fashion.

The term marriage is not monopolized or owned by any religious organization, and thus religious organizations shouldn't have any influence in how the government or people use the term marriage.

In issues of equality among citizens, the federal government should take precedence over state so that it can apply a law to effect all citizens equally. To force the states to do this would be to allow the possibility that certain groups of citizens have more rights to equality than other groups of citizens.

Most predators have several features that complement each other, to create a better hunter yet humans only have the mind. I guess what i was trying to imply was that from the beginning the human ancestors were never serious predators. If we never evolved to have a capable mind, we would have continued to eat similar diets to chimpanzees and other primates. I don't know of any species which has evolved to change from, say a chimpanzee's diet to a bear's diet. So i don't think we were "meant" to eat the kind of meat that we eat now.

These last few arguments have strayed from the topic, and I doubt that either of us will come to abandon our positions within them. I think we can, however, agree that meat isn't necessary for humans. We might like it, but we don't need it to survive.

First let me say i appreciate you not downvoting my arguments just because you don't agree with me, its a step up from at least half the people on this site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are capable of eating both meat and vegetables but that doesn't mean we need to eat both. Humans can survive fine with a vegetarian diet. A meat diet can directly and indirectly cause harm to humans, animals, and the planet.

- meat can be unhealthy and lead to weight issues as well as illnesses

- slaughterhouses can cause pain to animals as well as injury to workers

- meat production contributes negatively to the environment from global warming to deforestation for corps.

Humans might be the best predators but that doesn't mean we need to eat meat. Also, if we couldn't cook our meat would we even eat it? You say we are the most natural predators but cooking our meat to eat doesn't seem so natural. Also, often, if we don't cook our meat we can get food poisoning that most predators never have to worry about, why is that? If you look at the overall autonomy of the human being you can realize that without our ability to think we would be pretty lousy predators.

- our teeth are inferior to other predators

- we don't have claws talons etc...

- we are slow runners

- our sense of sight, hearing, and smell are inferior to most predators.

Humans might enjoy eating processed and cooked meat but few if any are willing or able to chase down a deer, tear it apart with our fingernails and teeth to eat it raw like other natural predators.

I was responding to "Besides, why is it ok for a wolf to hunt a deer and wrong for us?".

For the part about hunting to make cities safer. Do the hunters think "I'm gonna hunt some deer, not because i enjoy it or because i might be payed but because i care for society and want to help avoiding future car accidents"?

Also since humans don't need to eat meat they don't need to hunt and thus all forms of hunting are unnecessary. Population control can be handled by natural predators which hunt for survival such as wolves.

Hunting for survival is one thing, hunting for sport is another. I'm against hunting for sport.

If you wanted to do something that would help promote vegetarianism you could suggest a bill that alters the current Farm Bill in the USA. This bill heavily subsidizes corn and other products commonly fed to livestock. livestock is cheaper to produce partly because the livestock can be fed so cheaply as well as from other government subsidies. If The Farm bill instead subsidized healthier foods, then fruits and vegetables could become cheaper. Meat, without government subsidies, would become more expensive and potentially less popular. This could help encourage vegetarianism and help to reduce the environmental damage caused by meat and corn production.

I'm talking about both Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you believe that Iraq was a good war to fight in for the reasons Bush gave in the beginning?

Most of the Arab world ignored the US, they had more pressing matters. They probably didn't like the US but it was dislike with inaction. The politically charged did hate the US, but that was a small population before both wars.

The US has constantly been cold if not hostile to Russia throughout the last few decades. The US has continually portrayed the image that it is ok for the US to interfere anywhere throughout the world with no restrictions or accountability. Yet, once Russia decides they want to pay more attention to the countries (which are attempting to join the western military block known as NATO) that are bordering them, Russia is being pushy and imperialistic. The US is hostile to anyone who doesn't obediently follow the US intended plans.

Obama, Has done more to help make government policies transparent whereas Bush tried to keep policies hidden by using various laws and executive privileges.

Communication and intelligence may be subjective but many people believe that Obama is better in both categories.

Now you still might argue that it was the circumstances that showed themselves but it is how the country reacts to these circumstances that makes a difference. Obama, as president, represents the country and the results are Obama's reactions to the circumstances. If McCain were elected he might have faced the same circumstances but reacted differently and that doesn't necessarily mean for the better.

First of all, I was pointing out that there are already institutions in place that resemble your definition of socialism, I was not saying I agree with them (the auto insurance and the health insurance mandates). The mandates means that the health insurance companies will be guaranteed customers. That doesn't seem very socialistic to me, the promise that a corporation will make a lot of money at the expense of the common people and workers. It's a ceo's and stockholder's dream come true.

Yes the republic was set up to not infringe on a persons rights, so why is there such a large population of Americans, a majority being conservative, who fight against same-sex marriage, marijuana, and abortion? Opposing these are all infringements on a person's rights yet many believe the government should infringe on those rights. Are all those people, who happen to be mainly conservatives, communists? Generally, not at all.

If you remember Bush signed the $700 billion to bail out the banks and not obama. Also the bailout benefited the owners and corporations and not the common people or workers as a socialist action would. Sure the constitution doesn't say we need to bail out corporations or such but it also doesn't say we need to invade countries for imperialistic aims, spread capitalism around the world, or deny people certain rights because they conflict with the ruling religion. What i'm getting at is that, apparently in America the constitution, sadly, is merely a guideline of how to act or at least that is what most conservatives act like it is.

When you mention people being forced to resign and or take pay cuts, are you talking about the ceos and other positions of power or the workers? Ceos and related personnel might have been forced out by bailout conditions but workers were forced to resign or take lower payouts because the corporation decided to do that and not the government. Don't get me wrong, i think the bailouts were a terrible idea, and executed even worse but that is because the bailouts were constructed to help keep the corporations and the people running them able to continue their practices that brought about this mess in the first place.

Bush forced all this to happen, does that make him a socialist in your view? Obama inherited the mess and expectations of the country. The majority of his solutions and the end goals have been capitalistic in nature so really are saying he is a socialist because you dislike him and know that many Americans will accept that and blindly go along with that idea.

You could be helpful and actually offer a rebuttal instead of just down voting my argument because you don't agree with it.

I'm down voting your argument, if you want to call it such, because there isn't any. Also i have noticed that you down vote many arguments that are pro-animal rights or pro-vegetarian without any decent rebuttal, with the only apparent reason being that you don't agree with the opinion.

Seriously? Your argument basically said that it is the deers fault that it gets hit by a vehicle. Hunters aren't a reliable or major way to prevent accidents involving deer. The best form is to reintroduce natural predators (wolves, pumas) like MKIced said. Natural predators maintain an equalization that allows the ecosystem to function efficiently.

Obama isn't the best president, but he is certainly better than Bush.

Bush got the us into two wars.

Bush turned much of the Arab world against the US. Originally it was only the extreme forces within those regions that hated the us.

Bush oversaw the rise in corporate and political corruption

Bush oversaw the fall of the economy.

Bush increased hostility with Russia

Obama has inherited much of these problems.

This isn't to say that Obama doesn't have any fault. I do believe he could have done different policy choices but we still need to remember the mess he entered into. So far obama has managed to created better relations with russia and the arab world. Obama has also managed to halt the fast deterioration of the economy In addition Obama is smarter, better able to communicate, and more transparent tot he public.

I don't know when it was a crime to read communist literature but if he did read it at least he was able to see a different view of the world. I'm assuming that since you make a big deal about someone reading a book about communism or with such tendencies that you have never read such a book. If that is so how can you actually understand communism if you've never tried to learn from the root of the idea and Form you Own opinion.

why do so many conservatives etc... believe that who one associates with even if it was when they were young or for a short time, defines that person forever? I believe current actions by a person are a better way to define a person than the past associations.

It appears like several people on this site believe that, if a person promotes or believes in a particular course of action then that alone can make a person anything that is associated with that action. You mention that because Obama is suggesting mandated healthcare he is socialist. You assume that government mandates are socialistic and thus obama is a socialist. It also happens to be the case that mandates exist in countries ruled by fascists or democratically elected presidents. In the US we have laws (mandates) that you can't rob or kill someone. Does this make the US socialist what about the person who came up with this law? No. Also most US states mandate that you have car insurance. Does this make the US or advocates of such a mandate socialist? No. Fascists are often associated with state executions so would that make proponents of the death penalty in america fascists? No.

If you examine the healthcare plan that obama offers you will see that as a whole it is capitalistic or at least not socialistic. I already mentioned in another post but for your convenience I will point out more about the capitalistic nature of the plan.

1) The public option is a vast pool of resources that is bought in bulk from other health providers. In actuality the plan is merely a government insurance company that promises to be cheaper yet remain competitive with other companies.

a) The government won't fix prices that operations or prescriptions must adhere to. The prices will drop because the government can buy in bulk and thus create savings.

2) The public option is an OPTION you don't have to choose it. You have the OPTION of keeping your own insurance company that you purchased or get from your employer.

a) being able to choose your provider means that the market is still the ultimate manipulator of prices. If the government provides cheaper and better healthcare, using market strategies then it will because of the market that you decide to purchase that healthcare.

3) This plan retains the health insurance companies and allows them to choose their own prices and methods. It does not close them down or set artificial price ceilings or floors.

a) it merely requires that the insurance companies don't drop already paying customers if they have a precondition.

b) it also requires that the insurance companies don't discriminately price their services or products based on someone's' health.

If you are judging obama and his actions, and this bill is a reflection of his actions, on one association between the actions and the methodology then shouldn't you be saying he is a capitalist? There are more capitalistic features in the bill than socialistic and the capitalistic ones are also of a greater magnitude.

I feel like i'm gonna repeat my self again but obviously you haven't payed attention so far. I'm gonna break it down for you. First some definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com which i assume is credible in your opinion.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Now that you know where i'm coming from you should be able to realise that obama is in fact a capitalist. That is if you actually listened to him and what he did and didn't get your marching orders from the likes of rush limbaugh or glenn beck.

1) The automakers bailout was a capitalistic move because he gave huge sums of money to the corporations so that they could keep going without challenging the business structure at all.

a socialist as you should know would have abolished the position of ceo and either given COMPLETE control over to the workers of each plant or fully nationalized the company so that the government owned it. giving money without gaining official control or ownership doesn't constitute a socialist action.

2) His remedy for the healthcare system in the US is also capitalistic because he seeks to maintain private health companies with them giving few concessions.

A socialist would have made a plan to abolish all private health insurance companies and create a sole organization to run healthcare. merely adding an additional insurrance company(which happens to be owned by the government) does not make this plan a socialistic move.

i could go on but i'l be lucky if you really read all of what i just wrote. If you still believe he is socialist(which sadly you probably will) please respond with a list of defineite policies obama has taken that make him so.

Also I down voted your argument not because i disagree with you but because your argument contained no substance or support. You make big claims and believe that we should just accept them at face value.

Obama is not a socialist or socialistic.

He has not advocated for state or worker control of private enterprise. He has merely given some corporations a lot of money. He doesn't control or own them.

Expressing a desire to help those in need does not make you a socialist. It shows that you are human.

Not being overly religious doesn't make you socialist.

Opposing religion in politics doesn't make you socialist. It also doesn't mean you hate religion. It just means that you think they shouldn't influence each other.

Obama certainly isn't as openly religious as Bush but he isn't going to persecute religion like how Bush and his followers persecute non-believers. More people are free to live their lives without government influence because Obama believes in the separation of church and state.

Healthcare reform is important for several reasons.

1) Economical.

- Currently it is very inefficient with a lot of cooperate bureaucracy and paper work that drives up costs.

- A sick workforce is harmful to the national economy

- providing Healthcare to employees is a strain on business budgets

2) Ineffective

- The current system's first goal is to make a profit by using healthcare as a product. Currently it is more profitable to deny claims than to provide healthcare.

- people often receive more than they need in terms of tests and drugs and thus possibly taking resources away from those who could need them.

3) Social

- The current system favors those who are least in need, while punishing those who most need it.

- health care benefits can prevent dissatisfied workers from leaving their job for one that they will like more but doesn't provide health care.

I believe that government run healthcare will work better than cooperate healthcare. Maybe in America the government can't do any thing socially good but other western nations' governments can.

We have let corporate healthcare show us how expensive, ineffective and unjust it can be. Our neighbors above us and across the ocean have shown how government run healthcare can be cheaper, efficient, and more just.