That was terrible. Everything shuts down because Arnold.

That's the argument?

I think whoever made that needs to think of something more intelligent and less emotional.

This was actually pretty funny.

Though I think most libertarians believe government has a proper role in society that is more limited than current. I don't think they want an absence of government. Those are anarchists.

The government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. If couples/people want to make a contract between eachother all the government has to do is make sure the contract is held to.

If churches want to hold ceremonies and call it marriage then it's their business. If they want to exlude gays it's also up to them. If gays want to have their own ceremonies and call it marriage then noone can stop them. Since it's meaning as far as the law is concerned is null.

Leave it up to our future culture to decide what marriage actually means.

Of course it won't happen as most people against the gay rights movement would be up in arms if the government took "marriage" out of the contractual wording.

Seems spot on to me. He's saying the whole bailout is mental let alone the bonuses.

So NIST is saying that there is no reason to even wonder about molten steel underneath the WTC because it's already been decided that it wasn't controlled demolition and the fires weren't hot enough to make molten steel.

Their theory for why it's there are fires burning within the pile after the collapse.

Interesting theory but that's not exactly convincing either. Seems unlikely office furniture could make molten steel after the admission that jet fuel cannot.

I sure as hell don't know exactly what happened. Some things do seem odd and I think the poster asked a decent question. If the corner was weakened why did the building fall nearly straight down and not to the side at least for a distance.

Don't see why everyone has to jump on the guy without trying to understand/learn from this.

who cares, I doubt Satriani lost money because of Coldplay and not many people out there would notice anyways. You can't even say it's intentional for sure.

No need to get offensive here. Would you have any history in mind for me to read?

My point of view simply derives from the opinion that right now the people who hold nukes are in a sort of big boys club. They call the shots. They say who can have them and who can't. Of course seeing as these big boys may have their own agenda's they may withhold the tech from countries they don't like for reasons other than "Oh if you get them you'll nuke everyone". Maybe more like, "Stop selling your oil in euros jerks."

I don't like nukes either. You're right, there is nothing you can do about the people who have them. I'm simply saying what are you going to do if someone wants to make one and tells you to piss off when you say stop? Kill them? Trade embargo? Starve out their people?

I think the point you're missing is when we get balls to bone on enforcing these policies the enforcement itself can cause intense resentment with the people of these countries. Making it more likely that people may want that nuclear weapon AND use it. And even if they don't want to use it, by having the tech they have all of sudden proliferated. So... embargo off? No more antagonizing? Now they have an extra card in their hands.

So in some circumstances the pursuit of the technology is actually being encouraged because once you have it it's much harder for anyone to tell you what you can do anymore.

My logic wasn't saying to give everyone nukes. Americans, Indians, Chinese, Russians are all vulnerable to your "unstable human psychology factor".

I'm simply saying that preventing countries from developing a technology that is incredibly useful for energy out of the fear that they aren't using it for energy and without proof is a bad game to get into. I don't understand how any of the countries that have them are superior to those that do not and have the intellect and ability to do it.

Doesn't matter anyway. If anyone can do it, or steal an existing one and use it it will happen.

I think if a country wants to make some reactors we should be working with them. Not making remarks about how they are inherently evil and need to be protected/controlled by us.

When did people forget that nuclear weapons tend to lead towards mutual destruction. Iran doesn't even have adequate delivery systems. Even if they snuck a couple bombs into cities I doubt you could hide where the bombs were from for very long. They'd be asking for their own destruction if they ever used nukes on anyone. I think if the Americans and other countries were able to develop and even use these weapons they have no right telling other countries what they can and can't do with research. This kind of power over other people has been one of the most corrupting factors in American policy.

I don't think it's the oil companies job to pursue alternatives. Though you'd think it'd be in their own self interest. I also don't doubt Mccain took money from Big Oil companies. The only thing that I would consider wrong is if big oil is trying to suppress cheap alternatives (which wouldn't surprise me)

Lol, upvoting this. When you see the unedited footage of Moyers you can tell this has been tweaked for the worst possible effect. They say he's a nut and a crazy and provide no other evidence other than "left wing" (I guess that's evidence enough for some). Who needs the movies when Fox commentary is already so comically entertaining .

I don't agree with everything that was said on those clips but I think people are rightfully upset with the media by and large.

Qualm unless you are just making stuff up do you have any real reason to think he's a racist? Anything we can look at also? I think he's called her steadfast, of high ideals, courageous and a hero. All he's done is voted down a medal, which is just a silly symbol anyway. Whether she has it or not doesn't change the respect people have for her. Including by the sound of it... Ron Paul.

I doubt Ron Paul is against amendments in general. But that's a seperate issue isn't it? If the congress wants the power to use tax money to give civilians medals then they need to vote on it first. It seems Paul just wants to obey the law. If the law is subverted or ignored then you should all have a problem with it. Not just go, "oh well... my leaders always do whats best, who needs old laws anyways". The world was full of war and violence back in the day the constitution was drafted. I really don't think planes and bombs have changed how delicate foreign policy needs to be.

I don't think I've heard of anyone saying they shouldn't be able to wiretap/follow/spy-on anyone they determine to be a threat. The concern is that the government is removing the checks and balances which protect anyone who actually might be innocent.

You may think this government has the best intentions and maybe they do. But what if 10 years or 100 down the road another government you don't agree with has these same powers.

Still happy?

Like Benjamin Franklin said ; Those who sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither, and lose both. I have a feeling he knew what he was talking about, as did the other fore fathers of the U.S.

I guess it depends what the changes are isn't it? I do think it's odd to block an election in these times. If it's really a dire situation I understand the need to mobilize, I think we all do. If you blur the line between when you're really at war and when you release your powers yeah it's fair to worry. I think the biggest problems with the bills passed is that the congress doesn't get to comment on the emergency situation for months.

Really I don't know why you guys are so scared that you want the government in your business claiming to protect you. USA is a country full of firearms for any citizen. If these terrorists really DID get over there and fight I have a feeling they wouldn't get very far .