Humodour

This is probably the best $1 I will ever spend.

why do you always spell them with ks In Europe, Canada is written with a capital 'K'. Thus, Volo is simply tapping into his european ancestery. Aside from that, this situation looks really weak. These kinds of "hostile takeovers" should be illegal and punishable with treason. It's not a "hostile takeover", it's a vote of no confidence. It's not illegal, it's an enshrined right to protect the democratic nature of government. If the minority government could do whatever it wanted without fear of backlash for not consulting with the opposition, that wouldn't exactly be fair. It's a core concept in Westminster systems but I doubt it's unique to our governments. If the minority government is governing properly, and consulting the other parties instead of trying to bully them into submission, it would never happen - see New Zealand. There's always a power grab element to it (just like there was for the Conservatives when they called an election rather early), but the fact remains that the Conservatives were essentially ignoring opposition, trying to pass rather aggressive policies against them (strip their party funding to make them bankrupt), and not stimulating an economy heading into recession. That doesn't hold water when, as I said, they aren't even represented by 40% of the electorate. And a vote of no confidence certainly shouldn't be "punishable with treason".

Here's to an NDP/Liberal coalition! The Liberals are stagnant, and the NDP wouldn't be my first choice, but they're both better than the Conservatives, and most importantly actually represent the will of the people (i.e. democracy). Between the Liberals, NDP, BQ, and the Greens, you've got over 60% of the electorate voting for centrist or left-wing parties, and yet it's the right-wing party that forms government. If ever there was a reason for proportional representation or preferential voting, Canada is it. P.S. lol at Volourn ranting about being a slave to the Queen.

The US officially went into recession a year ago: http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/econo...sion=2008120115 That doesn't bode well for depression prospects.

Why do you Canadians have such problems forming government, anyway? It's like you call an election whenever you get bored.

Fortunately the three most likely vacancies between now and 2012 will be Stevens (who is 85 may drop dead at any minute) Ginsburg (who has been battling kidney disease) and Souter (who is apparently planning to retire to his home in NH and spend his time writing and teaching). If any or all three were to vacate anyone Obama picks would be no worse. No worse than 3 centrist judges? Really? I would have imagined you'd find 3 liberal judges to be 'worse', but who am I to speculate about the inner workings of your mind.

Actually, you seem to have Obama's opinion on the issue rather backwards. He is generally against using the law for redistributive change or judicial activism such as equality of human rights, unless social force is also behind such a change. If you think that's wrong, than I really don't mind. Universal enforcement of human rights (e.g. universal suffrage) isn't an issue that I care to debate with you on. Um, did you even bother to read the radio interview transcript you are quoting? If you did, you'd realise how uninformed you are sounding: http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280021 Here's a hint: Obama was being rather critical of using courts for judicial activism and redistributive change. Redistribution of wealth is actually a fairly American (and in general, Western) concept. Stop lying. Healthcare, progressive income tax, elderly pensions, war veteran allowances, taxes for roads/education/hospitals/medical research, public housing for the poor, etc. These are all redistributive policies. Now, I know you being a Libertarian and all think those things are somehow evil, but please recognise that your views are not held by the vast majority of the American electorate. Yeah, and so could have McCain. I actually do think a fair bit about what would be best not just for long-term civil rights and justice, but for day-to-day American citizens who have to actually wear whoever is elected. That's why I support Obama. Don't worry, I'm not speculating about why a staunch Libertarian didn't vote for Obama (I'd say it's obvious, but interestingly a lot of Libertarians did vote for Obama), merely responding to the overly-dramatised claims you guys have made.

Pretty sure Bloc Qu

Said the teenager from Australia. I think you'll find I'm not a teenager, mate. It's interesting that you imply youth have inferior political insight, though. Protip: 'other countries' are also electoral democracies with right-wing and left-wing parties as well as everything in-between. You can sit there feeling somehow unique if you like, but politics (and all its foibles) transcends cultural and geographic boundaries. Oh, he has? Well, clearly you've read something I haven't, so feel free to share your sources. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,7595409.story I bet Barack Obama is lying and it's really a trick so Americans would elect him and he could appoint radical liberal judges. Just like his cabinet will be full of radical liberals, and his vice-president is a radical liberal. And after all, we all know that liberalism and egalitarianism are un-American!

Did you know that Stephen Harper is a Cylon? I have evidence.

Demo sounds like a pretty good idea. Demos seem like the only thing that make me want to buy games these days.

Why are all these good people moving on from Obsidian?

ROFL, Obama pretty much said he doesn't care what the constitution says, he wants judges to make it up as they go along, based on their ideology, which is the prevailing liberal view btw. Dear god you're an uninformed hack. I see. And I imagine that on inauguration day, the sky will split apart and fire will rain down from the heavens, as well?

Excellent article.

But he's going to use taxpayer money to build roads and upgrade switching substations. He's clearly a socialist! Are you a communist sympathiser? What I like about Obama is that when it comes to implementation, he's pragmatic and accommodating, but in terms of the big picture, what guides him, he's fairly progressive. This sounds too much like the typical claim about how the President is 'powerless' or "the President doesn't actually make decisions". I think after 8 years of Bush we've seen, for better or worse, how wrong that sentiment is. Amen. With potentially 3 SC judges retiring I shudder to think how that would of played out under a Republican administration. But besides maintaining (and in many places re-instituting) the apolitical nature of the judicial system, the most promising aspect of Obama's tenure will be science and technology infrastructure. For example, he's pretty much got an energy reform mandate, but this financial crisis actually gives him the span to implement it as part of infrastructure stimulus. Actually, another good thing about the financial crisis is that it significantly softens up Russia and Iran, giving Obama a far larger array of (importantly more peaceful) foreign policy options than was available just 3 months ago.

You're writing. We're trying to understand it. Semantics. Also, stating not to disbelieve is the same as belief is a rather weird semantic. What's not white is black or what? Man, why are you so keen on breaking this topic? Just because you think ghosts == rubbish, people willing to give it some more thought than you care to invest must not continue to do so? If you don't disbelieve something, then that involves a facet of belief, yes; belief in its possibility. Anyway, I'm not 'keen on breaking this topic'. I truly did initially think it was just skeptics vs skeptics playing devil's advocate in a light-hearted manner. If people here are willing to believe in ghosts or earnestly discuss their possible existence, than by all means, I won't begrudge them that. That is the case, and this should be clear to you especially as you're the one trying (not very successfully) to use the science club to beat people to silence... To deem everything impossible which you do not have a positive proof for is not scientific at all. And don't come telling us now that in this matter you don't think in terms of black and white... 'Science club' hey? Sorry for requesting scientific evidence. But right now it's at most metaphysics ("space-time distortion"), so why should I treat it as any more relevant than some other aspect of metaphysics? I actually highly doubt that you think those examples I quoted are as probable as eachother, or as ghosts or god existing, so you've already made some sort of essentially arbitrary decision about their likelihood right there, no? It's all fine and well to tell me I'm seeing in black and white, but making discrete choices is built into human decision making - specifically inference. Presuming all things possible because you can imagine them might seem like a morally superior stance to you, but it's hardly realistic unless you place some restrictions on it (e.g. 'right now, all signs point to this concept being highly unlikely, so until something changes that, I won't seriously consider it'), which as a human you will inevitably do unless certain parts of your brain have been decoupled (from memory, without the emotional centre - the amygdala - you become incapable of choosing between two logical possibilities). And lastly, I have not tried to silence anybody, samm. I am a skeptic, and since Amentep complained initially, I've responded seriously. Is that OK? Didn't you want a discussion? Or did you want one only between those agnostic of the supernatural?

Really, so you have an equal 'belief' in unicorns and Xenu too, do you? I find it odd to gather how you get I can get that I have some sort of "belief" in unicorns or Xenu from professing to neither believe nor disbelieve in ghosts. Let's please not get into semantics. A lack of commitment to belief or disbelief is itself a form of 'belief', hence the quotes. Agnostic to the last eh? Do you think everything you don't have evidence against is possible? For example: we're all in a virtual reality, or that you're a product of my imagination?

Newsweek has been running its election project for many years now. It (that specific secret press team) is not known for making things up or publishing falsehoods. To be fair to Ted Stevens, he did more for the lower classes of Alaska (especially rural native Americans) than, well, anybody, and he has immense seniority over Begich (which means he can continue to do more for Alaska). It's no surprise they'd keep voting for him. What McCain calls 'earmarks', rural native Americans call quality of life improvements. It's always interesting to see things from the other side's perspective.

Aye.

Well I don't know a single person who claimed Bush was going to become 'dictator for life'. And the 'anti-Bush' crowd is fairly large, for your information. I believe it comprises at least 2/3rds of Americans these days. Claiming most of them hold a silly belief like that is rather odd.

Really, so you have an equal 'belief' in unicorns and Xenu too, do you? I don't believe in "ghosts" per se, since no one has ever produced proof of one despite thousands of years of looking, nonetheless I remain open to their existence and spend a decent amount of time conversing with those who do believe. Again, what about unicorns and Xenu? I don't take you as a fence-sitter agnostic, so surely you have some sort of justification for singling out ghosts of all the random supernatural creatures out there? By ghost, you mean a spirit of a dead human? Or what? SOmething else? Any 'imprint' or whatever you want to call it. Working on the premise that an afterlife doesn't exist (or else this becomes a topic about religion), you will then require some framework within which ghosts could conceptually exist, yes? Well, science doesn't have one. The most people can come up with is pseudo-science like "holographic impressions" or whatnot, which is about as scientific as explaining away KITT or Replicators with the word 'nanotechnology'. Actually, at least nanotechnology can accomplish some of those amazing things (especially w.r.t. KITT). Ghosts are very much unlike Aliens. Aliens are a matter of probability. Ghosts are a matter of "is it even physically possible?". I'm not saying ghosts don't exist: I'm saying there's no plausible reason to believe they do anymore than unicorns, which is why I find a thread full of skeptics taking ghosts seriously to be amusing. If it's about wanting to believe, well, that's why we have TV and computer games.

When I was at uni, I lived on campus with 200 others in my dorm alone. So I met all sorts. Still, I can confidently assert that the overwhelming majority of women are fairly clean. By the same token, the majority of women seemed to be at least somewhat lax, too - from a messy room to just not caring if somebody else had a messy room (i.e. me). But I met only one girl who I'd call a slob, but she scared me, so it was all good.

Probably around the same time you learn how to type properly.

No, that's not what happened. Donors told her to go buy some clothes and she went and bought clothes alright. They were not pleased. For more on that, read the Newsweek project stuff that was kept secret until after the election (as they do every election). Her donors were not at all pleased with her spending, and more interestingly, it turns out it was more than $150,000, and she spent it on not just herself but her kids and husband - does that seem like the kind of stuff she planned to give back?

Nah, it was mostly just skeptics replying to skeptics playing devil's advocate. Ze substance was lacking. Err, unless somebody in this thread actually believes in ghosts and feels robbed of legitimate intellectual discussion? We have hard proof that aliens can evolve from within the framework of science (c.f. life on Earth). No such case exists for ghosts, nor is one even plausible.