Humodour

Yeah, I gotta say Cain is a rather creepy fellow. Not McCain "I walk around like I'm about to keel over and die any moment" creepy, but definitely some kind of creepy.

The UN now supports drug legalisation. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10730196

I believe all drug use should be decriminalised and treated as a health issue at the least LEAST. But also marijuana specifically needs to be legalised. The debate about the other drugs can happen after these two things occur.

It is illegal to advertise cigarettes in any way in Australia. You can't put ads for them on TV, you can't put your brand on the packaging, you can't change the colours of the packaging (olive green - the colour smokers hate most here apparently), you can't advertise discounts for them in shop, you can't display them in shops (they're stored under the counter and have to be specifically asked for by the customer). Cigarette packets also come with gruesome health warnings accompanied by gruesome pictures. Cigarettes are also highly taxed. But cigarettes themselves are still legal. So to answer your question: yeah, why not put them next to cigarettes in shops. Sounds good.

You sound like a brainwashed kid to me. In fact, you sound like me when I was 14. I was wrong of course, and Gorgon is far and away correct. And what Gorgon is referring to is akin to a Bill of Rights. I'm 24 and you sound like a person trying to justify and spread a habit most people question with good reason. Especially in regards to psychedelics in which you withheld information while uncritically praising their supposed qualities. That is propaganda for juveniles. Unfortunately for you I had a particular interest in that type of drug so I extensively read up on the subject on everything from DMT to Mescaline. The only conclusion a fair and sane person can deduce upon reading reports is that because of completely unforeseen consequences that entire group of drugs can give rise to, they should not be used or recommended to other people. Ahhhh, now you sound like me at about 19. Still wrong, of course.

You sound like a brainwashed kid to me. In fact, you sound like me when I was 14. I was wrong of course, and Gorgon is far and away correct. And what Gorgon is referring to is akin to a Bill of Rights.

EXCELLENT TO HEAR! Thanks Obsidian.

But yeah, Bachmann is one of the last people you would ever want leading America. Thankfully she's liable to crash and burn as is most fitting for her.

Tell me, do you drink alcohol?

*sigh* Bunch of nerds with no aesthetic taste.

I am utterly sick of this current black and grey one. It's very depressing and off-putting. The juxtaposition is most stark when I switch to other tabs which use warmer colours (i.e. pretty much every web page). So could you please add another colour scheme, maybe white and blue or something?

That's the type of post I was hoping for, so thanks! And frankly, regardless of what we agree on, 1+1=2, and economics is just applied maths, so if you know your stuff, you know your stuff and I am happy to listen! It won't influence my current semi-gamble with IBM (as much a learning experience as a long-term investment), but it will help inform my future transactions. What is amortisation and what does a debt/equity ratio indicate and why? I will do some further reading as well, so don't feel you must answer me.

It looks like Iraq is going to ask American soldiers to stay in their country even after Iraq set a date they all had to be gone by (2012 or something the remaining 48,000 peacekeeping troops are meant to be gone). Haha. EDIT: I probably shouldn't laugh at that. Iraq's history is too sad.

I heard the game is childish, vulgar ****. Fitting, really.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've come to realise that if you don't spend time enjoying the simple things in life, then really, what's the point of living? As long as you've mainly sorted out a few things like "where's my life heading?" then something like gaming really what you SHOULD be what you're doing with your spare time. As well as perhaps a good morning jog every now and then. And a good ****.

Obama has acted quite strongly diplomatically. More strongly than I expected. I cannot see how he is in any way weak on foreign policy. In fact, he is a neo-con's wet dream I'd say: he is achieving what neo-cons stand for but don't know how to themselves achieve. Examine how he has handled: China (not much more needs to be said, but it's probably an accomplishment to be president of America and not have a major long-lasting dispute with China besides the usual strait issues) Taiwan (renewed arms sales) North Korea (working multilaterally with Japan and South Korea) South China Sea dispute (again, working multilaterally to empower ASEAN in standing up to China, specifically Vietnam) Iran Libya (this operation has been a qualified success so far) America's position within NATO (specifically he has made the EU get off its arse and shoulder more of the burden) Oh, and he and other Western leaders have managed to stop the Russians from being pissed off with the West and largely get them to start supporting us. Always handy. In what ways do you think Obama could improve on foreign policy, GreasyDogMeat? Remember America is not acting alone, and does not need to. America's closest military ally (the EU) now has a larger economy than it, and Canada, Japan, Australia and South Korea are doing pretty well, too (and all 4 of these countries also have rather large defence budgets... I know Australia's is 14th largest in the world). Some of these countries are even doing better than both the EU and America economically. So I am confused by who America's 'enemies' are, and why you think Obama is weak against them. Perhaps you think more should be done about the threat from cyber warfare (which as the past year has shown is actually quite a real threat)?

Why? They got some good long term plan going on? I will say more later today after I have purchased their shares as this is a public forum and I'm a huge proponent of chaos theory (butterfly flaps its wings, causes a tornado kind of thing). Not paranoia since the share market has been mathematically proven to be a complex system with emergent behaviour and chaotic phenomena. But yes. I will leave you to consider this: If somebody had purchased $10,000 of Apple shares on April 17th, 2003, those shares would now be worth (ignoring inflation and share dividends and any brokerage fees) around $500,000. 2003. Apple. A 5000% share price increase. If somebody had purchased $10,000 Apple shares about 1.5 years ago, those shares would be worth around $20,000 now.

I am new to it. I want to hear more about it. Specifically experiences others have had with it, and whom they invested in, and if it worked out for them or not. I am going to purchase around $10,000 of IBM shares today.

Interestingly, in Australian politics both parties are now beholden to independents in order to pass bills. Because of Senate half-elections, the Australian Greens will hold the balance of power by themselves in Australia in the Senate on July 1st (i.e. the ability to block bills at least one other party disagrees with) for at least the next 4 or 5 years regardless of how the 2012 election goes. This of course depends on when elections are called, and if there are early elections, and if there is a double dissolution, etc. Realistically, one could surmise that the Greens will always control the balance of power in the Australian Senate from now on, excepting when any one party (i.e. Coalition) becomes so popular it has a Senate majority, or if the Greens somehow implode (in which case they would be replaced by the Australian Sex Party... no, that's not a joke - it's a legitimate progressive secular party in Australia). Australians absolutely hate it when one party has a Senate majority, so I can't see any future Australian government that isn't run by consensus between the three main parties... and a lot of name calling. The Australian Greens have a lower house member, too, and that will probably increase to 2+ House of Reps members by the next election, but this is largely irrelevant since all the negotiation for passage of bills is done with the Greens senators anyway. Just that extra bit of stopping power "oh look, we can now block your bill in both houses!" My point was: even with **** candidates to vote for, our system still provided us a good result. The government of the day from now on needs either the support of the Greens OR the opposition party to pass any single bill. If you ask me, that just makes things more flexible for the government.

Wait for it... Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. Alright you smug fellow, pretend that makes some kind of point for you while you conveniently ignore mine.

Krezack, quit posting after you've been at that bong. Psychedelics, not marijuana, tonight. Two very different drugs, and also irrelevant to the accuracy or veracity of what I have posted in this thread, thanks. You're missing the point, but also kind of making my point for me. Obama reset relations with the rest of the world so the next Republican president will never have to. This is an election that will NOT be fought on foreign policy, and can be fought entirely on domestic matters. Unless the Republicans have some bold new plan for Iraq or Afghanistan they want to distract the American electorate with.

Italy, German, Japan, and Australia are all high-tech, rich economies that do not support nuclear power and are planning to, or are, investing heavily in renewable energy. Renewable energy is coming, whether you personally think it is economically viable or not is irrelevant. Google, as a private actor located inside a sovereign state, is also becoming a huge player in the global renewable energy industry, with ownership of hundreds of millions of dollars in projects ranging from state of the art new power transmission cables to hydro, wind, and solar projects across the world (but typically focused on California, the Californian coast, and Nevada).

Frankly, I think modern Europe has the industry, know-how, population size and economic stability to beat even America to a pulp. Well, actually, both continents would be a pulp due to thermonuclear war and the lack of an economy after the fact, but still, you get the point. Maybe.

Oh, and the reason why Americans keep getting polarising presidents is simple: your primary voting systems for the individual political parties mean each party's favoured candidate is going to be a guy who caters to his base the most (chooses the most populist stances) so they choose him as their candidate. To the average person this translates as: we've got a choice between two extremists. Combine this with lack of compulsory voting, so the average American decides not to even participate in your democracy, and weeeee! The system works okay in the grand scheme, but it could be re-worked to run more smoothly (e.g. open up primaries to all voters, regardless of political affiliation).