Pardon the mess from typing on a cell phone and not previewing but hopefully you get the idea.

You don't have to break up the country, you just give more power to the state and local governments. Lots of small countries leads to all kinds of inefficiencies regarding trade, customs, defense, law enforcement, immigration etc etc. Just look at the complicated mess called European Union. In fact what they are trying to create with enormous amount of trouble and complications, is not very much unlike what we used to have, a weak fed (because of the difficulty of getting 27 sovereign countries to agree to anything) is what we already (used to) have: federal government with certain specific powers that make sense for it to have and everything else decided at the local level.

Less power to the government as per the Constitution. Yes we need the government to provide a court system, enforce the law, defense and a lot of other things and. since we have to pick them somehow, yes we need the democratic elections. But less involvement in every detail of our life by the government, the less opportunity for the tyranny of the majority and the corrupt politicians who control it.

That's pretty ignorant of what the Tea Party stands for. Yes there are plenty of Republicans who are pro-crapitalism (crony capitalism) but the libertarian wing of the party are against corporate welfare. Actually when both Dems and Republicans voted for corporate bailouts it was Tea Party congressmen who voted against.

You don't get a choice when government is involved. 51% votes for stupid things 49% has no choice, that's the problem with big government.

Really, the US police only investigates crimes if reported by wealthy people!? I don't know what kind of parallel universe you live in.

Ah I see, you are talking about collective "liberty", i.e everybody has to do what 51% of people decide, and I am talking about individual liberty.

I thought liberals are about heavy regulation, not about the freedom to choose.

He may not have specifically called for euthanasia but its not hard to read between the lines.

"[old age] robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world." In the article he even has a chart showing and what age people contribute the most to society (apparently all contribution ends at 60!?).

During the debate about Obamacare he was proposing rationing of healthcare based on age and disability and that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others".

To me, "progressive" "liberals" like this guy, who think that the purpose of individuals is to serve the society rather than the other way around, are a living example of why collectivism is evil. It is not a long way from thinking like him to Gulag.

Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship run by the Ayatollah and the mullahs surrounded by a ridiculous complicated system designed to superficially resemble a democracy.

I don't know about you personally but I notice a miserable failure of perspective in many people in the west especially on the left. It seems that a lot of the same people who throw a fit and scream fundamentalism when some Christian group in the US pathetically tries to insert a disclaimer in some book about evolution or put up a religious monument on public land will happily give a pass to countries that are frigging controlled by religious clerics at the highest posts in government and with elements of Sharia as the law of the land! Iran has laws on the books right now that cause women to be arrested and whipped for not covering their head. Thieves are still getting amputations as punishment, woman's testimony is legally worth half of man's testimony, and a woman needs a written permission from a male in her family to work outside the house or travel, adultery and homosexuality is punishable by death etc etc. A lot of Iranian legal system is straight from Sharia. Apparently stoning to death (using small stones to prolong the suffering) was on the books until 2010.

Name a major Islamic country other than Turkey which has a meaningful separation of church and state, and even in Turkey that separation is crumbling under assault from the Islamists.

Typos are not interesting. A wannabe grammar pedant who confuses "as well" and "either" is ... well, not interesting either (or is it "as well", genius?)

Let us not forget that there's nothing inherent to either Christianity or Islam when it comes to fundamentalism. Christianity generated the Crusades, after all...

I think that's an example of cultural relativism that is as dangerous to the West as the people who are anti-math or anti-science. It is part of the deluded unscientific mythology of the left just as intelligent design is on the right.

There are obvious differences between Christianity and Islam that make Christianity able to coexist with a modern secular state while Islam is showing all over the world that it can't. For example Sharia is a comprehensive legal framework that observant Muslims are supposed to put above the secular laws (you know the ones brought about by a democratic process). There is no such thing in Christianity.

Also, Jesus mythology beats Muhammad mythology hands down as an example to follow (regardless of how much if any of it is true). Jesus' teachings were generally peaceful and kind and never attempted to spread Christianity by force, preferring to suffer himself instead. Muhammad slaughtered and enslaved thousands, explicitly permitted murder, stealing and lying (as long as directed against non-Muslims), kept 13 wives, including a 9 year old one, in addition to sex slaves.

Yes, there are obvious differences in the implementation at the present time which can possibly change: can you imagine the Pope leading a frenzied crowd in the St. Peters square in chants of "death to infidels" the way legitimate Muslim leaders do, rather than urging them to love and respect their neighbor? But there are also many doctrinal differences that make Islam more dangerous which is why in literally every place in the world where Islam is in contact with another civilization there is conflict. Just look at the map.

It is untrue thought and you are stupid.

I wonder with 4 million voters who tend to overwhelmingly prefer Labour to Tories gone will Labour eventually cease to be a factor in the UK elections? UKIP: right, Tories: centre-right, Lib Dems: centre-left, Labour: loonie left.

What will UK be called if Scotland secedes? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?