The real issue is not global warming. The real issue is population. No matter what you do to control "global warming," it's pointless without measures to control population, and if history is any indication, if we don't control it ourselves, mother nature will gladly step in to take a hand.

"I really don't know the answer to how much of climate change is man-made. I tend to think that it's possible we have had some impact, but I can't say to what degree. "

That's it in a nutshell. Nobody can deny that global warming does occur and may be occurring now. The question really should be asked, "How much of current global warming is man-made and how much is natural." No scientist in the world today can answer that.

That being said, yes, we should take care of this planet. Unfortunately, all the care in the world is not going to save us unless we get population growth under control. So.... how many of you are be willing to take the very hard steps to limit population growth?

Three points:

1. The healthcare bill will likely be the bill that brings the country to financial ruin. We can't afford to maintain what we have now, let alone pay for a huge, new program. Even if you think this is otherwise a good program, is it fair to destroy your children's future over it?

2. Historically, the government has a bad track record running public services. Since there is no competition, there is no incentive to excel. While some on the low income side who couldn't afford it will receive healthcare, the overall quality of healthcare will drop. There will also be little incentive for major medical and pharmaceutical companies to innovate.

3. On the other side of things, just saying "no" to this bill is not enough. America needs healthcare reform, just not as presented in this bill. It's shameful for those opposing the bill not to provide alternatives.

So you mean we're not talking about:

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

2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property or a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Thanks and a hat tip to Merriam-Webster :)

I think your assumption is that the US is still doing capitalism. The US has way too much government interference to allow capitalism to work effectively.

The game closest to the UO experience I've found was Shadowbane. The game was pvp only, so you knew what you were getting into when you joined. There were no "sheep." Unfortunately it had two problems. The game was horribly bugged and once a group/faction/alliance got the upper hand on a given server, there was little to balance it.

It's not surprising considering three things:

1. They advertise it on TV (with misleading ads... why is Bing a "decision engine"?).
2. It's installed with some apps that used to install the Google toolbar.
3. Some websites that used to imbed direct links are now imbedding Bing searches instead.

It can't be the water? I guess you've never seen Ice Pirates.

Exactly. More gore or a little T&A just doesn't do it for me as an adult gamer. On the other hand, give me a story I can sink my teeth into, realistic social situations, smart dialog, and something more than a little hack 'n' slash action and I'm there.

Oh, I forgot. They can't just hire chimps to create that kind of game. Nevermind.

There's more than one of us.

It's funny that the media tried to make Ron Paul out to be some sort of radical fringe loon, but now that that the election is over, the media seems to love him.