Raising kids is
not running a country with hundreds of different important issues that will affect more than a few kids under her control.
This is why, even at this dead point in the middle of the parliament, the politics of
who runs this country is going to start getting interesting again.
Surely there can be no argument for thinking our first past the post system is actually democratic, where one party
runs the country on a minority of our votes.
Young people, of the sort who will be
running the country in 10 or so years time, don't think of a dead shark in an art gallery as way - out.
Answer is that voters don't believe they can
run the country well but at least they might not be as bad as the present government.
I have a person who I think will really be a better person to
run this country if everything should be handed over and done properly.
Imagine a person we depend on to
run our country thinking there is actually a spiritual man god that supposedly lives in the heavens and is watching over our every move.
We have no right to go in there and tell them how to
run their country unless they are committing some sort of genocide or mass crime.
While total reserves may mean more in the long run, in the
short run the country that leads production controls supply.
It's good that we can set that sort of thing aside and engage in trade with other countries, for example, that choose to
run their countries differently from ours.
I am always aware of the christian right's constant nasty work at trying to
run this country politically but their ideas are generally so ludicrous that I'm not fearful.
Don't want any religious
group running the country hiding behind some book or some god, but I sure agree with the sentiments of these Christian groups.
A great deal can change in two years, and the polls are likely to narrow as the choice of who should
run the country becomes more immediate.
I doubt that anyone has ever
advocated running a country on wind power alone; that would be the only case in which this argument would be valid.
Could you give an example of a «rational thinker» in history
who ran a country that was good?
I have given money to political campaigns, because I think that person will
run the country better, which will benefit my personal finances.
Nearly 10 years later, he's proven to be more than capable
of running the country's largest grocery - store chain.
There is no way that any of these new people could do as bad of a job at
running our country as the current Congress, President, and Supreme Court has done or in the last 30 years.
He is probably right, to a degree - but protest votes always, always shrivel when it comes to the question of who
actually runs the country.
It blows me away that u all r arguin about religion itself instead of the possible implications of someone believin this
way running this country.