NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello everyone.

I agree that the EU has its' issues. Nonetheless, it is a good idea and should be supported.
The current crisis in countries like Germany and France will work itself out over time. In my opinion, we really just see Globalisation hitting home hard. So we'll specialise in what we do best, and we'll be fine.
Whatever economic policies will be implemented might have some importance, but you can't really defeat the market forces in a thing like this...


As for our Spanish-American friend - I appologised because I like to keep things civil (and because it makes me look good... ;) ), and maybe I was a little too arrogant in my response.
Nonetheless, I don't see why education is such a delicate issue, I prefer it when I know that my "opponent" has some sort of qualification, rather than risk saying stupid things about, say Biology, and then finding out that person is a seniour professor of Molecular Biology at the MIT...
I also think that you really need to calm down when it comes to the US. Not everyone who disagrees with you, or with Bush, is an anti-American, and even if they are, that says nothing about their opinion of terrorism.


As for Business, that is a tough one. My father used the money left from when we sold our house in Hamburg...I guess it's a matter of having a good idea and then getting people to get on board.
Not sure whether those "entrepreneurship" courses could help...


Yeah, it's real tough with no brilliant idea, and no start up money. Incidentally, I'm not the entreprenueral type, anyway. I do not like taking risks. I would rather a steady paycheck I can count on.

i'll give a 3/10. i like the fact that he's doing stuff to aid himself and not others, but that means that he's not doing stuff to aid me, so im pissed at him. (no im not spoiled im just self-centered) NO OFFENNSE MEANT!

Hello everyone.
As for our Spanish-American friend - I appologised because I like to keep things civil (and because it makes me look good... ;) ), and maybe I was a little too arrogant in my response.
Nonetheless, I don't see why education is such a delicate issue, I prefer it when I know that my "opponent" has some sort of qualification, rather than risk saying stupid things about, say Biology, and then finding out that person is a seniour professor of Molecular Biology at the MIT...
I also think that you really need to calm down when it comes to the US. Not everyone who disagrees with you, or with Bush, is an anti-American, and even if they are, that says nothing about their opinion of terrorism.


Education isn't supposed to be used as an entire basis for your argument to invalidate my own argument. I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me is anti-American.

And at least in Germany, people are quite proud of what is called the "Social Market Economy", and was for many years probably the best economic model on the planet, combining economic growth with equality, health care and social security.

The system simply doesn't work. In the 1980s, West Germany was more free market, then social market. After unification, it went downhill. It was the costs of unification and the poor adminstration of socialist/left wing governments.

The system simply doesn't work. In the 1980s, West Germany was more free market, then social market. After unification, it went downhill. It was the costs of unification and the poor adminstration of socialist/left wing governments.
What are you talking about?
It was a Social Market Economy. Neither the right nor the left ever dared to change that. It's in our bloody constitution. It has been what the US would call "Socialist" since 1948/49. It only now happens to have compete with cheaper labour from the 3rd world. Which is what I mean by Globalisation.

In the 1980s, there was a recession too by the way. But anyways, I agree that the costs of unification were a major factor, but I blame many other things for the current problems (that aren't as deeply systemic as some might think) than simply that the government happens to be "socialist/left-wing".

The very issues that we are struggling with now were already apparent when Kohl was still in office. He did nothing. So the SPD was left with clearing the mess up. And they have done so - massive reforms have been undertaken (Business taxes in Germany are lower than in the US now by the way) and they haven't done anything so far.

It is so much more complex than saying that this is somehow because of social policies.

What are you talking about?
The very issues that we are struggling with now were already apparent when Kohl was still in office. He did nothing. So the SPD was left with clearing the mess up. And they have done so - massive reforms have been undertaken (Business taxes in Germany are lower than in the US now by the way) and they haven't done anything so far.

It is so much more complex than saying that this is somehow because of social policies.

It is the ineffective policies of your government. A social market system is a fatal mistake.

It is the ineffective policies of your government. A social market system is a fatal mistake.
So you are saying that making it more difficult to stay on welfare, that making it easier to fire people, that reducing holidays, that lowering non-wage labour costs, that lowering taxes, that these are all ineffective leftists policies?
Check out what has been happening over the past few years. There has never been a reform like that in the history of the BRD.

And how do you explain Germany's performance between 1950 and 1990, even though there were so many socialist policies there?

And how do you explain the current export figures or the way investors rate Germany right now?

So you are saying that making it more difficult to stay on welfare, that making it easier to fire people, that reducing holidays, that lowering non-wage labour costs, that lowering taxes, that these are all ineffective leftists policies?
Check out what has been happening over the past few years. There has never been a reform like that in the history of the BRD.

And how do you explain Germany's performance between 1950 and 1990, even though there were so many socialist policies there?

And how do you explain the current export figures or the way investors rate Germany right now?

Germany benefited from FDI, not stupid socialist policies. Continue your plunge into the economic gutter. Fine by me.

This forum is so much more anti-Bush than the general U.S., and it's not only U.S. either.

However, to answer your question... my vote in the poll was disappove, and I'll give him 15% approval from me. He's doesn't fuck up everything he touches, contrary to what some people would say, but there's not much he's done that I like.

Germany benefited from FDI, not stupid socialist policies. Continue your plunge into the economic gutter. Fine by me.
Now this argument is plunging into the gutter again.
You don't seriously think that all that Germany has achieved in those years after the war was really just American money, do you?
I heard that one before, but not from someone of your standing.

My grandfather, who started up jumping off bridges onto British coal trucks to steal coal for his family, started work in a factory with 15, later became a plumber and then an Electrician.
He did not have a weekend for almost 20 years. Only Sunday Morning was free, for church, but that was it. That was normal in early Germany. There was a lot of hard work there, some investment, some luck and some sound management.
You're trying to discredit all that?

Now this argument is plunging into the gutter again.
You don't seriously think that all that Germany has achieved in those years after the war was really just American money, do you?
I heard that one before, but not from someone of your standing.

It was not social reforms or socialist minded reforms that helped Germany get to where it was. It was capitalist minded reforms and FDI (foreign direct investment) from many countries.

Socialism sucks.

It was not social reforms or socialist minded reforms that helped Germany get to where it was. It was capitalist minded reforms and FDI (foreign direct investment) from many countries.
The point is this: THEY HAD BOTH!
Capitalism sorted out the growth, the money to do things. Socialism meant the money was spent in the right areas, and no one was left behind.
That's why I said it can be considered the best system of that time.

Socialism sucks.
Your own biases cloud your judgement.
I'm gonna stop kicking you now, you are already down.
Consider yourself defeated.

The point is this: THEY HAD BOTH!
Capitalism sorted out the growth, the money to do things. Socialism meant the money was spent in the right areas, and no one was left behind.
That's why I said it can be considered the best system of that time.

I don't think so. Socialism leaves people out and screws up the economy. It cause recession. No one was left behind? You think socialism is the answer? I think not. Socialism should be eliminated.

I'm gonna stop kicking you now, you are already down.
Consider yourself defeated.

You are the one who dug your own hole. I didn't. You are now defeated in this argument. You cannot prove yourself and your arguments. Don't ever say I'm defeated. Especially when I have a greater amount of knowledge then you.

I don't think so. Socialism leaves people out and screws up the economy. It cause recession. No one was left behind? You think socialism is the answer? I think not. Socialism should be eliminated.
Remember the laizze-faire style capitalism in the late 1800s? It totally screwed over the common worker, while the robber barons made away like, well, robbers! Then the liberals and the workers finally united and said "enough of this bullshit!" Granted there was one major example of intelligence and fairness in the company: Ford. Henry Ford paid his workers enough money so they could go out and buy their cars, thus fastening their own job, while they get paid a decent amoung of money. True socialism isn't the best form of economics, that's why you must have a strictly regulated capitalism so it doesn't screw over the worker and give top management way too much power and money.


You are the one who dug your own hole. I didn't. You are now defeated in this argument. You cannot prove yourself and your arguments. Don't ever say I'm defeated. Especially when I have a greater amount of knowledge then you.
You are defeated! :p

...Especially when I have a greater amount of knowledge then you.
:D
Hehehe. Why do you expect me to take you seriously?
You didn't make any argument at all. You just disagreed with everything I said, and I kept piling more facts on you.
And then you reverted to "Socialism sucks". Is that an argument?
Prove it. Make one well-reasoned case for why Socialism "sucks". And then we'll talk.
Until then, I won't bother replying anymore to you or your accusations.

Remember the laizze-faire style capitalism in the late 1800s? It totally screwed over the common worker, while the robber barons made away like, well, robbers! Then the liberals and the workers finally united and said "enough of this bullshit!" Granted there was one major example of intelligence and fairness in the company: Ford. Henry Ford paid his workers enough money so they could go out and buy their cars, thus fastening their own job, while they get paid a decent amoung of money. True socialism isn't the best form of economics, that's why you must have a strictly regulated capitalism so it doesn't screw over the worker and give top management way too much power and money.


I'm not for that form of government. I like Theodore Roosevelt by the way.. when he helped the average worker. A company like Ford for example realized its workers had to be paid more for them to afford cars. I'm for a minimum wage. But I'm also against excessive government interference. I feel that we should prosecute people like the CEOs of Enron. This isn't true socialism. Socialism is stupidity. Strictly regulated capitalism is destined to failure. I'm for loosely regulated capitalism (it has some restrictions like mininum wage laws, but I'm not for strict controls).

So no.. I can't be defeated since this is opinion based argument.

Leonstein: Look at yourself. You never formulate an argument when confronted. The holes in your logic are apparent. More facts? buddy, I'm one of the few who have been providing links to back myself. I'm destroying you, from the ground up with facts. You are the one who has the inability in providing facts. In fact your arguments are poorly formulated.

Formulate a proper argument, instead of these leftist B.S arguments.

-snip-
You provided zero links in response to any of my questions.
Do you know what logic is? There was no logic involved so far.
If any of my "arguments", which I don't think I have presented just yet, are poorly formulated, then that is due to English being my second language. I only left Germany with 16 years.
Nonetheless, I believe so far I only asked questions. No arguments just yet, you are right there. But you didn't confront me with anything just yet.
You said all of German growth was due to FDI - You didn't provide evidence.
I asked you whether you were sure - you modified your position by adding "capitalist minded policies".

But fair enough. If it is links that you want, then I shall give you links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
That is a simple definition of a Social Market Economy system.

http://countrystudies.us/germany/
This is a pretty good summary of Germany, compiled by Americans. It asks the right questions, and provides good answers.

http://countrystudies.us/germany/137.htm
This is probably best to outline the success Germany had in early years. It is basically a story of trying to combine Capitalism with Socialism. Sometimes things worked better than other times, but overall, it was a successful thing. Afterall, Germany is in third place today.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
Again I link to the German Constitution.

http://www.destatis.de/e_home.htm
The German office for statistics provides a variety of data about the German economy and society. There you will be able to check up on current export figures, namely here http://www.destatis.de/indicators/e/ahl210ae.htm

If there is anything else you need, just let me know....

You provided zero links in response to any of my questions.
Do you know what logic is? There was no logic involved so far.
If any of my "arguments", which I don't think I have presented just yet, are poorly formulated, then that is due to English being my second language. I only left Germany with 16 years.
Nonetheless, I believe so far I only asked questions.

I'm tired of this.. get off your high horse. Your links don't even refute anything I said. Please provide something that actually refutes what I said. I'm for loosely regulated capitalism. Strictly regulated capitalism gives you what you have today in Germany. Stagnation. Refute that! You can't. The end is near.

hahahahahah ahh man, when I saw that title I started cracking up...approval... that's a good one

QUOTE=Freistaat Sachsen]correct, Eurozone and US unemployment defferentials are fairly meaningless at the moment.




However:

Inflation 2005 Projection:

Germany: 1.5%
France: 2.0%
Italy: 1.8%

United States: 2.7%

In other words, the differential isnt as great when you factor in say, CPI of a deflator.

Budget Deficits:



I dont know where u got those from, government balance as % of GDP as of 2005:

Germany: -3.5%
France: -3.1%
Italy: -3.5%

US: -4.4%

Link (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2005&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=156-158-132-112-134-111-136&S=GGB_NGDP&CMP=0&x=88&y=14)

However what is really worrying is the actual trade deficit or CAD:

Current account balance in percent of GDP (as of 2005)

France: -0.4%
Germany: 3.8% (a healthy surplus)
Italy: -1.3%

USA: -5.9%

take note of the USA figure, this is a terrible figure

Link (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2005&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=156-158-132-112-134-111-136&S=BCA_NGDPD&CMP=0&x=7&y=5)


And yet the USA only manages to come 11th in world living statndards. There are two primary factors for this:

* Workers in the Eurozone work shorter hours than their US counterparts
* The US consumer must outlay huge wads of income for something the EU consumer gets for free through the government (e.g. the US consumer pays thousands upon thousands of income dollars for healthcare, in some EU countries healthcare is provided free by the government.) This also means that the EU consumer is taxed more, but gets more in return, a fairly meaningless figure you have there.



True, and it is very high if you include countries like Poland, which are straining economies like France and Germany, but they should improve.[/QUOTE]

Please provide something that actually refutes what I said.
I guess the FDI-Bit doesn't count then, does it?

I'm for loosely regulated capitalism. Strictly regulated capitalism gives you what you have today in Germany. Stagnation. Refute that!
Guess what! I am a Social Democrat, which puts me in pretty much the same camp as you.

To your question: Why should I? Who is going to argue against that? It is also not at all what I have been saying.
I have been saying that the German economy has been profiting from both - from Capitalism and from Socialism.
There are now numerous problems, one of them being overregulation. I point you to this excellent paper.
http://www.uni-kiel.de/ifw/staff/langhammer/seoul_2004.pdf
It is not only Overregulation. That is a big point, but it is not all.

And if you now look at the conclusion and recommendation, you will see that this is exactly what the German Government is working on right now.

But in order to really address your issue, one would have to go through it point by point, looking at where regulation can be beneficial, and where it wouldn't be.
But since you still haven't made a case, I guess it's not going to happen.

I'm really sleepy so I'll make this quick..


Guess what! I am a Social Democrat, which puts me in pretty much the same camp as you.

No. You aren't. I'm looking at your views thus far.. I'm not seeing any similiarities with mine.

To your question: Why should I? Who is going to argue against that? It is also not at all what I have been saying.
I have been saying that the German economy has been profiting from both - from Capitalism and from Socialism.

I don't believe that socialism can even exist.

And if you now look at the conclusion and recommendation, you will see that this is exactly what the German Government is working on right now.

Too little. Too late.

I'm for loose regulation. For some, but not as much as you. I'm more for an open market system.

Deregulation of the economy is good so long as you're removing quotas and not environmental laws, so I guess I'm with you Leonstein. Over-capitalism is generaly a bad thing and has failed where-ever it was tried. Example:

Chile

"Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws... Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America... growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses."

the economic system favored by the right wingers, laissez-faire capitalism, is fairly bunk and only benefits the high echelons of society. Market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifle innovation, and that unregulated markets are economically unstable. Advances in economics since Adam Smith show that people's actions are not always rational, that markets do not always produce the most efficient outcome, and that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health.

No. Chile was a success

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/march/cipub2.asp

Chile has become a bastion of democratic political stability and successful trade policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage of Chileans living in poverty fell from 45 to 21 percent between 1987 and 2000. Literacy and life expectancy have risen steadily, while infant mortality has declined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chile's gross domestic product has more than doubled since 1994. The GDP in 2001 was 3 percent despite the international economic slump, and many expect it to rise to 5 or 6 percent in future years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflation was slashed from 27 percent in 1990 to 3 percent in 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations puts Chile in the top tier of nations best prepared to compete in the global economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the country's confidence has been impaired by the continuing controversy that rages over the 17-year rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, relations with the United States are somewhat tainted by lingering resentment over America's involvement in the 1973 coup and Washington's support for the Pinochet regime.

---

So there is something wrong with your source.

No. Chile was a success
You realise that presumably the radical policies were stopped in 1989, and that all the figures you mentioned could very well be the effect of more moderate ideas being introduced?

No. Chile was a successTell that to all the widows and orphans. Tell that to all the those that died as a direct result of Pinochet's orders.

No. Chile was a success

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/march/cipub2.asp

Chile has become a bastion of democratic political stability and successful trade policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage of Chileans living in poverty fell from 45 to 21 percent between 1987 and 2000. Literacy and life expectancy have risen steadily, while infant mortality has declined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chile's gross domestic product has more than doubled since 1994. The GDP in 2001 was 3 percent despite the international economic slump, and many expect it to rise to 5 or 6 percent in future years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflation was slashed from 27 percent in 1990 to 3 percent in 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations puts Chile in the top tier of nations best prepared to compete in the global economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the country's confidence has been impaired by the continuing controversy that rages over the 17-year rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, relations with the United States are somewhat tainted by lingering resentment over America's involvement in the 1973 coup and Washington's support for the Pinochet regime.

---

So there is something wrong with your source.

That's great. . .but that's a bit of a Strawman, since we aren't comparing the Chilean economy of 1987 with that of the current one; we are comparing the Chilean economy of 1973 with the present one, and your statistics have no information on that comparison.

Moreover, as I recall, Pinochet lost an election during Bush I's administration and resigned his post. So saying that Chile was a success when what we are really talking about is Pinochet's administration of Chile, and furthermore that your statistics pointedly do not deal with the 14-year timeframe that was under discussion, you might want to go back to the drawing board on that one.

That's great. . .but that's a bit of a Strawman, since we aren't comparing the Chilean economy of 1987 with that of the current one; we are comparing the Chilean economy of 1973 with the present one, and your statistics have no information on that comparison.

No it is not. In fact yes I was wrong with posting that as you were talking about a different time period, and I was tired as it was late. My apologies.

Furthermore, Chile was restructuring in the 1970s/80s after years of mismanagement under the Allende regime, and other regimes that preceded that one.

Like Spain, Chile did not do very well overnight after the disasterous adminstration of Allende. Allende made a huge amount of errors, and that's not to say Pinochet didn't either.

I like the economic polices of Pinochet. However let me say this, he made a ton of mistakes by being incredibly brutal. In no way am I defending his brutality. In fact I think he should stand trial.

Moreover, as I recall, Pinochet lost an election during Bush I's administration and resigned his post. So saying that Chile was a success when what we are really talking about is Pinochet's administration of Chile, and furthermore that your statistics pointedly do not deal with the 14-year timeframe that was under discussion, you might want to go back to the drawing board on that one.

He also won an election before that one. However, Chile is a success primarily because of the after effect of Pinochet's reforms. His reforms were more long term, rather then short or medium term. In fact they may have been very painful in the short term, but beneficial in the long term. That's what Argentina has to deal with... very painful austerity reforms that will cause a lot of initial hurt, but in the end be worth it.

Keep in mind, reforms can be put in place immediately.. but their effects may not be felt for years.

pinochet was an evil dictator and he housed nazy runnaway war criminals.

Approve 92 23.17%
Disapprove 305 76.83%


What I can't understand is why did america vote for him, again, if his approval ratings are low? (note, this is only after 7 months of his re-inauguration)

Note: I do know that this isn't actually america speaking and actually mixture of countries, but that's just it! How can he get re-elected if other countries citizens don't approve of him?

Approve 92 23.17%
Disapprove 305 76.83%


What I can't understand is why did america vote for him, again, if his approval ratings are low? (note, this is only after 7 months of his re-inauguration)

Note: I do know that this isn't actually america speaking and actually mixture of countries, but that's just it! How can he get re-elected if other countries citizens don't approve of him?

How naive. Very naive. This poll in no way reflects America, and I'm sure even the most liberal of democrats will tell you that too. This is an international forum. If you want a poll on LIKELY voters and one of the few polls right about the 2004 election check this one out:

How can he get re-elected if other countries citizens don't approve of him? HAHAHAHAH.. you have to be a citizen to vote. It isn't up to the people of Zimbabwe or France to decide the US election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

I was disgusted by the choice americans made by re-electing Bush.
One thing that foreign media and word of mouth was quick to pick up on that night was that the states with lower literacy rates were red and states with higher literacy rates were blue.

What I loved most about the last election was the fact that Dubyas neighbours didn't want him around in the neighbourhood anymore. Washington DC voted something like 90%+ in Kerry's favour.

fgggggggg

Note: I do know that this isn't actually america speaking and actually mixture of countries, but that's just it! How can he get re-elected if other countries citizens don't approve of him?

Because no one cares what other nation's citizens approve or not. The Majority of the voters believe that Bush was better suited thank Kerry and that is all that counts.

I was disgusted by the choice americans made by re-electing Bush.
One thing that foreign media and word of mouth was quick to pick up on that night was that the states with lower literacy rates were red and states with
higher literacy rates were blue.

Be disgusted. It wasn't up to you. It is up to the american people, and I voted in the election myself being an american citizen. I'm also not an uneducated fool.

That's a misnomer and also an urban legend. There is no evidence to show that republican voters are any less educated. If anything, business owners and the rich typically vote republican.

What I loved most about the last election was the fact that Dubyas neighbours didn't want him around in the neighbourhood anymore. Washington DC voted something like 90%+ in Kerry's favour.

You really need to get pass your biases... Washington DC has been very democrat for a long time.

Because no one cares what other nation's citizens approve or not. The Majority of the voters believe that Bush was better suited thank Kerry and that is all that counts.The Majority of voters believed that Al Gore was better suited than Bush. Vote-counting controversy aside, the American system of electoral college(sic?) votes, is very awkward and the outcome may not reflect the popular majority as was the case with Al Gore.

The Majority of voters believed that Al Gore was better suited than Bush. Vote-counting controversy aside, the American system of electoral college(sic?) votes, is very awkward and the outcome may not reflect the popular majority as was the case with Al Gore.

Very awkward to someone who doesn't live in this country and votes often like me (I even vote in local elections, ugh.. stupid LA for electing Antonio Villaraigosa).

Anyways, the electoral college better represents individual states.

The Majority of voters believed that Al Gore was better suited than Bush. Vote-counting controversy aside, the American system of electoral college(sic?) votes, is very awkward and the outcome may not reflect the popular majority as was the case with Al Gore.

Do you know why we have the electoral College? Its to keep bigger states from deciding elections. If it wasn't included, we wouldn't have had a US Constitution.

As for Gore getting more votes but losing the election, we've had that happen before. Those normally don't get re-elected. Here though, we were in a middle of a war and most people are of the mind that you don't switch leaders in a middle of a war. Not to mention morals had something to do with it too.

As for Kerry getting more votes but losing the election, we've had that happen before. Those normally don't get re-elected. Here though, we were in a middle of a war and most people are of the mind that you don't switch leaders in a middle of a war. Not to mention morals had something to do with it too.

Eh, you mean Gore.

You may all think back to Nixon and Kennedy I believe in 60/61... there was a similiar issue.

Kerry got less popular votes and less electoral votes then Bush.

Anyways, I'm going out tonight, so that's all I gotta say..

Do you know why we have the electoral College? Its to keep bigger states from deciding elections. If it wasn't included, we wouldn't have had a US Constitution.

As for Kerry getting more votes but losing the election, we've had that happen before. Those normally don't get re-elected. Here though, we were in a middle of a war and most people are of the mind that you don't switch leaders in a middle of a war. Not to mention morals had something to do with it too.
The electoral college was a good idea and worked for the better when it was adopted, but now it benefits the smaller states more than before and skews election results more. Wyoming has a grand total of 4 people, yet they get an automatic 3 electoral votes. California has 4524.83 million people and only 54 (?) electoral votes. Your vote counts more in smaller states, and that is a significant advantage to whichever party appeals to those states, and right now it is the Republicans. The electoral college worked in the past when America was smaller, now it undermines the very essence of a democracy.

As for Kerry[you meant Gore] getting more votes but losing the election, we've had that happen before. Those normally don't get re-elected. Here though, we were in a middle of a war and most people are of the mind that you don't switch leaders in a middle of a war. Not to mention morals had something to do with it too.I fully understand the reason's for Bush's re-election. Americans tend to stick with their leaders when in War. That along with Kerry being anything but the ideal candidate makes the re-election perfectly understandable. However it still disgusts me. For me it's simply a question of being against the war in Iraq. Call it bias, I call it beliefs or views. Regardless. I would've supported a Howard Dean candidacy full blast, despite his colourful stage antics. He's been a wonderfull governer and the fact that he's a doctor combined with what he's achieved in Health Care in his state was more than enough reason. Unfortunately the Democratic Party saw fit to go forward with another skull and bonesman... but nevermind that... it's spilled milk...

The electoral college was a good idea and worked for the better when it was adopted, but now it benefits the smaller states more than before and skews election results more.

That is how it was designed! It was designed to give the smaller states more benefits than larger states.

Wyoming has a grand total of 4 people, yet they get an automatic 3 electoral votes.

It has more than 4 people dude.

California has 4524.83 million people and only 54 (?) electoral votes.

Point being?

Your vote counts more in smaller states, and that is a significant advantage to whichever party appeals to those states, and right now it is the Republicans.

So why shouldn't the advantage go to smaller states? You have a problem with that? I don't. I live in PA which has 21 Electoral votes. Compared to some, I guess you can say that I live in a medium state.

The electoral college worked in the past when America was smaller, now it undermines the very essence of a democracy.

I think its the embodiment of Democracy but then, I support the Electoral College. HOwever, I think it does need to be reformed but I believe it should stay.

I think He is great!!

We love you Bush!!!! I think you are doing fine!!! how did he win if so many people dont approve him? well it was prob. because kerry was an IDIOT

Yes!!!
kerry was an Idiot!! I voted Bush. I give him a 7/10 so I voted to approve him!!

That is how it was designed! It was designed to give the smaller states more benefits than larger states.

Agreed.


So why shouldn't the advantage go to smaller states? You have a problem with that? I don't. I live in PA which has 21 Electoral votes. Compared to some, I guess you can say that I live in a medium state.

I live in CT, only 7 electoral votes. rather small state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the electoral vote decided upon the states population? Which, if it's the case, I suppose is fair.


I think its the embodiment of Democracy but then, I support the Electoral College. HOwever, I think it does need to be reformed but I believe it should stay.

I also agree it should stay. It would take longer than it needs to be to decide the next president if we have a incident where the winner wins by a small margin and we didn't have an electoral college.
That's what the Electoral College is for, isn't it?

That is how it was designed! It was designed to give the smaller states more benefits than larger states.
First of all, it was designed to even the playing field a bit, but why should small states have more power than large states? Why should large states have more power than small states?
It has more than 4 people dude.
[/exaggeration]

Point being?
That the votes for people in Wyoming count more than the votes for people in California because of the given 2 senators. If you take the number of electoral votes for the small states and divide by the population, people who live in small states will have a larger ratio than those in bigger states.

55 (# of electoral votes) / 35,893,799 (population of California in July of 2004)
=1.53229 x 10^-6

3 (# of electoral votes) / 506,529 (population of Wyoming in July of 2004)
=5.92266 x 10^-6

As you can see by these extremes, someone's vote in Wyoming counts ~3.86 times more than someone's vote in California.

So why shouldn't the advantage go to smaller states? You have a problem with that? I don't. I live in PA which has 21 Electoral votes. Compared to some, I guess you can say that I live in a medium state. What's the difference of the advantage going to the larger states? You just said you were against that, or more precisely, the electoral college was designed to keep the large states from determining the election. Why should the advantage go to any state? Isn't a democracy based on equal representation?

I think its the embodiment of Democracy but then, I support the Electoral College. HOwever, I think it does need to be reformed but I believe it should stay.How could it be reformed? Just curious. :)

*puffs*

Doesn't matter whether anyone "approves" of him or not. And I don't think that's lost on the man. But from a certain twisted point of view, it's all downhill at this point anyway. It's retirement after this last stint.

*crackles*

Ouch!

Lyric:

All I said is you should stop feeling sorry for yourself and take responsibility. Stop blaming Bush. Blame yourself. Get into a career college of some sort. Stop blaming other people for your errors. I'm on the center-right because we typically take action and don't blame others. I'm getting my masters. So don't criticize me.

I shouldn't be apologizing to leonstein because he brought up my education. I didn't.

Get training... dude, I'm giving you some helpful advice. Data entry and processing is just not in demand.

Don't you dare! You and your "personal responsibility" shit! Screw you, that only applies to everyone BUT you and your ilk, doesn't it? Why isn't Karl Fucking Rove taking personal responsibility for outing Valerie Plame? Why isn't Bush taking personal responsibility, and following up on his promise to FIRE anyone in his Administration connected to the leak? No, they circle the wagons around their own...and tell EVERYONE ELSE to take "personal responsibility" so don't you start that bullshit with me.

and you know what? THERE ARE FUCKING TIMES WHEN, GODDAMN IT, IT ISN'T MY FAULT, YOU EVER JUST HEAR OF BAD FUCKING LUCK?!!? GODDAMN IT, THIS IS NOT MY FAULT, AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!!

If you knew the whole goddamn story, which I won't go into here, because it would take too long...but, suffice to say, my company got bought out...and the new company came in and screwed us all, so that we were making about 3 dollars an hour less to do the same damn job! So, I quit. We were promised our wages would not be lowered, and THEY FUCKING LIED!! so I quit. and haven't had a decent job since.

And for your information data entry and processing are just as much in damnd as they always have been, SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!! And that is where my skills and experience are...so are you terlling me I should look for a job in a field in which I have no experience, no skills, nop nothing?? You're even dumber than I thought if you think I stand a chance of getting hired into a new field like that with no experience or skills!


If we lose our job, we go out and get another one. We don't live with our parents until we are what.. 30? I lost my job some time ago because this one store I worked at went out of business... guess what? I found another job.

I got economic growth and security for the US.

Don't you fucking DARE!!! I lived on my own, quite well, for TEN YEARS until my string of bad luck forced me, economically, into moving back home. You have no fucking ideaz right now how hard I am TRYING not to flame you for that statement, because that was blue-ribbon, choice, prime, Grade A-1 flamebait, and you damn well know it!!

And guess what....I haven't been able to find a new job. Bad luck. what the hell can I say? IT IS NOT MY FUCKING FAULT AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!! I AM DOING EVERYTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD I CAN TO FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN JOB!! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE IMPLY THAT I AM A BUM OR NO DAMN GOOD BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE TO HAD MOVED BACK HOME! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!

Now, you know WHY I put your ass on ignore!! You are going to piss me off beyond the point at which I can tolerate if I don't ignore you.

So far, 3 of 4 people disapprove of White House Gump. :)

So far, 3 of 4 people disapprove of White House Gump. :)And if it wasn't for American Bush supporters it would practicaly be a unanimous dissaproval. The great american people have lost alot of respect internationally, by having put him in office for the second time. I saw it coming. It's really unfortunate.

And if it wasn't for American Bush supporters it would practicaly be a unanimous dissaproval. The great american people have lost alot of respect internationally, by having put him in office for the second time. I saw it coming. It's really unfortunate.


Well, I'm an American, and I HATE HIS ASS!!!!

Don't you dare! You and your "personal responsibility" shit! Screw you, that only applies to everyone BUT you and your ilk, doesn't it?

Who is this ilk you are referring too?

Why isn't Karl Fucking Rove taking personal responsibility for outing Valerie Plame?

Has the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" ever cross your mind? Maybe he really didn't do it so why are you convicting him? If he did do it then I hope they toss his ass in Fort Levenworth. (BTW: I am a republican)

Why isn't Bush taking personal responsibility, and following up on his promise to FIRE anyone in his Administration connected to the leak?

I suggest you read this "President Bush said yesterday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name" That was taken from the Washington Post.

No, they circle the wagons around their own...and tell EVERYONE ELSE to take "personal responsibility" so don't you start that bullshit with me.

The investigation is still continuing. It is nice to see liberals on here have already convicted him. "Innocent until Proven guilty" people. Remember that.

and you know what? THERE ARE FUCKING TIMES WHEN, GODDAMN IT, IT ISN'T MY FAULT, YOU EVER JUST HEAR OF BAD FUCKING LUCK?!!?

Hell... I have bad luck all the time but I don't go crying about it. I shrug my shoulders and move on. Not much I can do about it.

GODDAMN IT, THIS IS NOT MY FAULT, AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!!

Someone have a guilty conscience?

If you knew the whole goddamn story, which I won't go into here, because it would take too long...but, suffice to say, my company got bought out...and the new company came in and screwed us all, so that we were making about 3 dollars an hour less to do the same damn job! So, I quit. We were promised our wages would not be lowered, and THEY FUCKING LIED!! so I quit. and haven't had a decent job since.

Sorry to hear that. People often lie to get what they want, especially in the business world. Good for you for quitting. I applaud it. I would've too.

And for your information data entry and processing are just as much in damnd as they always have been, SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!! And that is where my skills and experience are...so are you terlling me I should look for a job in a field in which I have no experience, no skills, nop nothing?? You're even dumber than I thought if you think I stand a chance of getting hired into a new field like that with no experience or skills!

Ok, no need for personal insults on people. It just takes away from what your trying to say.

Don't you fucking DARE!!! I lived on my own, quite well, for TEN YEARS until my string of bad luck forced me, economically, into moving back home. You have no fucking ideaz right now how hard I am TRYING not to flame you for that statement, because that was blue-ribbon, choice, prime, Grade A-1 flamebait, and you damn well know it!!

How do you know it was flaimbate? No one here knows what eachother is going through so what may not be flaimbate for one, is flamebait for another. My opinion? I think it was a tad out of line but not flamebait.

And guess what....I haven't been able to find a new job. Bad luck.

Welcome to the real world. I had a friend that Graduated from college and he has yet to find a job in his choosen career frield. These things happen but in time, you will.

what the hell can I say? IT IS NOT MY FUCKING FAULT AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!! I AM DOING EVERYTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD I CAN TO FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN JOB!! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE IMPLY THAT I AM A BUM OR NO DAMN GOOD BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE TO HAD MOVED BACK HOME! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!

Is this all you know how to do? Shout and swear?

And if it wasn't for American Bush supporters it would practicaly be a unanimous dissaproval. The great american people have lost alot of respect internationally, by having put him in office for the second time. I saw it coming. It's really unfortunate.

Sorry that most of us voted for Bush a second time! NOT!

Kerry was a fool who didn't have a clue. He changed his positions one to many times and his leadership record stunk to high heaven.

All the shit he had to climb through does that to a person.

Americans are racially insane though. Sorry all you moderates out there but it's the only conclusion I can draw.

All the shit he had to climb through does that to a person.

I can understand that. Trust me, I understand it.

Americans are racially insane though. Sorry all you moderates out there but it's the only conclusion I can draw.

We are? Out of curiosity, can you tell me why?

Sorry that most of us voted for Bush a second time! NOT!

Kerry was a fool who didn't have a clue. He changed his positions one to many times and his leadership record stunk to high heaven.Yes I know this. Kerry is a political question mark. However I'm only stating fact when I say that Europeans still can't understand how a president who has trouble finishing his sentences is elected and re-elected. I still would've voted for Kerry despite all his shortcomings and despite he was not my personal favorite for the job.

Bush (especially in his first term) represented everything that I am against and consider to be evil.

Don't you dare! You and your "personal responsibility" shit! Screw you, that only applies to everyone BUT you and your ilk, doesn't it? Why isn't Karl Fucking Rove taking personal responsibility for outing Valerie Plame? Why isn't Bush taking personal responsibility, and following up on his promise to FIRE anyone in his Administration connected to the leak? No, they circle the wagons around their own...and tell EVERYONE ELSE to take "personal responsibility" so don't you start that bullshit with me.

It is funny. All you seem to do is swear. Personal responsibility? As a 20 year old apparently I have more personal responsibility then you do. Neither Bush or Karl Rove are at fault and that has been established.

and you know what? THERE ARE FUCKING TIMES WHEN, GODDAMN IT, IT ISN'T MY FAULT, YOU EVER JUST HEAR OF BAD FUCKING LUCK?!!? GODDAMN IT, THIS IS NOT MY FAULT, AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!!

Stop swearing. It doesn't help your case. It is your fault right now because you constantly refuse to get retraining and then you move in your parents. Bush didn't force you to do so.

If you knew the whole goddamn story, which I won't go into here, because it would take too long...but, suffice to say, my company got bought out...and the new company came in and screwed us all, so that we were making about 3 dollars an hour less to do the same damn job! So, I quit. We were promised our wages would not be lowered, and THEY FUCKING LIED!! so I quit. and haven't had a decent job since.

The one I was working for went totally out of business and I looked for a new job. And I found it. Got paid a little bit more too. You need to get retraining or move to a different area where jobs are in demand.

And for your information data entry and processing are just as much in damnd as they always have been, SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!! And that is where my skills and experience are...so are you terlling me I should look for a job in a field in which I have no experience, no skills, nop nothing?? You're even dumber than I thought if you think I stand a chance of getting hired into a new field like that with no experience or skills!

You just said the jobs were in lack of demand. Make up your mind. Data entry and processing is a very basic field I think. I think you should get retraining for something else. People do it all the time.

Don't you fucking DARE!!! I lived on my own, quite well, for TEN YEARS until my string of bad luck forced me, economically, into moving back home. You have no fucking ideaz right now how hard I am TRYING not to flame you for that statement, because that was blue-ribbon, choice, prime, Grade A-1 flamebait, and you damn well know it!!

It was your own choice to move back in with your mom. Not Bush's fault.

And guess what....I haven't been able to find a new job. Bad luck. what the hell can I say? IT IS NOT MY FUCKING FAULT AND I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS NOT MY FAULT!! I AM DOING EVERYTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD I CAN TO FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN JOB!! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE IMPLY THAT I AM A BUM OR NO DAMN GOOD BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE TO HAD MOVED BACK HOME! DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!

Quit blaming Bush for your inability to expand your horizons. I'm getting myself a university B.A degree. And therefore I'm expanding my horizons.

Your swear constantly...

Canada: No. Wrong. He finishes questions just fine and in fact Kerry's grades were much worse. Also Kerry never went to graduate school. So I wonder how some misinformed europeans could support him? I'm originally from Spain, but am a US citizen. I voted for Bush.

"Bush (especially in his first term) represented everything that I am against and consider to be evil."

Yeah, you consider fighting against terrorism evil... that says quite a bit.

No. Wrong. He finishes questions just fine and in fact Kerry's grades were much worse.Kerry can handle himself with a crowd. Bush is an awfull public speaker and it is a shame that the worst public speaker in the building during G8 summits has and always will be George Bush.
Also Kerry never went to graduate school.Didn't he go to Yale? What exactly is graduate school? I'm not familiar with American School terminology.
So I wonder how some misinformed europeans could support him?They supported Kerry not as enthusiastically as they dissaproved of Bush. Kerry was the only candidate with a shot of preventing his re-election.
Yeah, you consider fighting against terrorism evil... that says quite a bit.NO I DON'T! In fact I believe that there should be a much more significant allied military presence in the middle east with the goal to hunt down Al-Qaeda at their source. Liberating Iraq was a secondary priority to bringing Al-Qaeda's leaders and Bin Laden to justice, however Bush and friends didn't think so. Today he still remains relatively impassive towards the Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.
I'm 100% for the war on terrorism. However, the overthrown Iraqi government had absolutely no ties to terrorism, that had ever threatened the American homeland. It was not the priority.

Once again... NO! I don't consider fighting against terrorism evil at all. I consider lying to the UN (and therefore the whole world) about WMD's, and basing a war on said lies, to be evil.

Kerry can handle himself with a crowd. Bush is an awfull public speaker and it is a shame that the worst public speaker in the building during G8 summits has and always will be George Bush.

Bush is a decent speaker.. he's not fantastic.. but he's decent.

Kerry can handle himself with a crowd? He's a bumbling bimbo.. if anything he's a much worse speaker then Bush. I mean come on, he basically put me to sleep.

Didn't he go to Yale? What exactly is graduate school? I'm not familiar with American School terminology.

Kerry only got a B.A. A Bachelors of Arts degree is an undergraduate degree (the one I'm currently aiming for). Bush went for his masters.

NO I DON'T! In fact I believe that there should be a much more significant allied military presence in the middle east with the goal to hunt down Al-Qaeda at their source. Liberating Iraq was a secondary priority to bringing Al-Qaeda's leaders and Bin Laden to justice, however Bush and friends didn't think so. Today he still remains relatively impassive towards the Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.

This is nonsense. We are doing everything we can in Afghanistan and actively hunting down Al-Qaeda. It is a leftist lie to say we aren't.

I'm 100% for the war on terrorism. However, the overthrown Iraqi government had absolutely no ties to terrorism, that had ever threatened the American homeland. It was not the priority.

Prove it.


I consider lying to the UN (and therefore the whole world) about WMD's, and basing a war on said lies, to be evil.

We went with what we had, and most of the people who looked at the intelligence agreed. But Saddam is a good riddance. Now the Iraqis can have democracy.

Wow, I can't believe I actually read through this thread. See what happens when you get a day off? Dude, Lyric. Data entry is a high school student's job. You are 34. What the fuck are you still doing in a "career" such as that? I feel sorry that you can't do much more than type letters and insert fields into Excel spreadsheets. I'm just a college student, much like many others here. I work at GODDAMN FUCKING BITCH ASS (sorry, I had to do that from seeing some posts) Subway. I make shit for income. But you know what? I supplement my income. I work part-to-full time at "the way," and I do computer repair for people and in some cases, businesses. I picked up A+ and Cisco certifications on MY own time, and I'm a full time student AND full time employee, and I'm on the dean's list with a cumulative 3.8 GPA. I make between $20-$35 per hour helping old people setup their computers, businesses setup and troubleshoot networks, and de-porn computers. Now, if I'm ever in a bind, I know people will hire me for my skills. I live in one of the most hick-ass, backwards parts of Florida there is, and I don't complain, even though I could write a novel on my gripes, problems, and hardships. You're right, the economy sucks, Bush sucks, whatever. IT was hit hard but I stayed in my field, and I can pay for college on my own. Learn how to exploit your abilities. Don't cry about your losses.

Bush is a decent speaker.. he's not fantastic.. but he's decent.
lol, decent!? Do you call this "decent"?
"And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the -- nation, whatever you wanna call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the next -- of the rest of your life -- of service to America. That's what I asked. I said 2 -- 4,000 hours." Is that decent speaking? lol
I could find many, many others, but I think that just about sums up his speaking abilities.

We went with what we had, and most of the people who looked at the intelligence agreed. But Saddam is a good riddance. Now the Iraqis can have democracy.
What about Americans having a democracy? Bush is no better than Saddam. In Bush's own words:
"[Saddam Hussein is] a man who invaded two countries twice -- two countries, once each time." Well, Bush is a man who invaded two countries twice -- two countries, once each time.

That further proves Dubya's verbal prowess.

Someone have a guilty conscience?
That is uncalled for, Corneliu. I assume you have no idea what it is like to become a long-term unemployed person and what it can do to your psyche.
I watched it happen in my own family. It's nothing you should make remarks like that about.

I disapprove of Bush. He has the IQ of a 4 year old, doesn't know how to speak, took more vacations than any other president, took this country's surplus and turned it into debt (later into bankruptcy, I can garuntee that), is mixing government with religion (you're not supposed to do that), and made this country hated by our allies. Then there's his Texan accent.....not that I have anything against people from Texas or their accent, but Bush makes it look bad.... :mad:

Alright, I guess I just started laughing so much at the very first statement, I missed the rest. Here it goes.
Kerry can handle himself with a crowd? He's a bumbling bimbo.. if anything he's a much worse speaker then Bush. I mean come on, he basically put me to sleep. Look at my first post. Kerry was able to at least string two coherent phrases together and have it make sense.

Kerry only got a B.A. A Bachelors of Arts degree is an undergraduate degree (the one I'm currently aiming for). Bush went for his masters.
whoopee, election's over, if you didn't read the papers.

This is nonsense. We are doing everything we can in Afghanistan and actively hunting down Al-Qaeda. It is a leftist lie to say we aren't. We aren't finding him at our full potential. It is a rightist lie to say we're really fighting a war on terror.

Prove it. Prove it wasn't.

This is nonsense. We are doing everything we can in Afghanistan and actively hunting down Al-Qaeda. It is a leftist lie to say we aren't.
Then what are you keeping hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq for, if they could be looking for AQ?

Prove it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

We went with what we had, and most of the people who looked at the intelligence agreed. But Saddam is a good riddance. Now the Iraqis can have democracy.
And carbombs!

Bush is a decent speaker.. he's not fantastic.. but he's decent.

Kerry can handle himself with a crowd? He's a bumbling bimbo.. if anything he's a much worse speaker then Bush.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bushisms

This is nonsense. We are doing everything we can in Afghanistan and actively hunting down Al-Qaeda. It is a leftist lie to say we aren't. There should be an allied force of half a million troops in Afghanistan alone.

Prove it.As a matter of fact it has been proven. The 9-11 comission has already established this for some time now, in the EXACT same wording as I stated.
I find it hard to believe that someone as well informed as you always apear to be has just been caught off guard with this fact.



We went with what we had, and most of the people who looked at the intelligence agreed.According to Richard Clarke's statements... The people that had access to information or had the task of gathering it, were pressured by the Bush administration into making things look like something was going on in Iraq involving weapons and or Al-Qaeda.

There should be an allied force of half a million troops in Afghanistan alone.

Ask the Soviets about that one. Sure send a ton of troops. Seem like the occupiers. We are doing a better job then they are with less troops, far less troops. More troops = more of a mess and the Afghan government wouldn't accept it.


I find it hard to believe that someone as well informed as you always apear to be has just been caught off guard with this fact.

Nice way to avoid the question.

According to Richard Clarke's statements... The people that had access to information or had the task of gathering it, were pressured by the Bush administration into making things look like something was going on in Iraq involving weapons and or Al-Qaeda.

Richard Clarke also said some interesting things about the intent being there, and there is the fact that the Iraqis did pay the North Koreans $10 million dollars for ballistic missile technology.. and the North Koreans would only deliever without all the attention.. something that would of happened if we went the anti-war way.

Ask the Soviets about that one. Sure send a ton of troops. Seem like the occupiers. We are doing a better job then they are with less troops, far less troops. More troops = more of a mess and the Afghan government wouldn't accept it.We did alot better than the soviets but I feel none the safer from terrorism. Especially when bombs are popping up everywhere in London. Just a few hundred km away from where I am. And quite frankly I don't believe that the Afghan government is in a position nor does it have the strength to deny or accept anything that is not in accordance with the US.

Nice way to avoid the question.I deman you explain exactly what question I have avoided. If you mean the "Prove it"... I believe that the 9/11 comission was conclusive in proving that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that there where no links to Al-Qaeda.

Richard Clarke also said some interesting things about the intent being there, and there is the fact that the Iraqis did pay the North Koreans $10 million dollars for ballistic missile technology.. and the North Koreans would only deliever without all the attention.. something that would of happened if we went the anti-war way.Do you recall Richard Clarke stating exactly when this happened? Because when you're nation is being attacked you will be expected to use any means necessary to defend it. Particularly if you're a tyranical dictator like Saddam.

We did alot better than the soviets but I feel none the safer from terrorism. Especially when bombs are popping up everywhere in London. Just a few hundred km away from where I am. And quite frankly I don't believe that the Afghan government is in a position nor does it have the strength to deny or accept anything that is not in accordance with the US.

Unfortunately we cannot stop everybody overnight. And there have been arrests made in London from what I heard. There have been people detained in Pakistan on connection to that. I don't think it would be appropriate or responsible for us to send hundreds of thousands of troops. That would be absolutely pointless.

I believe that the 9/11 comission was conclusive in proving that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that there where no links to Al-Qaeda.

I never claimed that either, but I did claim Iraq had intent, including paying North Koreans $10 million for plans.

Because when you're nation is being attacked you will be expected to use any means necessary to defend it. Particularly if you're a tyranical dictator like Saddam.

What nonsense.. stop defending Saddam. He's the one who brought it on himself. Now he's going to be executed after his trial.

Unfortunately we cannot stop everybody overnight. The more reason to focus on those who deserve more of our attention. We should not have stopped in Afghanistan until Bin-Laden was captured or killed before going on and liberating Iraq.
And there have been arrests made in London from what I heard. There have been people detained in Pakistan on connection to that. I don't think it would be appropriate or responsible for us to send hundreds of thousands of troops. That would be absolutely pointless.Pointless? How else do you expect to ever bring Bin-Laden to justice unless he is hunted down vigorously with the use of excess force if need be?
Yes it's me... liberal democrat here, defending the use of excess force to uphold justice.

I never claimed that either, (...)But you did ask me to prove it... that tells me clearly that you are unwilling to believe it, in order to feel comfortable with the blind faith you have in the current US Government and it's foreign policy. My advice... stop being naive and colourblind... be open minded for once and accept the truth, that they lied to the UN and dropped the ball on WMD issue... none have been found. There was a clear desire to invade Iraq by any means necessary.

What nonsense.. stop defending Saddam. He's the one who brought it on himself. Now he's going to be executed after his trial.I'm not defending the man. I'm just stating that I would expect a "Saddam like" ruler to attempt aquiring nuclear capability, if he knew that a war against the USA was going to ensue. Despite all his crimes I sincerely doubt he will be executed.

The more reason to focus on those who deserve more of our attention. We should not have stopped in Afghanistan until Bin-Laden was captured or killed before going on and liberating Iraq.
Pointless? How else do you expect to ever bring Bin-Laden to justice unless he is hunted down vigorously with the use of excess force if need be?
Yes it's me... liberal democrat here, defending the use of excess force to uphold justice.

Don't think so.. I think you need to understand that sending a bunch of more troops to Afghanistan won't solve a damn thing. There are plenty of troops there right now.

Bin Laden is a very elusive character too.

My advice... stop being naive and colourblind... be open minded for once and accept the truth

Take your own advice.

I'm not defending the man. I'm just stating that I would expect a "Saddam like" ruler to attempt aquiring nuclear capability, if he knew that a war against the USA was going to ensue. Despite all his crimes I sincerely doubt he will be executed.

Yes you are. You are defending him very much so. And anyone who says he won't be executed is horrifically naive and ignorant.

That is uncalled for, Corneliu. I assume you have no idea what it is like to become a long-term unemployed person and what it can do to your psyche.

I was unemployed from when I was 18 till I was 21. I didn't get another job till I arrived at the University. I know what its like not to have a job :rolleyes:

Don't think so.. I think you need to understand that sending a bunch of more troops to Afghanistan won't solve a damn thing. There are plenty of troops there right now.

Bin Laden is a very elusive character too.The more reason you give me to say that there should more troops and military looking for him. Alot more.



Take your own advice.Part of the blessing of being a Liberal Democrat is exactly that... being open minded. Let's start with this. Why was Iraq all of a suddon a priority over Bin Laden, when Al-Qaeda is still fully operational? The attacks in Spain, England and Bali demonstrate it perfectly.

Yes you are. You are defending him very much so.No I am not. You are accusing me of doing something I am not doing nor have I ever done. I'm offended by this and I demand that you either take back this accusation or quote me, where you feel I have defended him. And anyone who says he won't be executed is horrifically naive and ignorant.He will never be executed. It would be a fitting punishment but it will never happen. By his execution justice would be served but politicaly the current Iraqi government would stand to lose by creating a martyr.

Meh.

That is uncalled for, Corneliu. I assume you have no idea what it is like to become a long-term unemployed person and what it can do to your psyche.
I watched it happen in my own family. It's nothing you should make remarks like that about.

thank you for your support, Leonstein.

No, Corneliu obviously has no experience with being a long-term unemployed person...especially one who is skilled, but still long-term unemployed. you begin to feel worthless, useless, and it is a vicious cycle.

God forgive me, but I hope every asshole who voted for Bush gets to experience, at some point...what I'm going thru now...and has some smart-ass come up with snarky little comments like he made.

Quote:
Kerry only got a B.A. A Bachelors of Arts degree is an undergraduate degree (the one I'm currently aiming for). Bush went for his masters.


Yep. Whooop, whooop!! So, basically, Bush is Marie Antoinette with an MBA. anyone feel like some cake?

I was unemployed from when I was 18 till I was 21. I didn't get another job till I arrived at the University. I know what its like not to have a job :rolleyes:

Awww, well my heart pumps purple piss for you! Have you any idea what it's like, to lose everything you have, at the age of 34, and have to come crawling home to Mommy? Do you know what it is like to lose your independence, your pride...your entire life??

When you've walked a mile in MY shoes, buddy, come back and talk to me. till then, you can go take a hike, pal. You made the snarky comments, and only made me feel even worse. so I hope you feel REEEEAL good about yourself, and you sleep REAAAL good tonight, knowing you kicked someone who was already down, and dishearted and dispirited even further, an already-broken human being. hope ya feel good about yourself!!

Then again, if you are a Republican...kicking people who are down is what you do best, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bushisms


As a matter of fact it has been proven. The 9-11 comission has already established this for some time now, in the EXACT same wording as I stated.
I find it hard to believe that someone as well informed as you always apear to be has just been caught off guard with this fact.

Actually, it seems to me that facts don't interrupt the nature of this entity's posts. Too inconvenient, so instead there's some kind of slathering of right-wing 2nd grade playground mentality to fill in the blanks.

Thanks for the Bushisms link post! Cheers! *bows*

Actually, it seems to me that facts don't interrupt the nature of this entity's posts. Too inconvenient, so instead there's some kind of slathering of right-wing 2nd grade playground mentality to fill in the blanks.You said it. http://forum.chupa-mos.com/images/smilie/handshake.gif

Thanks for the Bushisms link post! Cheers! *bows* :D They come to you live ... directly from the "sad, but true" category.

When you've walked a mile in MY shoes, buddy, come back and talk to me. till then, you can go take a hike, pal. You made the snarky comments, and only made me feel even worse. so I hope you feel REEEEAL good about yourself, and you sleep REAAAL good tonight, knowing you kicked someone who was already down, and dishearted and dispirited even further, an already-broken human being. hope ya feel good about yourself!!


And imagine being unemployed for three years running with no Mommy or Daddy to come home to? Those're my shoes, Lyric. Don't be too quick to count yourself out of the race just yet. I'm managing, and you've got a support network. Pride or not.

And imagine being unemployed for three years running with no Mommy or Daddy to come home to? Those're my shoes, Lyric. Don't be too quick to count yourself out of the race just yet. I'm managing, and you've got a support network. Pride or not.

but have you a spouse, at least, to lean on? some form of support or alternate income? I had none. i'm single, lived alone.

You, Dobbs, I have sympathy for. You are possibly riding as hard, and maybe even harder, than I am. But damn it, the loss of my pride hurts like a motherfucker. And to have someone rub it in my face like that guy did...man, you have no IDEA how hard I had to bite back on my desire to flame the hell out of him.

Awww, well my heart pumps purple piss for you! Have you any idea what it's like, to lose everything you have, at the age of 34, and have to come crawling home to Mommy? Do you know what it is like to lose your independence, your pride...your entire life??

All I have to do is go through my family history. I'm not going to bore you with the details but suffice to say that my family (mom's side) was on welfare for a while before they pulled themselves together and then got off of it. Its called hard work.

You aren't getting sympathy from me because the tools are there for you to get retrained and what have you and you turned them down. Good luck.

When you've walked a mile in MY shoes, buddy, come back and talk to me. till then, you can go take a hike, pal. You made the snarky comments, and only made me feel even worse.

Hopefully, it'll get you off your butt and actually do something. Go get retrained. That'll help you find a decent job. Maybe even one that pays better while your at it.

so I hope you feel REEEEAL good about yourself, and you sleep REAAAL good tonight, knowing you kicked someone who was already down, and dishearted and dispirited even further, an already-broken human being. hope ya feel good about yourself!!

At least I'm actually trying to make a life for myself. So far, all I'm hearing is that your blaming Bush for this when Bush has no control over your life. Only YOU have control over your life. No one else. Go on, find a girl. Get married dude. You need it. Move out of your parents home while your at.

Then again, if you are a Republican...kicking people who are down is what you do best, anyway.

Now this was uncalled for. Not to mention an inaccurate statement. Then again if your a democrat, then I guess you are a racist and anti-religion. Its what your best at isn't it?

(...) if your a democrat, then I guess you are a racist and anti-religion. Its what your best at isn't it?lol? A good part of the democratic party's strength comes from ethnic minorities. wtf are you talking about...

And there is a diference between being anti religion and being for religious freedom.

lol? A good part of the democratic party's strength comes from ethnic minorities. wtf are you talking about...

Mostly blacks and have you ever heard the NAACP talk? *shudders* Thank God there are more sensible blacks out there that have rejected the NAACP.

And there is a diference between being anti religion and being for religious freedom.

Then I demand to have the right to pray openly in schools, out loud if I so choose. Guess what? I don't! You know why? President Kennedy a Democrat. Give me a break.

Mostly blacks and have you ever heard the NAACP talk? *shudders* Thank God there are more sensible blacks out there that have rejected the NAACP.Never heard of the NAACP... but I do know that the NAACP is not all that "sensible blacks out there" have rejected.

Then I demand to have the right to pray openly in schools, out loud if I so choose. Guess what? I don't! You know why? President Kennedy a Democrat. Give me a break.I'm not exactly sure what you are implying becuase I'm unaware of any laws in the USA that forbid religious practise of any kind. I'm sure that If a student wishes to pray out loud in a school, that he is perfectly free to do so. If he does it in a classroom he is simply disturbing the class. As for the public school classes themselves, in order to preserve the freedom of religion, they should have no slant or biase whatsoever towards any religion.

Never heard of the NAACP... but I do know that the NAACP is not all that "sensible blacks out there" have rejected.

Did I say all? Nope didn't say all.

I'm not exactly sure what you are implying becuase I'm unaware of any laws in the USA that forbid religious practise of any kind. I'm sure that If a student wishes to pray out loud in a school, that he is perfectly free to do so.

Only among other Christians and away from the student population. We can not pray at Graduations, we cannot pray anywhere else because it violates seperation of Church and state whereas the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing NOR PROHIBITING the worship thereof. Its that NOR PROHIBITING that has been violated and its time that it ends. So no, we are not free to worship freely in schools. I blame JFK for that.

If he does it in a classroom he is simply disturbing the class. As for the public school classes themselves, in order to preserve the freedom of religion, they should have no slant or biase whatsoever towards any religion.

Wanna bet? We can't display crosses or the nativity in classrooms but yet we are allowed to show the menorah and the crescent of Islam. Please! Christians are getting the shaft. I see it every damn year. Freedom of Religion? Not from where I'm sitting. And its all thanks to Kennedy and to the damn ACLU! So much for protecting our Civil Liberties.

Did I say all? Nope didn't say all.I was refering to how they are the first to step up and defend civil rights when most caucasion, bible belt americans couldn't care less.

no, we are not free to worship freely in schools. I blame JFK for that.Once again... A student can pray in a school so long as he's not interupting a class, debate, discussion or event of somekind. It's not strictly forbidden as you say... a student can do it freely on his own, or together in a group.

School isn't a place of worship anyhow.

Wanna bet? We can't display crosses or the nativity in classrooms but yet we are allowed to show the menorah and the crescent of Islam. Please! Christians are getting the shaft. I see it every damn year. Freedom of Religion? Not from where I'm sitting. And its all thanks to Kennedy and to the damn ACLU! So much for protecting our Civil Liberties.You're telling me that there is a law that "verbatim" forbids crosses and allows crescents and monorahs? There is no such law.

I was refering to how they are the first to step up and defend civil rights when most caucasion, bible belt americans couldn't care less.

Oh we care but I guess you haven't heard the NAACP President flap his mouth?

Once again... A student can pray in a school so long as he's not interupting a class, debate, discussion or event of somekind. It's not strictly forbidden as you say... a student can do it freely on his own, or together in a group.

But only with his peers. He can't ask that a prayer be said before tests or a sporting event or anything else.

School isn't a place of worship anyhow.

Your opinion. I think it is one of the places that need it because of the stresses of school it places on students.

You're telling me that there is a law that "verbatim" forbids crosses and allows crescents and monorahs? There is no such law.

I suggest you investigate further before opening up on this issue. I see it every year and I hear about it taking place all over the country. It is well documented that Crosses and nativities are frowned upon but not menorahs and the Islamic Crescent. We have finally had enough and have taken our problems to the voting bloc. We are fed up with getting the short end of the stick and it ends now. And yes, there is a law! Its called the Judiciary Branch of Government that ruled that we can't display these things in Classrooms and the ACLU for threatening lawsuits if we don't comply with it.

Freedom of Religion my foot. We no longer have it thanks to Liberals, the Judiciary, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU have attacked our Civil Liberties for years. Now they are beginning to lose members because of it.

Corneliu thats the problem with all you conservatives, you only think of youselves. You want prayer in school? fine what about the church starts forking out their share in taxes, I'm tired of church assholes getting off easy, they make money and run like a corporation, and you know that whole "faith based initiatives" Dubya set up to provide billions of dollars in grants? None of those go to a faith other than christianity. And here you are pretending like you're a victim or something? Islam and Judaism get the same treatment, the only reason you hear about christians more is because they make up the MAJORITY of the bloody US population ... in short, shutup

Oh we care but I guess you haven't heard the NAACP President flap his mouth?Like i've said, I'm not american and I've never heard of the NAACP before.

But only with his peers. He can't ask that a prayer be said before tests or a sporting event or anything else.Don't see nothing wrong with that. He can pray quietly and on his/her. In a school I don't feel that others should have to hear it.

I suggest you investigate further before opening up on this issue. I see it every year and I hear about it taking place all over the country. It is well documented that Crosses and nativities are frowned upon but not menorahs and the Islamic Crescent. We have finally had enough and have taken our problems to the voting bloc. We are fed up with getting the short end of the stick and it ends now. And yes, there is a law! Its called the Judiciary Branch of Government that ruled that we can't display these things in Classrooms and the ACLU for threatening lawsuits if we don't comply with it.

Freedom of Religion my foot. We no longer have it thanks to Liberals, the Judiciary, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU have attacked our Civil Liberties for years. Now they are beginning to lose members because of it.Once again... There is no law that forbids verbatim crosses and allows menorahs. The problem might be in the fact that people misinterpret the law. I'm guessing the law forbids the exposition of religious symbols in schools. I'm also guessing that perhaps Christians will consider a cross or nativity scene as being a religious symbol... therefore it cannot be shown... while on the other they feel that the Crescent or the menorah have no religious meaning or value to them presonally... therefore it can be shown.

I'm quite sure that the problem is in how the people interpret the law and not the law itself.

Corneliu thats the problem with all you conservatives, you only think of youselves.

We do? We want people to succeed so that they don't have to live off of Government Handouts. Can't say the samething for the Democrats. I help people whenever I can so how am I thinking of myself? The Republicans give more to charities than Democrats so how are we thinking of only of ourselve?

You want prayer in school? fine what about the church starts forking out their share in taxes, I'm tired of church assholes getting off easy, they make money and run like a corporation, and you know that whole "faith based initiatives" Dubya set up to provide billions of dollars in grants?

Constitutional principles come into play here. Since when can Government restrict religion? Under the 1st Amendment, they can't restrict religion. By prohibiting us from worshiping in certain places, that is precisely what they have done. When they prohibit us from displaying christian symbols, that is precisely what they have done. When we can't even display these symbols on our holidays, again that is precisely what they have done. Should Churches, MOSQUES, and Temples pay taxes? No! Why? Because it'll be considered a Religious tax. Do you want to know the outrage that'll create?

None of those go to a faith other than christianity. And here you are pretending like you're a victim or something? Islam and Judaism get the same treatment, the only reason you hear about christians more is because they make up the MAJORITY of the bloody US population ... in short, shutup

Why don't you go about and show me one instence where a menorah or a crescent can't be displayed. I can name several instences where Christian symbols can't be displayed so show me one. Take your own advice and shut up.

Once again... There is no law that forbids verbatim crosses and allows menorahs. The problem might be in the fact that people misinterpret the law.

BINGO!!!! You finally got it. *applauds* They are misinterpretting the law. We all know that they are and have pointed out precisely what the Constitution has stated on the issue. However, no one listens. Crosses are being forced down by court order (violation in and of it self) but yet menorahs and crescents remain. I'm sorry but that is what is happening in this country. The Christians though, are fighting back.

I'm guessing the law forbids the exposition of religious symbols in schools.

Only christian symbols since Jewish and Islamic symbols are still allowed. Also, we can read the Koran in schools but not the bible. That in and of itself is another violation of the US Constitution. If you allow one religion, you have to allow the others. That ain't happenin'.

I'm also guessing that perhaps Christians will consider a cross or nativity scene as being a religious symbol... therefore it cannot be shown... while on the other they feel that the Crescent or the menorah have no religious meaning or value to them presonally... therefore it can be shown.

But they are religious symbols to those faiths just like the cross and the nativity are religious symbols for Christains. However, theirs can be displayed and ours can't. Religious discrimination is something I don't tolerate.

First off I would like to start this post off by saying that I am against all and any kind of labeling of Conservatives do this... and Democrats do that. That's BS and simply isn't true. There is a loose set of beliefs that divides the two but it is not a rigid two sided coin.

We do? We want people to succeed so that they don't have to live off of Government Handouts. Well... I hope you know that right now there are more people unemployed in the US and living off unemployment (handouts) then there ever were in Clinton's time as president. Wether the conservatives like to have people living off of handouts or not... they have more americans doing it than the democrats.

We do? We want people to succeed so that they don't have to live off of Government Handouts. Can't say the samething for the Democrats. I help people whenever I can so how am I thinking of myself? The Republicans give more to charities than Democrats so how are we thinking of only of ourselve?

Whoa hold on there, who ever said anything about the Democrats? And no the charities figure is total bs, there is no humanly possible way to determine numbers like that (trust me on this one, i'm an economist)

Constitutional principles come into play here. Since when can Government restrict religion? Under the 1st Amendment, they can't restrict religion. By prohibiting us from worshiping in certain places, that is precisely what they have done. When they prohibit us from displaying christian symbols, that is precisely what they have done. When we can't even display these symbols on our holidays, again that is precisely what they have done. Should Churches, MOSQUES, and Temples pay taxes? No! Why? Because it'll be considered a Religious tax. Do you want to know the outrage that'll create?

I take it you've experienced this first hand? Or did you feed off the bullsh*te the right wing media spoonfeeds the idiot masses? Christians are the ones persecuting people (e.g. gays), what you're crying over is an isolated incident that way prolly hyped up by the media. Public property is public property, everyone pays for it, not just christians ...

Why don't you go about and show me one instence where a menorah or a crescent can't be displayed. I can name several instences where Christian symbols can't be displayed so show me one. Take your own advice and shut up.

Armm becuase christians outnumber everyone else like 20 to 1? As the law of chances goes ...

All I have to do is go through my family history. I'm not going to bore you with the details but suffice to say that my family (mom's side) was on welfare for a while before they pulled themselves together and then got off of it. Its called hard work.

You aren't getting sympathy from me because the tools are there for you to get retrained and what have you and you turned them down. Good luck.



Hopefully, it'll get you off your butt and actually do something. Go get retrained. That'll help you find a decent job. Maybe even one that pays better while your at it.




At least I'm actually trying to make a life for myself. So far, all I'm hearing is that your blaming Bush for this when Bush has no control over your life. Only YOU have control over your life. No one else. Go on, find a girl. Get married dude. You need it. Move out of your parents home while your at.



Now this was uncalled for. Not to mention an inaccurate statement. Then again if your a democrat, then I guess you are a racist and anti-religion. Its what your best at isn't it?

OK, that does it. You are on ignore now.

BINGO!!!! You finally got it. *applauds* They are misinterpretting the law. OK We agree. But if a law is being misinterpretated I can't see how you can blame JFK for it. Blame the people who create the bias.

Did I say all? Nope didn't say all.



Only among other Christians and away from the student population. We can not pray at Graduations, we cannot pray anywhere else because it violates seperation of Church and state whereas the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law establishing NOR PROHIBITING the worship thereof. Its that NOR PROHIBITING that has been violated and its time that it ends. So no, we are not free to worship freely in schools. I blame JFK for that.



Wanna bet? We can't display crosses or the nativity in classrooms but yet we are allowed to show the menorah and the crescent of Islam. Please! Christians are getting the shaft. I see it every damn year. Freedom of Religion? Not from where I'm sitting. And its all thanks to Kennedy and to the damn ACLU! So much for protecting our Civil Liberties.


Amazing you "Christians" can be so INTOLERANT of other people, being as you seem to know what "intolerance" feels like!

Whoa hold on there, who ever said anything about the Democrats? And no the charities figure is total bs, there is no humanly possible way to determine numbers like that (trust me on this one, i'm an economist)

Ohhh an economist. Prove that the Charity numbers are BS then. I dare you.

I take it you've experienced this first hand? Or did you feed off the bullsh*te the right wing media spoonfeeds the idiot masses?

Actually yes. I was nearly reported for saying a prayer in the school lunch room. SO yes I have experienced it first hand.

Christians are the ones persecuting people (e.g. gays), what you're crying over is an isolated incident that way prolly hyped up by the media. Public property is public property, everyone pays for it, not just christians ...

And I guess you don't realize that we don't care what the gays do in their private homes. What we object to is them getting married. Most of us are not opposed to them having Civil Unions (I don't mind if its a civil Union) but we are opposed to Gay Marriage.

Corneliu thats the problem with all you conservatives, you only think of youselves. You want prayer in school? fine what about the church starts forking out their share in taxes, I'm tired of church assholes getting off easy, they make money and run like a corporation, and you know that whole "faith based initiatives" Dubya set up to provide billions of dollars in grants? None of those go to a faith other than christianity. And here you are pretending like you're a victim or something? Islam and Judaism get the same treatment, the only reason you hear about christians more is because they make up the MAJORITY of the bloody US population ... in short, shutup

Damn, Friestaat!! It's good to hear a liberal finally speak up and say what's REALLY on our minds!! Can I add you to my buddy list? I like you, man!! You freaking rock!

OK, that does it. You are on ignore now.

For telling the truth?

Amazing you "Christians" can be so INTOLERANT of other people, being as you seem to know what "intolerance" feels like!

I thought I was on your ignore list?

OK We agree. But if a law is being misinterpretated I can't see how you can blame JFK for it. Blame the people who create the bias.

Because it was JFK that took prayer out of school. However, I find it interesting that Muslims can still pray in school.

Man I hate conservatives. Why am I not surprised another one ended up on my list?

I don't think anyone other than conservatives have ever ended up on my list.

For telling the truth?



I thought I was on your ignore list?

You are now. I hadbn't gotten around to putting you on yet.

You are on my list for being heartless, insensitive, cruel, mean, and unfeeling. In short...for being a conservative.

Ohhh an economist. Prove that the Charity numbers are BS then. I dare you.

These numbers aren't collected by any legitimate economically sound statistics organisation, primarily becuase this money is private and is not taxable. Your turn to prove your "info" ...

See another problem with conservatives, you just throw money at people, we want to help people help themselves ...

Actually yes. I was nearly reported for saying a prayer in the school lunch room. SO yes I have experienced it first hand.

NEARLY?! oh my god! That close eh? I bet millions of jesus loving christians get NEARLY reported everyday, but not really, yeh? Besides if somebody gives you crap about your religion then you can just kick their ass, and if its a government body you can take 'em to court based on the first amendment, why isnt that happening all over the USA you ask? Becuase this whole concept has been overblown by poeple like Fox News, its just a ratings graber to suck in self-pitying conservatives.

And I guess you don't realize that we don't care what the gays do in their private homes. What we object to is them getting married. Most of us are not opposed to them having Civil Unions (I don't mind if its a civil Union) but we are opposed to Gay Marriage.

I dont know, you guys go from "I want to kill gays" to "its ok for them to have a civil union" ... I dont see why YOUR system of beliefs should get a say in other peoples lives, especially since the concept of marriage was around thousands of years before the bible (personally I dont think the government should oversee marriage at all)

Damn, Friestaat!! It's good to hear a liberal finally speak up and say what's REALLY on our minds!! Can I add you to my buddy list? I like you, man!! You freaking rock!

Sure man (woman?) :D Not sure how much of a "liberal" I am ... but I certainly do not hold conservatives in high reguard ...

These numbers aren't collected by any legitimate economically sound statistics organisation, primarily becuase this money is private and is not taxable. Your turn to prove your "info" ...

Actually your the one that said it was bs and I called you on that. Therefor, the burden of proof is still on you to prove that it is BS and so far, you haven't yet. I can wait for a very long time.

See another problem with conservatives, you just throw money at people, we want to help people help themselves ...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Now this is total BS! Excuse me while I die laughing.

NEARLY?! oh my god! That close eh? I bet millions of jesus loving christians get NEARLY reported everyday, but not really, yeh? Besides if somebody gives you crap about your religion then you can just kick their ass, and if its a government body you can take 'em to court based on the first amendment, why isnt that happening all over the USA you ask?

It has happened dude. Very nice to know that you don't follow the news.

Becuase this whole concept has been overblown by poeple like Fox News, its just a ratings graber to suck in self-pitying conservatives.

Interesting to know that I actually get most of my news for our local paper and not Fox News.

I dont know, you guys go from "I want to kill gays"

This christian has never said anything about killing gays.

to "its ok for them to have a civil union" ... I dont see why YOUR system of beliefs should get a say in other peoples lives, especially since the concept of marriage was around thousands of years before the bible (personally I dont think the government should oversee marriage at all)

Even the Muslims are against gay marriage so its not just a christian thing. Nice to know you don't know that either.

Actually your the one that said it was bs and I called you on that. Therefor, the burden of proof is still on you to prove that it is BS and so far, you haven't yet. I can wait for a very long time.

Well I cant exactly deny figures that dont exists now can I? CHoo choo ... hear that? thats the clue trains, last stop, you ...



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Now this is total BS! Excuse me while I die laughing.

You're excused, now uphold your end of the bargain lol ...



It has happened dude. Very nice to know that you don't follow the news.

Yeah because those nice, repsectable people on TV arent just out there for the ratings right? :rolleyes:



Interesting to know that I actually get most of my news for our local paper and not Fox News.

not really ... could be the same conservative rabble, in fact, most likely



This christian has never said anything about killing gays.

godhatesfags.com
godhatessweden.com

here we have christians rejoicing in peoples deaths? would you like more?

And remember all those "matt in hell" protestors?



Even the Muslims are against gay marriage so its not just a christian thing. Nice to know you don't know that either.

Actually I did, I am quite learned and all, thats why I hold them in no higher reguard as any other religion ...

Your poll is flawed as there are many people from other countries(that is if you were planning for the American vote).

Don't like him.

i only credit him for Afghanistan and the do-not- call list.

Can spam act! Bastard!

I also don't like his efforts to undermine the establishment clause and to hamstring science.

Whats the do not call list

Whats the do not call list

Prevents telemarketers from calling you. You have to sign up on the list and if they call you, its a violation of the law.

Sure man (woman?) :D Not sure how much of a "liberal" I am ... but I certainly do not hold conservatives in high reguard ...

Woman, actually. And any enemy of conservatives is a friend of mine! I personally hold conservatives beneath contempt, I hold them lower than a rattlesnake's belly in a wheel rut. And that's pretty damned low....

Whats the do not call list

It's the list you want to be one to stop those pestilential telemarketers from calling you - especically during your dinner hour!

Once you are on the list, any telemarketer calling you can be subject to fines, all you gotta do is report them to your A.G.'s office.

Of course, the "do not call" list does NOT apply to non-profit and charity organizations, they have a dispensation against the restrictions...as do political campaigns...and any company with whom you have done business in the past.

Nevertheless, being on the list really DOES cut down on the number of those annoying calls you get!

wish they'd do something about SPAM EMAIL!!!!

It's the list you want to be one to stop those pestilential telemarketers from calling you - especically during your dinner hour!

Once you are on the list, any telemarketer calling you can be subject to fines, all you gotta do is report them to your A.G.'s office.

Of course, the "do not call" list does NOT apply to non-profit and charity organizations, they have a dispensation against the restrictions...as do political campaigns...and any company with whom you have done business in the past.

Nevertheless, being on the list really DOES cut down on the number of those annoying calls you get!

wish they'd do something about SPAM EMAIL!!!!
Corneliu already explained it...Maybe you should take him off your ignore list as it is a sign of weakness and intolerance. As much as I don't agree with Corneilu, nothing he says is worthy of ignore.