AstroProdigy

Oh boohoo im rich and i have to pay higher taxes for the money that i earned with hard manual labor... i mean stock investing and bossing people around. The rich like to whine about being slightly less rich while ignoring the plight of the poor. The rich can go without some of their oodles of money if it means making the country liveable for everyone.

Getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy is only part of the solution. There are also other issues such as oversubsidizing. Some industries don't need subsidies, such as the oil industry. Subsidies to megafarms only destroy the smaller farmers and give the developing world no chance to compete. That being said, the tax cuts are a huge deal to social programs and reducing the deficit. It's estimated the tax cuts in 2001 will cost $1.35 trillion and the tax cuts in 2003 will cost $1 trillion. (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/585/585_04_SuperRich.shtml) Most of this money saved goes to the top 2 percent of the population.

Unrelated analogies are hardly proof. Do you suggest taking over all forms of media in Iraq and Afghanistan and controlling everything the people read or hear? Sounds like what the Nazi Party did.

You just proved your own point on evangelicals in one point and then discredited it without any proof. Old age occupation methods are not a guide for our current occupation. Most occupations back then involve silencing the media of the occupied area in order to spam your own propaganda at them.

We invaded Iraq effectively, but we occupied it incompetently. The problems were greatly escalated after the creation of the state of Israel. Agreed; both need to do more.

You're right, at first this act of fighting only caused them to lose more territory, but now it's wearing down the resolve of the Israelis so they look for peace. They'd have no reason to kill every Israeli if there wasn't a state of Israel right there. The act of a few extremists who blow themselves up doesn't mean the whole group should be punished. On this notion, the whole of Iraq hates us and should be forced off their land because of the act of terrorists. Some support terrorists and some don't. There are no absolutes here. I don't know if terrorism in Israel will completely stop for a long time. It can be reduced to lower and lower levels with agreements, however. Let's hope it quiets down and then maybe other countries of the muslim world will moderate their stances on the west Jesus taught that you are supposed to love your enemy and show good will to him (or her). The far right Christians of the Republican Party are completely off from the message of Jesus then. I'd say if Jesus is the son of God then it's better to not believe in Jesus than to act completely opposite to his beliefs and then claim to be his messenger for your own benefit.

If that's true then most proposed "good Christians" on the conservative right are hypocrits. A husband who abuses his wife has problems and the wife should leave him. That being said, the husband isn't absolute evil. How do you know a murderer doesn't just regret having to spend that time in jail? Usually the criminal fakes an injury and goes to the hospital? Where do you get this from? Who's playing the victim? Is the plight of the Palestinians "playing the victim"? Again you ignore what the situation is. Israel stole the land from Palestine. Citing ancient history is no excuse. The problem now is it's already been done and can't be undone. Bush has supported whatever Israel decided. Israel decided to cede land on the Gaza strip, not Bush. If Israel opposed this then so would Bush.

Speeches aren't all you need to pay attention to. You need to actually see Bush's actions. Saying "let's explore hydrogen powered vehicles" and then doing the opposite isn't a good sign. In fact, over the years the Bush administration has taken a backwards step to fuel efficiency. Tell me where Bush said this was going to be a long drawn out war (before the war). WMD's and Alquieta connections are the only thing people in the United States really cared about so that's what he based the bulk of his argument on and that's what he hoped the media would pick up so he could gain his support for the war. Marx said this is the reason for ALL WARS. What the Democrats are saying is this is the reason for THIS WAR. Right-winger hawks like to think war is the answer to everything. Yes other Muslim countries attacked Israel because they saw them as a threat to the whole area and because Jerusalem is one of their holiest sites and they didn't want to see it under the control of a different group. Israel conceded some land??? There was a vast Palestinian majority in that area. They don't need to be satisfied. In their view this land was recently stolen by Israelis. You don't get back your land if there are people are still there. Therefore you'd have to destroy the country already there. I don't care what side other countries are on; that doesn't make one way right over another. Might doesn't always make right. Iran won't get significant sanctions put on them because countries like Russia and China are unwilling to give up a large source of oil. i'm not excusing Hamas's policies or actions, but let's say they won then Palestine WOULD gain something...they'd regain the land they used to have before this problem started. You're taking completely unrelated arguments and sticking them together because they support your opinion even though they don't have a connection. Bush takes an extreme standpoint on Israel, which means he isn't a moderate. He doesn't even seem to try to get an acceptable agreement between the two sides, just support the more profitable one. There are ideological differences between Israel and Palestine, but it would never have been a problem like this if it weren't for the limited land that they were fighting for. Thinking in absolutes sounds like the ideology of religious zealots.

Bush is a moderate...if you take moderate to be the far right. If you've read a newspaper or seen a news program other than FOX then you'll see all the human rights violations Bush tried to cover up, but now they're out to the public. Human rights violations doesn't always mean obvious m!@#$%^&* murders. This war between Israel and Palestine has been going on for 60 years because after World War 2 huge influxes of jews started to pour into the land and then began claiming it was their land. The exodus of the Jews took place almost 2000 years ago. This is plenty of time for another group to come into the land and create their own culture and national iden!@#$%^&*y. "Britain gave Israel back to the Jews and Palistine back to Palistinians" No...Britain abandoned the land because of all of the unrest and basically told them to solve the problem themselves. We all know Hamas is an extremist organization, but they would have no support for this call to "genocide" if there weren't another group of people occupying the land they have occupied for centuries. Your argument voids the legitimacy of every country that has ever been taken over...in other words the whole world. The problem with the world of Islam and Judaism is deeper than a territorial dispute. The problem between Israel and Palestine is they're both occupying the land they both claim is rightfully theirs and only theirs. I'm not sure you know anything about the history of this area if you continue to make up history. People believed the war wouldn't last long because Bush told them the war wouldn't last long. The sad thing is, I think he actually believed the occupation would be a peace of cake and wouldn't become the larger war in Iraq. Like Polix said, when people are betrayed and lied to by their own government so the administration can achieve their own ends, they tend to lose support for the administration.

I'm going to let Monte respond to this it's too easy.

Ok....first I assume you mean Palestine not Pakistan...Your analogies are HORRIBLE. Just because Great Britain conquered the area does not give it any claim to the land!!! What land do Palestinians have? It is their homeland that Israel occupies right now; that little sliver of landlocked country isn't plenty of land. What the !@#$%^&* are you talking about if the Jews occupied a different area the Palestinians would still attack them? They attack them because they are occupying land Palestinians have been living on for hundreds if not thousands of years. Don't suggest that they disperse to other Islamic countries that shows a complete lack of knowledge of what the Muslim world is. The Muslim world is not 1 country! They are about as united as the Christian world was a century ago. Are you crazy? If we started m!@#$%^&* murdering civilians we would get a huge uprising from the whole Muslim world and no support from anyone to us. You act like diplomacy is a joke, but it's war hawks like you that cause all these deaths because you continue to support an outdated philosophy that you can solve your problems with guns. The Geneva Convention was created to prevent human rights violations and I would think the United States as a leader of free nations would be the strongest ADVOCATE of the Geneva Convention, not one of the biggest antagonists to it. I think people in the United States are finally starting to see who they elected (bairly i might add) as the leader of our country for who he really is. No one is trying to explain the actions of Bin Laden. Bin Laden is an evil extremist. People just want to explain why he even gets any support. Bin Laden would have little to send suicide bombers against if he didn't have the bumbling actions of Bush to explain it. By the way Bush is also an evil extremist! By the way, as of now Bin Laden is winning! More Muslims hate us now than ever during Clinton's years. We fell right into his trap because our president has the intelligence of a fruit fly. You say the Democrats daring to question the president is helping Bin Laden, but it's Bush's action that help Bin Laden's movement soar and turn Bin Laden into the saint and the United States into the demon in the eyes of Muslims.

By your logic we could take all of the people of England and move them to France if some group wants that land because they're all Christians anyway so they can prosper in France. Nationalism doesn't just fall on religious lines. It is not a giant country called Islam; it is many smaller countries that practice Islam.

You talk like the Democrats are the majority of the federal government. It is the Republican Party that has been making all of the decisions up till recently. Bin Laden doesn't get his support simply because of Israel; you are oversimplifying the situation. The War in Iraq is a big part of the current recruitment into Alqueda. People in the Middle East don't think Bush is a zionist crusader because Democrats supposedly have said this (although I want to see you actually prove this), they think he's a zionist crusader because of his overwhelming support for Israel over Palestine and the fact that the policy changed from looking for an agreement agreeable to both groups in the Clinton administration to supporting whatever Israel does in the bush administration. "I suggested that the Democrats volunteer to accept the responsability that comes with their position of power and wield their freedom of speech accordingly." I suggest that the Republicans volunteer to not sell out to big business and use their position of power to help the people and not try to stifle their freedom of speech in the name of an indefinite war on terror accordingly.

Ok now that's just ridiculous. I've never heard a Democrat call Bush a Zionist Crusader; you're just looking for an excuse to say dissent against anything Bush ever does supports terrorists. By the way 24% of Jews in America voted for Bush in 2004!!! They don't support him; if anything the Democrats can be called Zionists by he Republicans, but i have not heard this either. Why would Jews support the Jesus Party again??? Bush's outlook on Iraq is the most ignorant one. He doesn't even bother to confer outside his "circle of friends" about anything! Bush sure knows better than anyone about Iraq because he sure knew there were weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and connections to Alquieda in Iraq eh Aileron? Bush believes what he wants to believe regardless of whether its true or not. Good leaders don't use a horrible attack that killed thousands of people as an excuse to trick the public into war for their own ends. Bush has never put politics aside! It's all about politics with the Republican Party; politics and the bottom line, money. Iraqi oil is where the money is. The oil business executies are making hundreds of millions of dollars in their own profits thanks to their best friend George W. Bush. He hasn't even bother to limit price gouging because his friends would get mad. Once again I've never heard a Democrat call Bush a Zionist crusader; i think you're imagining things. People will just up and abandon Bin Laden just because Democrats follow Bush??? I think it's funny that you say if Democrats become slaves to Bush then Bin Laden will lose his support. People don't support Bin Laden because Democrats don't blindly follow Bush, they support Bin Laden because Republicans do blindly follow Bush. Extremism only begets more extremism. Incase you haven't noticed NO ONE FOLLOWS BUSH ANYMORE!!!

What do you propose banning the celebration of Easter by people who haven't gone to church enough times in the year or converting the "heathens"?

I think this debate is thoroughly over not even the conservatives agree with Syrus.

Heres a simple explanation for why people wish you a happy easter; easter is the dominant holiday therefore people wish other people a happy easter even if they're not christian. To wish a black person happy kwanza would be to assume theyve even heard of kwanza; its not even a big holiday. You act like wishing you a happy easter is an insult. I can't sympthize with someone like you who gets offended at every little thing. HAPPY EASTER SYRUS!

Well this sounds like the ideology of Islamic jihadists, but without the let's kill people. We can't beat extremism if we continue to be dominated by those who would enforce religious ideologies on us.

It's always something to complain about with you people. When they weren't celebrate Christmas and were calling it X-mas and you made a big fuss about it; now they're celebrating the actual holiday and saying happy easter AND YOU MAKE A BIG FUSS ABOUT IT!!! MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!! You're allowed to disagree, but if I see protesters trying to get a law that you can't say happy easter if you aren't Christian I'm going to protest to make a law saying all supporters of this must shut the !@#$%^&* up and jump off a cliff.

Business owners aren't all a bunch of ignorants who know nothing about business. Successful business owners know that young people aren't just a bunch of irresponsible children and can use young people for their work and cost efficiency. You're supposed stereotypes are about as effective as racial stereotypes. They work for higher positions, but for lower positions they have no meaning. Business owners know young people have less opportunities because they are young and are less likely to be able to find a better job. Therefore, they are more reliable than older people with more experience who can go find a job elsewhere with all of their experience or simply retire.

Yet plenty of young people are employed in the United States aren't they Lear? Just because young people have their own disadvantages doesn't mean they're useless. Each age group has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Besides you exaggerate how irresponsible young people are. If they can go to college and be responsible for themselves there, then they can hold down a job. Car insurance companies operate under different principles than employers.

Spain is still a monarchy? Or is it a cons!@#$%^&*utional monarchy?

"Take the case of a security contracting company which provides non-firearm carrying security personelle to business and persons. A 5 foot tall lb woman who has no extrordinary martial arts skills shows up looking for a job. If the owner doesn't hire her, he takes a PR hit for discriminating in the workplace. If the owner does and has her protect a client, its worse though, because any attacker can overpower the guard and do what he wants to the client anyway, costing the company a reputation to its clients, who are the people they serve." An extremely oversimplified case comparison which is false in itself. The Security Contracting Company would not get sued for this. In any case, you make it seem like all of France's hope was put on the Belgian military. You oversimplify the problems countries have had with France. Germany's big problem with France was that France was forcing Germany to pay ridiculously high reparations. Italy had a problem with France because in World War I, the Allies betrayed Italy and did not give them what they promised for helping in World War I. Incase you didn't notice, England fought for France in World War II, so this old Napoleonic War analogy has no sound basis. Spain hates France for a ridiculous conflict of kings hundreds of years ago? That's ridiculous, neither country even has kings anymore. How can it be France's hobby to invade England? Normandy, only a small part of what we today call France invaded England a thousand years ago and since then there has been no successful invasions of England.

I think everyone has just been commenting on capitalism in general, not on the do!@#$%^&*entary.

where can i see the do!@#$%^&*entary?