LearJett+

Elaborate on the threatening and taking away of rights.

Sorry I haven't been here in a while. I'm sure you argue for troop withdrawal, too. How do you expect with our troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's plans to send m!@#$%^&* numbers of soldiers around the border with Mexico, the standard requirement to have enough soldiers to protect our country from invasion, and the requirement to send troops in case of another hurricane disaster to have enough troops to be sent to Iran?quote] Bush sent 9,000 national guard troops to the border which is 3% of the available national guard troops in the United States. There is no chance of use running short of troops. Sever, have you seen the sattelite pictures of nuclear research buildings and bases that were mysteriously leveled whenever Iran finally did let nuclear inspectors in years ago? It's obvious that something shady is going on... I'm interested to see it play out.

Typical liberal.

It is because they are the most susceptible, thus if there is a limited supply of vaccinations, it would go to them. Many people come in to contact with birds in the world -- not just the chicken-kissers. People are dying all over the globe. Not worried though. Just a bunch of hype.

It had nothing to do with race. Typical use of the race card, though...

It is discrimination if hiring someone is not based on competency, but something else. You say it's not bad but that is your bias created by social mores. Paying four out of five dollars collected by the Government isn't a characteristic of greed... Nothing -- other than small communes -- has existed as pure Communism. Communism looks good on paper, but is unfeasible in reality. Paying off student loans and establishing my own life with my money seems like a better deal than giving it to charity. Tax cuts aren't short-run solutions. When people are taxed less, they spend more, thus the government will collect more money in sales taxes in the future. No, the Social Security (or lack thereof) problem is independent of tax cuts. Had there not been tax cuts, we would be in the same predicament. Republicans are merely willing to acknowledge the problem years in the advance, whereas Dems won't do anything about it until it strikes. Seems to be a recurring theme with Democrats. No, that wasn't the cause for Republicans wanting to cut medicare and medicaid. Privatised medicine is seen as the better solution, thus spending is allocated to subsidizing and such. "Cutting social programs" sounds bad, and is how the Dems attack the Republicans, but facts about privatised medicine and the benefits of it are rarely given. The more social programs we have, the more people are dependent on the government. If we continue on this path, what is next? A dystopian society such as Oceania or The World State that is completely run by the state?

Explain why.

What does everyone think on this subject? My crazy left-wing english teacher hails stopping tax cuts for the wealthy as the solution to social equality. How bad are the tax cuts, and if it was as easy as taxing them to solve the great social rift, why doesn't anyone do it?

Blame Jimmy Carter. Polix, I think it unlikely that anyone we train will go against us. The majority of Iraq welcomes a Democracy... and the Taliban is in shambles in Afghanistan. In both cases, an outside party took country of the country (i.e. the Baath party and the Taliban) after we gave them weapons. We are staying and training -- as opposed to just giving out weapons -- to make sure that militaries like the one in Iraq will be able to repel an outside party that is attacking. But who knows... I forget why we're talking about evangelism?

There were problems long before the state of Israel ever existed. Jesus also taught that you should help out your fellow neighbor and defend people that can't defend themselves. 'Enemy' is an arbitrary term -- we defended Iraq from its minority aggressor, and we're staying there until the job is done. It's safe to say that neither Palestine nor Israel have done as much as they should to create peace in the Middle East.

In America, yes. In France, no. It is exponentially more trouble to fire someone in France than America.

Pupas

Astro, everyone always has something to complain about.

They should just rename Easter to National Jews Go to the Movies Day. On a serious note - ironically, my Jewish friends and Muslim friend get candy on Easter. I guess it's good old American gluttony. Or perhaps people just like to celebrate... why deprive anyone of that?

Yes, and I agree with your reasoning. That doesn't change the fact that French businesses aren't hiring young people simply because they're young. It only means that the French suck.

I KNOW THAT YOUNG PEOPLE CAN BE RESPONSIBLE. !@#$%^&*ING A. I WAS JUST GIVING YOU THE REASONING BEHIND THE LEGISLATION.

You only make my point stronger. They are employed here because it's easy to fire them here. I don't exaggerate how irresponsible young people are -- I'm one myself. You have to look at it from the viewpoint of a business owner... young people are stereotypically irresponsible wheres older people are not. Why hire a young person over an older person when it's so much trouble to fire them? Monte -- you're missing the point as well. I know that young people can be responsible, business owners do not.

They have oodles of socialist programs, same thing. Businesses don't like hiring young people because we're seen as irresponsible. Same principle as to why car insurance is cut in half when you turn 25. Just because it's not right doesn't mean it's not true.

Montezuma - Whether it be true or merely a social stereotype, people under 26 are looked at as much less responsible as those over the age of 26. As the law is currently there, it is less trouble to just not hire a young person than hire them and later fire them. Why go through this trouble as a business owner if there is an older pool of applicants, anyway? Aileron - college is free in France. There is a major difference between someone who is going to die soon and a 30 year old...

You guys have the wrong idea about the bill. Before the bill, people in France had a 'right' to a job -- aka not getting fired. It is ridiculous to think you have a right to a job in the first place. Anyways... employers would not hire people under the age of 26 because they didn't want to hire some irresponsible kid that they couldn't fire -- thus creating a non-existent job market for young people. Now that employers aren't afraid to hire young people, this bill will actually increase the dismal employment rate of young people in France, which is the whole idea of the bill in the first place. People see that it gives employers the right to fire people and automatically think that it's something bad and something to riot about. I'm surprised none of you brought this point up...

Burning crosses means many things. I thought that you were going with the Ku Klux Klan idea of burning it to let the power of it shine through. Ironic that you meant the opposite

Did you really expect everything to just be O.K. right after Saddam was ousted? Normally you make sound statements, Monte, but right now you're just shooting out opinions. Yes, there is civil disruption in present-day Iraq. This was predictable and expected. The question is what will happen after this disruption. You have just as much proof to say that a dictator will rise as I do that a democracy will rise.

Okay, so you sit back and let Saddam stay dictator of Iraq? Iraq will be unstable before it is stable. Make up your mind. Is the media always correct, anyway? Yes, it did. You asked what I researched.

Yes, in the official 9/11 report it talks about what "local tribes" say. No one will get in a war with Iraq because they would be attacking the US. Iraq will be torn apart by conflict for a while. The point is: with Saddam it was impossible for resolution. Without him, there is the possibility for a stable Iraq. No one thought that as soon as Saddam was gone Iraq would be happy and totally peaceful. I didn't put it there to ridicule you in any way. I put it there because there is no do!@#$%^&*ent out there that lists the importance of the reasons for Iraq. I've read biographies about Saddam, I've make presentations on Middle Eastern countries, I try to keep up with current events.

Countries give money to other countries ALL THE TIME. We gave money to Palestine. Palestine did terrorist attacks against Israel. This does not mean we were funding terrorists. Your MSNBC link is hearsay from "local tribes". We all know where hearsay gets you. How has it destabilized the region and yes. That is yours and Monte's opinion. Just like your opinion about opium. Yes, I believe that Saddam was a threat. No it is not because of the media. I research and read.