NBVegita

Iphone ftw.

It's not really a simplification. Yes this recession is something that will need to be dealt with, but Obama has nothing to do with congress voting down the resolutions. Also if these resolutions are so critically bad, they would thus take a top priority. It is highly unlikely that any real negative resolution will pass. They may make $5 more than the other companies (not including retirement) but take a look at the big 3's retirement options vs the foreign automakers. Retirement is just as important to most Americans as are good benefits and good pay. I myself put between 15-20k a year of my own money away into retirement options simply because my company no longer offers a pension. Most companies no longer offer pensions. So you must really take into consideration the concept of retirement into the compensation because if I had the average pension (Highest wage x (~3% x number of years worked with the company)) If I retired at 55 I'd be making 99% of my highest wage annually. This would be in addition to my other retirement sources. As of now I had better put a lot of money away because all I'm going to be retiring on is my retirement funds I personally manage and a very slight possibility of ss. This is compounded further by the fact that all auto workers are overpaid and this further stretches the pension. I'm more comparing the big 3 to the average American not other car manufacturers. By doing that if I made $55 and hour, like their average employee, by the time I'm done putting my 20k away for retirement I'm now only making ~$45.40 an hour. Now if we take away what the auto industry puts in for each employee, $15/hr now I'm down to $40/hr with $15 of that benefits, so my take home is $25/hour(before taxes eat me alive). Again this is only part of the problem.

It's not as hard as you're trying to make it sound, with a democratic congress that these resolutions can be shot down. One way is that congress has 60 (legislative) days from the date of the resolution to vote it down. The only way that could be over turned is if the president veto's it. Bush will not be in office for 60 (legislative) days after the introduction of these resolutions so if congress simply waits until bush has left office until they vote against them...POOF. All courtesy of mr. Clinton. Also the process would not take his entire first term o king of exaggerations. With the Democrats having virtually universal control of the branches resolutions can be passed quite easily to reverse any regulations that came into effect prior to November first, which you could count on one hand. Also Ail did make the statement of "Double" which is wrong but when you take a job your total compensation is taken into effect not simply your salary. The total compensation including retirement and benefits is ridiculously high. Besides the fact that their base pay, without compensation is over double what the average American makes, most companies no longer offer pensions so no matter how you look at it, the companies are giving out way more money to these employees than they should be doing. Ail's scale might have been off, but I still stand with his point. Is salary the entire reason? No, the biggest problem is the anti-American car sentiment in the U.S.

Erm your link about the auto industry didn't really help your case or hurt Ail's. He never stated a number, just that they are overpaid and your article dictates that. As for the Dem's and Rep's there really isn't any one side to blame. They're all at just as much fault as the next one is. But that is all off topic. Also don't get your panties in a bundle: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-10-01.asp "President-elect Barack Obama and his transition team are already reviewing all of President Bush's executive orders, considering which will be allowed to stand and which will be overturned, the head of his transition team, John Podesta said on Sunday. Obama's decisions could invalidate environmentally damaging orders issued by the current president. " Also: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4163433.story "Although it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure." It's usually good to read more than one news source. Overall I'm not worried. Obama can overrule any orders that would be immensly negative and I have a feeling that Obama will have the humility to allow non critial republican orders to go through to appease both sides. All of this excitement over something that isn't all that exciting.

Please elaborate. I'm not so sure that the "modern day" is fundamentally different than it was 220 years ago.

How is me stating that more an more men are acting like women mean I'm a conservative? How many forums/blogs have you guys seen where you have over-sensitive men complaining about how they're the nice guys who can't get girls and are just whining about it the entire time? I mean my post was mostly sarcastic with realistic undertones. Our society is constantly trying to advocate a break in the gender lines and then you all act shocked when it happens. I mean genetics only goes so far, environment, in my opinion, is a bigger factor.

What you are arguing has no relevance to what he stated. Is COMPLETELY different from You are attacking the middle piece of a sentence disregarding not only the entirety of the sentence but also the supporting sentences. He is not stating a perspective that all Arabs are less civilized, he is stating that Arabs who endorse throwing your shoe at the president of another country are fueling the stereotype that Arabs are less civilized. (No where does he imply that he agrees nor disagrees with the stereotype) So by you simply attacking the statement: "Arabs are less civilized than westerners" you are really not attacking anything but your own made up argument. Again he never has taken the position "that all Arabs are more uncivilized than Westerners" Now he has stated that throwing your shoe at the President of another country and the act of supporting such a person is childish.

Lol, this is supposed to be a debate not politics. By changing his position you're not attacking his position, you're attacking a position he didn't take. That sure does make an argument easier to win...

Well the point I was making is that marriage is actually an entity entirely separate from religion. You're church can say you're married, but if the state doesn't recognize it (with a marriage license and authorized personal present) then you are not legally married.

I don't usually post things from chain e-mails but I think this could spark a good discussion. Jefferson in some cases could be called a prophet. When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. Thomas Jefferson The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson Very Interesting Quote In light of the present financial crisis, itʼs interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, the n by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.' Discuss.

Because the woman and friends aren't smooth I know I'm getting a new shotgun from them, not sure what else tho,

Yeah most men are becoming women. Seriously just be a god damn guy. We have the whole generation of super sensitive, emotional men that are simply women with penises. The lucky thing is that they will all die off because most women don't want to marry a woman with a penis, if they did they'd be lesbians with strap-ons.

Correction, you are only married once the state verifies you are. No religious figure needs to be present for two people to become legally married.

Moderate

The only way your argument is even remotely valid would be if there are adverse effects of the pill/morning after/insert medication here on you medically. It has been proven that in fact the pill helps regulate hormones and that the morning after pill is perfectly safe. Also a doctor is supposed to give you all of your options. If there is an experimental medicine that they think you would be a good candidate for, they have to get your approval first. Vice versa if you go to a doctor and know what you want and he won't give it to you simply based on his religious beliefs, with no medical reasons backing him, that is wrong. Your argument has no grounding because you're arguing apples with oranges. If you go to a doctor he is supposed to give you a simple medical opinion. It should not be based on personal beliefs, simply professional beliefs. If you wanted his opinion as to if you should be practicing abortion, you would be paying him as a psychiatrist not a doctor. Any opinions a doctor is giving you should be professional opinions and not influence by their own life choices. Again I state that a doctor is supposed to give you an unbiased professional medical opinion, not impose his/her religious beliefs on to you.

You've got some pretty far fetched ideas. No, you have some pretty archaic ideas. So it would be ok for this woman to refuse to marry interracial couples because she feels it's wrong? It would be ok for her to refuse to marry and old man and a young woman because she feels it to be wrong? No matter how you look at it, it is discrimination. You may argue that it is religious discrimination to force her to marry homosexual couples, when she believes this to be wrong. Would it be wrong for someone to refuse to do business with a female because of their religion? Church and state are distinct en!@#$%^&*ies. If you go to work for the state(government of any level) you must be either prepared to uphold state mandates or change jobs. Yes the discrimination she received from co-workers was wrong, but so was the fact that she refused to do her job. She is being paid to uphold the law. If that law changes it is her job to change with it. I mean I can keep going, is it right for me to refuse to serve food to homosexuals because I believe it's wrong? Is it right for me to refuse to serve food to interracial couples because I feel it is wrong?

The problem is that you're paying a doctor for his/her medical opinion. Their personal beliefs should have no impact on the service they provide you. Would it be a doctor's right to deny you pulling a family member (who for this argument is say in a coma) off life support because he believes it's the wrong choice? Ultimately you are paying for a service and you can go to a different service, but not all medical plans allow you to do so. So how is it fair for you to be denied birth control (morning after, pill, etc.) simply because the only doctor you can go to doesn't believe in it?

Agreed.

Well sever then I state that you have not proven murder is bad on an evolutionary scale. Your statements argue that it is evolutionary detrimental to murder your tribesmen. That does not prove that it is evolutionarily wrong to murder period, which was what I was asking you to do in the first place. Also your tribe based argument is almost solely based that you can develop the weak to become strong. This is also !@#$%^&*uming that the weak even WANT to become strong. No matter how you cut the pie, weak people hurt evolution. Now if you're weak physically but strong mentally, you can overcome your one weakness and vice versa. Someone who is weak mentally and physically is a negative on a species survival and evolution. Also every argument you've used to "prove" murdering your tribesman is bad scientifically is based on theories that you cannot yourself prove. Which makes your arguments as translucent as the religious ones you're so [sarcasm]fond of[/sarcasm] In fact looking at the history of man the only thing you can conclude is that as we have become more efficient at killing/murder we, almost on a parallel, evolved as societies.

Actually murdering people does not hurt your survival. In fact if you have a strong tribe, which is all you need for survival and you murder strong people from other tribes it actually increases the strength and influence of your own tribe. You can try to claim that then you will be hunted by other tribes, but that will happen no matter what (unless you live in a eutopian communist society as someone will always want what you have). You have pointed out that societies that murder don't survive and I disagree. The Church itself has prospered based on murder. Also think of all of the small societies and countries who were destroyed because they either couldn't or didn't murder (war also fits into this category). Ultimately if you killed the weak and unintelligent off and simply had the strong and intelligent mate, you are directly !@#$%^&*isting in evolutionary prosperity, thus making murder actually beneficial to evolution.

On a side note both the Iraqi and American governments have been registering complaints with the Syrian government about terrorists crossing over from Syria and launching attacks on Iraqi's. In fact 15 Iraqi policemen were killed in a raid last week (I think) from insurgents coming from Syria. Not saying I support this by any means, but Syria isn't exactly an innocent bystander in all of this.

Except he's not trying to get re-elected but other than that it's a great fit. But I do have to say this could actually help John McCain. Either the people will further harbor animosity towards the republican party or the "war time" mentality will kick in and people will move towards McCain. I personally think it will be the first one. If they were going to use it to help McCain it would have needed to be a bit earlier.

As we can debate these subjects all day, lets move back to topic. Would you like me to split the topic for debate?

Sever you act like your argument or loose statistics aren't "debatable" too. First off when I say murder is conducive to evolution all you have to do is look at the animal kingdom. A male will kill a weaker male to exert supremecy. I'm not stating that murder everyone you can, but killing the weak breeds the strong. A weak male in a tribe does not contribute to the tribe, thus weakening it. I agree that if you have a tribe of strong individuals it doesn't not benefit you to murder them. I'll give you your 50%, but I won't concede that the majority of them will simply say "because god said so". Define murder. In China they kill people for things we wouldn't dream of here. Not true, a suicidal person has the urge to kill themselves, not to have someone (neccesarily) kill them. Also most suicide results from self-pity, depression or traumatic experiences that are internalized. Most suicidal people are actually quite nice to other people, which reflects how they wish to be treated. Again this is something neither of us can prove either way. I don't think it's right to diminish someone's opinion simply because of the influence religion or inversly the lack their of on their beliefs. You obviously do. Let's agree to disagree and move back to the topic at hand. I will ask in the future, for the sake of fairness on the forum, that you(as in everyone) don't denounce someone's argument simply because of their religious beliefs. You can argue their beliefs, just don't denounce them as uncredible simply because they come from religion. The point of these forums to is debate and spread ideas, we don't want to scare off everyone who thinks differently. Example: Debate the points of his statement, don't simply invalidate his out take on the political debate simply because he's religious. That was the underlying point of the segway in this topic.

I disagree Sever. There are thousands of people who believe that abortion is murder without being at all religious. My father is one of them (which really irks my mom as she is an extreme feminist). Basically your entire argument boils down to either you consider abortion murder or you don't. You don't consider it murder as you have a different opinion as to when a fetus is actually considered life than someone else. I guarantee if you polled every chistian in America the overwhelming majority wouldn't answer the question as to why is murder wrong with "because God said so". Being approximately 76% of America falls under a sect of Christianity that statement has to be false. If so abortion would be overwhelmingly illegal. You're acting like this argument is a rubix cube. You either believe that it is killing a life or you believe that the embryo has not become a functioning life so it is not killing a life. !@#$%^&* I'm about as unreligious of a person as you can get and no one has ever explained to me that murder is wrong in a scientific or evolution-based manner. I believe most people learn right and wrong from the old "treat others as you would like to be treated" which is guess what? A Christian moral. You also learn that murder makes you a criminal and that society tells you that criminals are bad, thus murder is bad. I'd actually like for you to explain to me scientifically or evolutionally why murder is bad. In fact using evolution you would actually be able to defend the act of murder as it weeds out the weaker of our species and promotes the survival of the strong. And as for your first paragraph: Spoiler! --Click here to view--Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.