NBVegita

No matter if you consider it right or wrong, the British occupation of the land gave them control of the land to do with what they saw fit. Times are a bit more civilized now, but that does not mean that Britain was not in their right to "give" the land to the Jews? Specially in war time things like this happen. If we had another world war and somehow america was overtaken and occupied, we thusly lose our right to the land. Land is something that can be taken or given, bought or sold. Simply having lived in an area for an extended period of time means nothing. If your family has owned land for 300 years and decides to stop paying taxes, does the government say "oh you can keep your land because you've been there longer than our country has"? It's the cruel truth of the world. Now we have strict regulations and international policies to help stop things like this now, but unfortunately for the Palestinians, in the real life game of musical chairs, they got caught standing.

Keep in mind, prior to the Muslims, the Jews did actually live there. Also note that the Muslims gained power of that land because they occupied it. During the first World War England occupied it. If you look at history, once the ottoman empire was unable to fend off the English from occupying it, they lost all claim to the land. The problem Israel has is there are thousands of Arabs who will not rest until Israel is destroyed. !@#$%^&* they hate Israel more than they hate us, and that's saying something. So the "right way" you're talking about is having all of the Israeli's leave Israel and give in to the Arab persecution. Israel has no allies!? lol. As for Hezbollah, no matter if Israel wanted a war or not, without Hezbollah launching an offensive and capturing the soldiers, there wouldn't have been a war (at that time)

And what are the chances, with all of those people attacking them, that none of Israel's allies would aid them? You would have another "Coalition" force that would bail them out. I know it's a hard concept for you, but be realistic. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/afr...0712mideast.php Hezbollah did start the war. Is the New York Times a source I can use? Please tell me which sources would be "appropriate" for you.

Agreed with astro. Also sever remember, Hezbollah was the one to start the aggression in 2006. Whats also ironic is a major clause of the peace treaty that ended the war in 2006 (which hezbollah could not have won) was the disarmament of Hezbollah. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVlM...GQ4OGQxMDA1YjQ= Also an interesting article for those of you who read politics during the war. Being I don't support Iran's non transparency in nuclear matters, I surely don't support them attempting to threaten us (by threatening Israel) into not taking further sanctions against them.

Agreed above. Also that is one wacky leaked non-proposal. I don't think it'll ever make it to a formal proposal. There are maybe a 100 people in the world that would support it. Gotta love extremists.

The problem is that your exectives pay is voted on by the people who own the company. So you're going to tell the major share holders they're not allowed to control their company? Not saying that I don't believe they get paid a lot, but if they're making the shareholders company wealthy, then I guess its up to the shareholders to decide, not me.

Para, I would say that divorce has just as severe of an effect as parents staying together. (with obvious exceptions, if you have a civil divorce vs parents who always argue but stay together) Finland can you link to the contraceptives please? And for the "The often-absolute alliance with the Republican party" It's hard to say that being there are (by sheer volume) more democratic Christians than Republican christians. Technically shouldn't there be more republican christians then? If the evan's are in the republicans pockets, why do the dems fight so hard to court them?

There is a reason why managers are paid more than regular employees (for the most part)

Don't have time to read it all but: If McCain is too liberal on social posistions, they'll vote for someone even more liberal? I don't get how being more liberal would win the conservative vote. McCain would be viewed as the lesser of two evils. I agree. I agree.

Astro you quite elagently avoided that McCain has 31 years of political experience and Obama has 11. Yes it is a rediculous thought to think that a man with nearly 3 times the political experience as his rival has any chance to win. Not saying that I think McCain will win, but he hits home with the older generations as Obama does with the younger. It's not such a stretch to think that McCain has a chance, specially with the political situation in america today, no matter if he was running against a black, white, male or female.

Here's the problem I have with this: Sexism is considered more prevalent because clinton did not win the nomination. Had Obama not won the nomination racism would be considered more prevalent. The same will happen in the fall. If McCain wins it will simply be because America is too racist to have a black president, not that the people actually liked McCain more. Yet why would it not be ageism if McCain loses? Not to say that there is not sexism or racism, but no matter how you cut the pie in this, sexism or racism was going to be called. !@#$%^&*ed if you do, !@#$%^&*ed if you don't.

"don't you believe that with a better start in life, you might've been even better off?" Monetarily or as a person? On both accounts I'd say it's hard to say. But I will say this, I do believe that part of why I'm so conscious of how I spend my money and savings and investing is the fact that I know how hard it can be to save. Money was never easy to come by so I used to save every cent I had, usually which I'd use to help my parents pay for things. But I think that it taught me a lesson about money and life that I never would have learned otherwise. Coming from an area where I had to work my !@#$%^&* of to get by gave me an unparalleled work ethic, which as allowed me to strive in the workforce. My fiance on the other hand came from a solid middle class family living in the suburbs, had a car as soon as she turned 16 ect. and she couldn't manage money to save her life. Not only that but with all those advantages she went to local state college and I went to a very good private university. Luckily I manage our finances lol Who's to say if I'd be as conscious with my money and have the same ethic if I had been born with more money? In fact I would accredit coming from a poor family as to why I'm such a strong, well adjusted person today. In my opinion nothing worth having in life comes easy. The only thing I have to say to your above post, as you presented your ideas well, is that we will always have our rough "class system" because someone's got to do the small jobs. The problem in America is that you have thousands of unemployed people who refuse to take jobs where they feel "under employed". A buddy of mine's father got into a cake job making 60k a year and got laid off after 6 months. Now he refuses to take a job making under 50k. Before that job he was making 35k. As with anything, you need someone flipping burgers for you, you need someone running the stores, the gas stations ect, and with that someone pressing burgers at McDonalds shouldn't make nearly the same as an accountant. Which also means that if you're content being a burger flipper, you won't be able to make it into the middle class. If you're not content and you really want to better yourself, you've already gotten the biggest obstacle out of the way.

Astro what is a society made of? Oh wait individuals. As for the rich, they have problems stemming from too much money. Where the poor commit crime out of laziness/necessity, the rich do it out of boredom and advancement (monetarily). I've never once stated that the rich don't commit crimes. Does that mean take the money from them? No. So if the poor are committing crime from lack of money, do we give them money? No. Money isn't the problem. (Unless you're absolutely stealing to have a basic survival) My problems are such: If someone is poor, that seems to be an excuse to do whatever they need, including breaking the law to survive. Our current welfare system obviously is not working so I'm greatly opposed to someone forcibly taking my money to put into a system that is not working. If you want to help the welfare system, you fix the broken system in place, you don't expand an already broken system. As I've stated more times than I care to count, I'm not against welfare, I'm all for strongly regulated welfare. Oh and para, of course you can find extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances as to where the poor kids have a ridiculously hard time, which is why I made my disclaimer. But if all of those poor kids were working so hard, they would be able to hold a job. As with Astro's father, whom I believe he said was an uneducated immigrant, who has been in the same job for 30+ years? As I've outlined before if you simply stay with your job, you can make it into the "middle class" America, even if on the low end. Which then, according to you guys, would give your kids the opportunity to become middle class and so on and so forth. There are tons of jobs requiring little to no education that if you do your job and show up to work on time (excluding layoffs) you will be fine. Why don't we start programs where instead of giving them free money, we create jobs specifically aimed for the under educated poor? That would not only help the poor, but our economy as well. Oh that's right, then they'd actually have to work for their money. Also I believe 3 prior times I have admitted I am harder on poor people, coming from a very poor area and a very poor family. I'm arguing from what I've seen and been through as a poor child, you are arguing theories coming from middle class families (Not all of you so don't crucify me, but the fact that you even have computers and internet is a step way above me, I didn't have a tv in the house until I was 14.) If you could show me statistics showing that if you give the poor money they will have a good work ethic and motivation and will complete school, commit less crime (including drugs), manage their money better and overall become better people, then I will switch sides on the argument. But from life experiences I've had I have to disagree, money doesn't change who you are. If you give a lazy man $10,000 he is still a lazy man. “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”

Yes that really does imply that I think the deck is stacked in their favour. How foolish of me. Poor kids *ARE given every opportunity to dig their way out. Money can't buy passion, motivation, discipline, love, compassion, or any other mul!@#$%^&*ude of reasons why people, not just kids, succeeed. *There are select few, and very select few cases where this is not so.

So these kids aren't accountable for anything simply because they're poor? They don't do well in school, oh its ok, they're poor. They don't do their homework, its ok, they're poor. They dropped out of school, its ok, they're poor. They can't hold a job, it's ok, they're poor. They can't manage the little money they have, its ok, they're poor. They resort to crime, it's ok, they're poor. Give me a break. Is it easier to have all the money in the world? Sure. Is not being rich an excuse to not succeed? No. The fact is all men are not created equal. Some men are born with a golden s!@#$%^&*, others must struggle simply to attain a pewter one. You will never ever be able to convince me that being poor is an excuse to have less accountability. Nor does what ethnicity you come from.

So then the problem also dually lies in the Clinton administration.

Yes I am quite evading that aren't I? Disregarding you trying to bring "party ideals" into the picture, how does what Astro has been preaching do anything but take away the accountability from the poor? First off he KNEW they were already criminals. If two men came onto my property with crowbars and ended up 15 feet from me, I'd sure as !@#$%^&* shoot. None of us were there (as I've stated many times) but these two criminals made their way from his neighbors property onto his property and 15 feet from him. Could he have propagated it by leaving his house? Sure, but since when is leaving your house against the law? Who is to say these men did not see the gun (maybe he was intentionally hiding it) until he shot at them? As stated I would love to know the evidence involved in that. Elaborate. That is only true through traditional liberals, neo-liberals which most of american liberals tend to lean towards have the opposite effect. But lets save that argument for another time.

Interesting you say that, what health care policies has Bush enacted that have hurt our health care quality?

I do agree with the shot in the back part, but they were on his property, 15 feet away from him, armed with crowbars. And Astro, do you realize that you simply keep making excuses for these people? Not in one post have you ever held them accountable for their actions. You represent the epitomy of what this country has become, as who needs accountability when you can simply blame X?

Hoch I do believe I had the exact same debate with sever back in February.

Erm....Yeah....about that....

I bought the new 3g, 8gb for $200 (USD) today and it only added $30 to my plan, which I was going to add anyway for work, which they are paying for. It's a good deal if you're already planning on unlimited data. It's a great phone so far. Btw, the base plan for the iPhone is only $69.99 (USD), which is a basic plan ($39.99) plus unlimited data ($30.00). At least in the U.S.

thanks for the correction, 10 is what I meant No one is forcing you to drive either. On the other side of the argument, you don't see a heart attack coming and a heart attack is at least as dangerous as an accident. Similar as to with a seat belt in an accident, low cholesterol won't guarantee survival but it will greatly increase your chances. Whats worse with a heart attack is that unlike a car accident where you have to actually be in a car, a heart attack can happen any where at any time.