NBVegita

Plus if you've truly researched global warming, beyond watching the news and inconvenient truth, you'll find that our climate is not changing as radically as is publically shown. But enough on that I could go on for hours pointing out the flaws in the common misconceptions of man made global warming epidemic, which is a totally different topic. In short, the Mayan calendar had to end sometime, that does not mean that the world will simply cease to exist because of it.

First off when I say you, I mean "the public". I will accept blame for that statement. I did not mean you as an individual. Second your charts do nothing more but show that we have a truly capitalistic economy. One of which I am 100% in favor of. Of course in the 40's and 50's our debt was considerably lower, half of Europe was still indebted to us from the war. I do whole heartedly agree that our country has relied too much on debt to pay for what they own. Which most likely helps account for the variations in wealth. The lower and middle class are debting themselves above their pay grade, or the very near limit, to live above their realistic means. Now instead, as your chart shows, of saving money, for any reason, you must use it to pay for the house, cars and credit cards. The rich on the other hand can simply buy most of what they own outright. 43% of Americans spend more money in a year than they actually make. Not including mortages each household in america averages over $18,000 in debt. Yes that is a serious problem. I also agree concerning the war, but I also think that it has no larger effect on us, at this time, than vietnam did. Our economy was just waiting for this to happen. The .com boom set the stage, and when the bubble burst, coupled with the biggest market scam in the 20th century and idotic consumers this was bound to happen. But we will recover. It might not be for another 10 years, but we will recover. This president has actually done relatively little in terms of long term damage, with the exclusion of Iraq. You cite probably, I say impossibly. I'm so sure of the impossibility that I will take a wager from any person willing to come forth, via paypal, that this presidental election will not be hindered by the president. Back in the 50's and 60's we were still recovering from the great depression and the war. Of course as our capitalistic economy grows stronger, there will be a bigger income gap. As for your teachers, my brother is a teacher in a low class area. He puts less effort into the children who simply refuse to try. When kids refuse to do simple homework !@#$%^&*ignments and bring in letters from parents saying "I don't believe in homework so my son/daughter will not do it", what is a teacher supposed to do? When you call home to the parents to tell them their child performed poorly, academically or socially, and you are told that you are either picking on their child, that why they have bad grades, or that it simply isn't true that their child could not do such a thing, what are you, as a teacher, to do? Are you supposed to punish the 5-10 students whom actually want to learn and have the motivation to, or are you supposed to run into the brick wall set up by not only the non-motivated student, but their families as well. It just so happens that a lack of motivation can seeming be linked to race and or "social class". Also that percentage was a large part drop outs. !@#$%^&* I bet if finishing high school was a prerequisite for recieving a welfare check, the graduation rate would triple. What obsticles are you talking about? There is so much federal aid for students to go to college nowadays it's almost rediculous. Now you are less apt to have a chance coming from a middle class family than a lower class family. As being in middle class you are only eligable for athletic and academic scholarships and lose the need based aid that is available to the lower class. Am I saying that everyone can go to harvard? No. Of course wealth brings more opportunity. Since the dawn of man, the more of something that you own, as long as there is a demand for it, the more power you hold. Nothing will ever change that. For your last paragraph, my father was one of those people who had to work 3 minimum wage jobs. He got laid off his factory job and had to do everything he could to provide for the family. He eventually got a job at the post office which was at least stable. I now make more money than my fiance's and my parents put together. I was not given any special opportunities. I worked hard, saw what my father had to go through and decided I didn't want that life for my kids when the time came. No, every poor child cannot become "rich". But every poor child, as long as they work to get the grades, !@#$%^&* a degree from a community college is still a degree, can get a good solid job.

You realize that you typed that entire post without answering one of my questions. Ok you answered one. Again I ask you to cite me an example. Congress is not a child, the president is not a parent. As a minor a parent has full control over everything you do. Awful analogy. You cited one instance, the war, where republicans and democrats have come to a similar viewpoint. That was what I would like to give me some foundation on. Yet again a bunch of rubbish that amounts to nothing. !@#$%^&* in a national poll less than a year ago, I believe, 40% of American's believed that he should be impeached immediately. But I'm sure you're right, all he'll have to do is snap his fingers and the 300,000,000 mindless drones that consist of the American population will fall in love with him and give him free reign over the entire country. It's a shame he's waited 8 years to do this otherwise the vatican might have made him pope back in 2005. As for your last paragraph again, I would like you to cite some way the president is going to destroy our government. What you don't understand is that no matter how you want to twist the words, if the president weakens the legislative and judicial branches, thus expanding the executive branches power, that destroys the very fundamentals of our government and in turn our government as well. And your patriot act really does not provide anything but superficial limitations on people. I will go through and debate your interpretations of each of the acts when I have more time to post.

I'm a strong moderate. I just am a logical moderate. As for the fascism, we have too liberal of a government to move into fascism. We are far more likely to become socialistic, moreso a god !@#$%^&* welfare country than a fascist nation. As for the US not lasting long, in case you haven't boned up on your history of the US for the past century, we really are not on any different trajectory than we have been over the past century. As for universal education the problem isn't access to education it is the drive for education (for the most part). I mean !@#$%^&* I think it's Detroit that has a 24% high school graduation rate. There are many things that need to be done, mostly working from the lower class up. Coming from a lower class family I know how hard life can be, which also gives me the right to be able to talk about how, with a little motivation, you can turn everything around. We need to hand out less and force people to work for more. I don't care if you're resentful that someone was born into a family that was either intelligent, hard working, or lucky enough to be rich.

I just updated some of the hsys info

In order to believe in such a thing plausable I might just have to be strung out.

Your simple attempt at a conspiracy is amusing. You are attempting to debate rancid speculation against Federal law. I would like you to cite where the current congress has uncompromisingly gone along with the president on all the issues. In fact if you can even prove that they've uncompromisingly appeased the president on even half of the major issues, I'll give you that statement. I would disagree, I would say that their policy is virtually indistinguishable on very few issues. Bush was not the one lying to the country, it was our federal government who was. Case in point the president was intelligent enough, hard for some of you to grasp, so that if anyone were to attempt to go after him under the clause of lying about the war, the highest you may be able to trace it is to the VP, who would get a nice pardon when Bush leaves office. Again I will ask you to elaborate on how this president has "cemented power in a way that very few presidents have". *If you choose to cite the patriot law, I ask you to cite specific clauses specifically listed in the patriot law Any foundation on that statement besides speculation? (By the way zeitgeist does not count as foundation) None of your statements are even logical. If a president were to try to dissolve the United States government the last thing they would need is a m!@#$%^&* animosity of not only our country, but half of the other countries in the world. As stated prior, this congress has done nothing but disagree with the president and he's done more veto's during this congress's term than in the entire presidency he's had before that. I reiterate, there is no possible way that the house, senate and court would vote to dissolve their own branches of governments, nor would they not impeach the president immediately if he attempted (which I would like someone to outline exactly how the president would try such a thing being he really has virtually no power without the house and senate) to do so himself.

I'm surprised Japan didn't make one sooner.

Talk about a real !@#$%^&*ed if you do, !@#$%^&*ed if you don't.

well if it isn't a tex! guess larry really brings em out of the woodwork!

Actually that article is quite misleading as the president does not have the power to stop the elections. The president, even amongst the bylaws he's passed cannot declare martial law without the approval of congress, on non federal military personnel. A majority of states have their own state defense forces. Even if the president were to attempt to declare a further state of emergency and mobilize the entire national guard, the states with the aforementioned forces would be able to withstand the force of the national guard until which time that the president is impeached. Which would be immediately. We are currently in a state of emergency, and have been in a declared "state of emergency" since Clinton declared it in 95' I believe. That is how such things as the patriot act have been passed, under the pretense of being in a state of emergency. The entire concept that this president would even attempt to dissolve our government, let alone that he would be successful is as ridiculous as thinking the world will end on 2012 because thats when the Mayan calendar ends. Every president we've had has the means to destroy our government under the right conditions, but without a president who has complete control of both the house and the senate, along with the full support of the supreme court, it just is not plausible. Being our congress would rather poke the president in the eye with a sharp stick than agree with him as to what to order for lunch, this is just another propagandist ideal to attack an already battered president. There is a reason why we have three branches of government.

Please respond to how the aforementioned situation would be cir!@#$%^&*vented. As for Tibet I was pointing out that regardless of what side you are on, the ENTIRE WORLD is broadcasting it. If the U.S. were truly to be am!@#$%^&*ing forces near the Iran border and there was a possibility of an invasion/attack, you sure as !@#$%^&* know the ENTIRE WORLD would be broadcasting it. The Argument really isn't about our ability to perform an attack on Iran, !@#$%^&* we could launch a massive organized attack on any country in the world by 8 A.M. tomorrow morning, the argument moreso is the plausability of such an event occuring. In a country with an economy boarding recession, with a president approval under 30, a congress approval in the low 20's, with levels of anti-war sentiments of the like not seen since the vietnam war, I would place my entire future on the line to say that the house and the senate would never come close (under the current cir!@#$%^&*stances) to ordering/approving war with Iran. That is the beauty of our democracy, which the russian article conveniently does not mention, the representatives of the people decide if we go to war or not, not the pentagon.

I think you all missed this entire part of my post: Note how whats happening in Tibet is all over the news GLOBALLY. Russia (appears) to be the only country reporting this? Also we only have around 2500 (recorded) soldiers in the middle east outside of Iraq and Afghan. lol? Since when are marines and special ops still not considered infantry? "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," Hard to have a successful ground operation with a small number of soldiers on the ground.

The whole idea that Russia is not happy with us right now. In fact the whole concept that they basically despise the missile defence system we're trying to put in europe (which is a different topic all together), makes me very leary as to the accuracy of the reports. Right now the United States is struggling to field enough soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, I would really like to know where this massive army has come from, cause they sure as !@#$%^&* ain't U.S. soldiers. Plus in order for us to declare war on Iran we would need the support of both the house and the senate. Even though they overwhelming supported the war in Iraq, there would be no way in !@#$%^&* that they would approve war on Iran. In which case if the President tried to order an invasion despite being rejected, he would be immediately removed, then our current VP would be removed for the same reason and Nancy Pelosi would halt all attacks. The concept of the U.S. waging war with Iran isn't a feasible idea in the near future.

As you would in America, take something coming from Russia with a grain of salt. I'm not denying nor promoting the accuracy of the report, but remember the United States is not the only nation in the world to use the tool of propaganda.

If it feels cold she's most likely dead. Shame on you.

Yes and No. The catholic church came out with extreme opposition to the Da vinci Code and there is little to no grounding behind that movie. But I do agree that to the masses the stronger the opposition opposes (funny context) the stronger the validity is believed.

Or both of you could act like you're not in the second grade lunch room and ignore each other. Then neither of you would have problems. I guess maturity (for both of you) doesn't feel as good as flaming yourselves off the forums. Have fun with that.

Did someone say grapes?

The British tried to RESTRICT the immigration of Jews not facilitate. The continuing administration in wrong in YOUR book. Remember right and wrong are singularly exclusive points of view. That is a very good question. The answer unfortunately is impossible to tell. As an advocate from the western world I say yes. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? Not neccesarily, but I believe it was. No but the support of the majority of the international community and a war victory does.

The occupation of Palestine was done during war. With the disbanding of the Ottoman empire there was no governing body over the extremely corrupt territory of Palestine. In fact it was the Sykes-Picot Agreement in which the majority of the Ottoman empire was divided between the French and English. The boundries and such of the current states in the middle east were mostly decided by those two bodies. That is the problem when an entire empire goes to war and then dissolves. The outcome of Palestine after the British Mandate was no different than Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria ect. Even after the land of Israel was "granted" to the jews, the day after they declared they were an independent state they were invaded by the Arabs. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, yemen, lebanon, syria and more. The Israelies won the war despite only having ~30,000 troops to start with. Had the Arabs won, they would have control of Israel today. Being they did not, they don't. As I've stated neither is any more right or wrong than the other. There will always be one side (the one being taken over) that views it as wrong, and one side (the one taking over) that views it as right. The occupation of an enemy territory during WWI, with the contuination of administration after the war due to no governmental body being in place is fine in my book. If we were in a world war, and Thailand was fighting against us, yes it would be fine for us to "conquer" them.

I'll leave it alone that we have no idea just how effective import bans are, but continuing what is your plan for retrieving the hundreds of thousands of illegals guns already held by criminals? You'll take the millions of citizens weapons and have to leave the criminals weapons. Unless you plan to violate our rights again and go house to house searching. Ultimately you're voting, no matter how you want to coat it, to leave the only existing firearms in the United States (excluding government) in the hands of criminals. As for gun shows and legality, I was more stating hand guns vs rifles. !@#$%^&* all you need to get a rifle is proof that you're 21. Again I state that I am not against stricter gun regulations. You are sorely mistaken. Voting for more governmental laws does not make you more of a democracy. Voting laws to be enacted by the government is merely a democratic process. I implicitly stated the more control you give the government. That does not simply mean the more laws you pass It means the more aspects of a country you take out of the peoples hands and put into the control of the government, the less democratic power you have. Just a simplified example is look what could happen with the democratic party. First off they have "Super delegates", which is the epitomy of non-democratic. Now it's even looking that the "Super delegates", the prominent members of the democratic party, will be able, if they choose, to over throw the caucus/primary outcome voted on by the citizens. The democrats gave their party that control and they didn't even vote on it. I do believe that is exactly my point, the military and police were not enslaved. Now thats the spirit!!! If someone threatens you, just roll over and play dead...thats the obvious solution! Boy am I sure glad you didn't have a say in the American Revolution. There is a world of difference. Police are a government regulated department, enforcing governmental rules. In the colonies, the british stationed soldiers amidst the colonies to act as police forces. A militia is: A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Right now all the trouble in Iraq is because a militia, citizens not trained soldiers, are rebelling against the Iraqi/United States government. As much as I hate to see American lives lost, I love that the Iraqi civilians are doing just what we did to try to establish their independence. The cir!@#$%^&*stances are vastly different, but the concept of a militia is a welcome one. I for one do not have faith enough in any government to childishly give control of the entire country to them. Remember what I stated to you about Israel, if you are a people with no military, thusly no political, influence in a country, you have no control over what happens with that country.

lol? The ottomans were one of the most imperialistic empires in the world. The had a large presence on what 4 continents? Defending their borders my arse. The ottomans fought with the germans in WWI, thus making them a threat. Even if the area of Palestine itself was not a huge threat the empire as a whole was. Actually the British occupied Palestine during WWI. The British Mandate was not enacted until after WWI. Which ironically in the time they occupied the land the British made great strides in eradicating corruption and hunger while they were at it. As I've stated previously if you are a people who have no political or militaristic presence in your country, then you have no say over what goes on with your country. The state of Israel is no more right or wrong than any other state forged from war.

I find that much the same for those against guns. As a pro gun civilian I understand the need for safty, control and strict regulations on guns. I also understand the mul!@#$%^&*ude of reasons behind a civilian wanting the ability to bear arms. Most anti-gun debaters I have found seem to come at you with a "Ban all guns so people stop shooting each other" approach or the "If you ban all guns criminals can't get them" approach. Even the facetious arguments proposed seem to lack a degree of common sense in lieu of a rudimentary logic I also find a mul!@#$%^&*ude of contradictions when arguing the subject where people who have implicitly shown a great distrust for the government in previous topics are credulously willing to take away the only means, we as a people and citizens, have at protecting ourselves from said government.

Cite that please. I have a handgun permit in New York state. (which is a pain in the !@#$%^&* to get I might add.) I only own 3 guns personally. I target and hunt.