Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Wednesday 17th December 2014 03:18:22 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 
These are answers that paraclete has provided in

Question/Answer
nesteu asked on 12/08/10 - account practices and non users

how non user benefit from accounting practice

paraclete answered on 08/12/11:

Who is the non user? Accountants work hard to maintain integrity in business reporting. the truth is hard to find and some fail but we have in mind to tell the truth sometimes fearlessly

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/28/10 - HELLO!


WOW! No activity!

HANK

paraclete answered on 04/06/10:

No you are right Hank but then it is quiet in the other place too just a few contributors

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ivanpescy asked on 12/15/09 - las vegas

i had that the man who got the plan of building las vegas borrowed money from maffia's and later killed how true is it and which year was it

paraclete answered on 12/24/09:

yes seems he might have been part of the mob, and they look after their own

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 05/18/09 - Liar, liar pants on fire

Krudd has just announced on national TV quite contrary to the budget speech of his Treasurer that Australia's peak debt will be $300 Billion not $188 Billion as announced less than a week ago. This represents 13.8% of GDP not the 5% his treasurer had indicated. Not only did Swann misled the Parliament, he misled the Australian people in his address. We have gone far beyond banana republic here, at this rate we will become the poor man of the pacific in the next decade.

What I want the know is why isn't the opposition howling for his blood, because Krudd says this is all clearly laid out in the budget papers?

paraclete answered on 05/18/09:

Swanny has just been selective in his statistics, just as Krudd was being selective. With a 1000 page document to be selective about who knows what little gems will emerge

You know as well as I do that politicians tell us only what they want us to know and what has happened here is we have been spoon fed the bad news a little at a time so we would get used to the idea. We have been manipulated once again.

I hope the opposition has the guts to bring on a double dissolution and chuck these idiots out.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/24/09 - Ne how ma, Mr Obama?

China has finally flexed it's muscles and we will soon be thing in terms of Yuan insted of dollars

http://business.smh.com.au/business/china-muscles-up-but-rudd-backs-america-20090324-98w4.html

You cannot acquire all the money in the world and then be prepared to use someoneelses currancy as a staple, now that america has been bailed out by China it is time to move over. Better get prepared to speak mandarin too. Krudd does, is he the vangard of the new world order, si she

paraclete answered on 03/24/09:

yes Yuan with soon be the thing, now how does it go 5 to the dollar or was that 6. I don't know how Yuan would work though, China has a serious counterfeiting problem. We will all soon be on the Beijing dong with ding-dong Krudd. I expect China will buy the IMF or the World Bank redeeming its dollars for something more useful and enduring. It was a grave mistake to awaken the sleeping dragon, now who was it who warned against that? ne how ma Mr Jintao we will all need to learn.

We have all been lured to dismantle our industries and allow China to do the manufacturing and incur the pollution for us.
Now where do we go from here. China wants the pollution in exports to be counted against the importing countries, an interesting twist for the kyoto advocates. They want to export green house gas abatement to those who have freed themselves significantly from the problem by exporting the polluting industries.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/23/09 - The US favours the Krudd approach?

The US favours the export of the Krudd approach to the the GFC.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25234711-2,00.html
This cannot be good, that backwoods Kev has the needed approach. Obama you have been eclipsed by Krudd, you may as well resign now becuase there is just nothing more to be said, no more "yes we can" just "me too!"

paraclete answered on 03/24/09:

we really have to get a grip on this, the Krudd is spreading, it's not enough that we should be subjected to Krudd economics but now the whole world is getting a dose of Krudd.

Before long we will see largesse a plenty, governments robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, bank deposits guaranteed by government, solar panels installed on every roof, greenhouse gases traded with governments subsidising pollution and worst of all every child with their own laptop. Where will it all end?

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/16/09 - Them's fightin words?

Ziggy Switkowski has made an interesting statement in the context of nuclear energy and the future.
"If the Prime Minister claims to be a national leader, he should acknowledge what he already knows."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24882067-11949,00.html

Now we know Krudd claims to be a national leader but I wonder, will we get the usual poly speak for which he has become famous in response to this? We will, no doubt, be given a lecture on the evils of nuclear energy and the efficacy of a greenhouse gas abatement trading scheme, and opposition truculence, but the reality is these are not competing alternatives unless Krudd intends to bring in a 0 tolerance to carbon emissions and thus far he has shown no intention of doing that. No, 2020 is not in his plans, 2012 will be a big enough nut to crack and with current plans 2012 will be business as usual.

paraclete answered on 03/16/09:

Krudd, incidential national leader, he spends more time overseas than he spends here. He drops in to see how that human dynamo Julia is doing, wearing her many hats, as well as running the country while he is away. The parliamentary session is about to end and Krudd will fly-de-coup as they say.

Krudd will not do anything adventurous like nuclear energy, he wants to keep a close grip on the faithful, the true believers, who don't want a bar of anything that might upset our traditional industries. No jobs for the boys in nuclear, you need a degree, at least, to work there. Our politics is conditioned to think only of the current term so 2012 is about as far thinking as we can get. Krudd knows he must get reelected before the Greenhouse Gas Abatement bites the bum of the average punter, this is why he is pouring so much mullah into their coffers at the moment.

Let us ask for a moment, what does Krudd know? He knows that Greenhouse Gas Abatement is the most costly scheme any governmant could impose on the economy. Any new industries which might mitigate the cost and the impact are far away, in that time when he may no longer be in government.
He knows that to transport nuclear material from where it is dug out of the ground to anywhere on this continent is likely to bring forth the demonstrators and require him to overturn the local bans on transport that have been in place for yonks. There is nothing more likely to alienate the electorate than nuclear in my backyard, so it stays in the political too hard basket.
He knows that local nuclear means more mines in sensitive places where sacred sites and aboriginal populations can hold up development for decades. Gone are the days when governemnt can ignore aboriginal rights particularly when you have given them back the land. He knows there is nowhere to bury the waste

In a nutshell Krudd knows it can't be done, least of all by him.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/02/09 - All is not well in Camelot

http://www.smh.com.au/world/talkback-king-leads-backlash-to-obama-20090302-8mew.html

Seems the gloss has gone off Obama's armour now that he is raising taxes and the barbarians represented by the republicans are out to get him. So much for his one hundred days in the sun. How dare he suggest that those who caused the crash bear some of the pain of fixing it?

paraclete answered on 03/03/09:

When you loose an election all you have left is to critize the one who won.

All this would be very amusing if it weren't so serious. Here we have have the people who are most affected by the GFC squabbling like spoilt children instead of focusing on the real issues.

There is a lot of financial pain still to be felt. AIG said it well they have a $600 billion portfolio, so you ain't seen nothing yet. There must be many financial institutions out there who are yet to fully come to grips with how much is lost. We can expect more bad results in the future even when things seem to improve. You must retain perspective. Much of the losses arn't realised losses, but losses in valuation. They haven't become cash flow yet, but they might.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/02/09 - Why are people so bad in the USA?

It has been revealed that the US has the highest prison population in the world and the only other developed nation that comes even close is Russia.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/world-prison-pop-seventh.pdf

This begs the question; how can a country which claims to be the champion of freedom and human rights have 25% of the world's prisoners.

What is so bad about American lifestyle that it lands such a high percentage of the population in jail? Nor is the problem evident in the US close neighbours. For the US to have more prisoners than Russia it must be a very repressive regime indeed. One can only conclude that as people are pretty much the same everywhere it must be the socio-political system which creates the laws under which the people are imprisoned which is at fault.

Clean up your act america because we don't want this exported to us

paraclete answered on 03/03/09:

Mat you can't say they are bad. Where is your PC? Some one said they had truth in sentencing in the US or some such, since we followed them down that road we have had to build more prisons too.

Notice how quickly they are able to stick their head in the sand and blame others for the problem or say others arn't hard enough. Yes minorities are a problem there, they are here too. Over represented in the prison population. That is because they don't respect the laws but maybe locking them up isn't the answer. Here's a novel view, how about forced education. If you have to do the time you don't get out until you get educated, get a degree or a trade. That would act as a disincentive to getting caught and might change the climate for those who are released.

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 03/03/09 - Once again we dodged the bullet?

While we have all had our eye on our wallets and the shrinking wealth of the nation a far more significant event took place almost unnoticed. One again we dodged the bullet. When are we going to realise that an ELE is a real possibility and start to become serious about watching the skys and developing a real capability for intervention?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/asteroid-plays-chicken-with-earth-20090303-8nge.html

paraclete answered on 03/03/09:

Where is the moon when you need it? When you got to go, you got to go. Nothing short of a nuke could have deflected that asteroid. It's time for us to realise we don't control our environment, not any part of it and when an "ELE" comes by we will have little if any warning. Now if this had happened in the northern hemisphere there would have been banner headlines

It is interesting to note how bright they said the object became. Is that just the sun shinning on it or was it a little closer than they are telling us?

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/28/09 - The Iraq withdrawal

Under the terms of the deal that President Bush negotiated ;and the Iraqi's agreed to in November all American troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 .

Yesterday President Obama announced his long awaited Plan that he would withdraw combat troops and will leave behind up to 50,000 non-combat troops by 2012. He will take credit for ending the war. He is wrong.

The reason all this is possible is because President Bush defied pressure to surrender when combat was still ongoing and things did not look good . Instead he authorized implementation of the Petraeus plan ;the surge .

Yesterday President Obama proclaimed to the Marines at Lejeune "Today I've come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end."
But by all measure the war has been over for months now. Obama's plan is really, in most respects, Bush's policy. To the extent that he plans on leaving troops behind in a non-combat role ;I fully support him. Like Europe and Korea before ;victory must be preserved . It will not be an occupation ,but a security treaty between two allies.

Some on the internet proclaimed Victory in Iraq Day as November 22 . Hopefully NYC will host a ticker tape parade to honor our returning troops.

paraclete answered on 03/01/09:

leave Iraq, Obama has no intention of pulling out the troops entirely. Why is it that Americans think Iraq needs them?

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/19/09 - Today in Australian history

Most Americans don't know the significance of this date but in Australia this is a the anniversary of a day that lives in infamy .

Ten weeks after Pearl Harbour at 9.58am on February 19,1942 the very same Japanese naval attack taskforce bombed Australia for the first time.

In fact it was the very first time that Australia had every been attacked in its history.

More ships were sunk, more bombs were dropped and more civilians died in Darwin, the Northern Terrority, than earlier at Pearl Harbour.

The man who had led the attack on Pearl Harbour, Mitsuo Fuchida, was in command of this first attack on Darwin. It had been launched from four carriers, Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga, about 500km to the northwest.

The US destroyer Peary was sunk with the loss of 80 lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin_(February_1942)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/19/2495794.htm

paraclete answered on 02/21/09:

Thanks for thinking of us Tom and at at time when a disaster of similar proportions has just affected the nation. The far off days of WWII have faded, as the nation faces real and immediate threats, an enemy ever with us ready to strike at a moment's inattention. I wonder what my son thinks as he sits in Darwin and views the Victoria fires from afar, Does he still awake in the night with visions of another fire and the trauma of a desolate landscape he experienced as a child. I would not doubt that such memories remain for the few who defended Darwin in those dark days when the whole of Australia waited for the Japs to come. Such was never a prospect for the US who knew that Japan could never risk an attack on the continential US, wishing to send a message to the US to stay out of the pacific.

We must all learn the lessons of Pearl Harbor and Darwin, of 9/11, and even of Victoria. The enemy is always just over the horizon, we never know what form he will take but he is there

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 02/02/09 - Neo-liberalism is dead?

It seems that yet another politician has decided that the debate is over. In his recent dissertation Mr Krudd has decided that neo-liberalism is dead

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gerard-henderson/rudd-neoliberal-with-the-facts/2009/02/02/1233423132293.html

What I have to say is it is going to take more than asperational comments from Rudd who stayed home from Davos to polish and deliver his oration to kill off rampant greed on Wall Street. I personally like the idea, I think floated by Obama, that no CEO should be paid more than the President, that would take down some US high flyers, and if applied in Australia would certainly send a few imported CEO's back where they came from, which considering the damage done here wouldn't be too soon.

One wonders what comes after neo-liberalism, If one listens to Rudd it is neo-interventalism, a system in which government intervenes to smooth out the bumps in the cycle. In fact, I think Keven would elimate the bumps in the cycle. Boring, Mr Rudd, Boring, and it smacks just a little of the controlled economies of the soviet era. I think you may have learned a little too much from your stay in China

So what should the post finacial debacle of the early twenty-first century look like?
A tightly regulated banking sector?
Free spending governments poring your money into "infrastructure" with every second worker in construction?
Monolithic national projects building railways thru nowhere to nowhere, thermal generation and solar generation in the vast interior, has the snowy project taught no one any lessons?
Social engineering programs like insulation of every house? every student with a computer and a volunteer job at the end of university? high speed broadband in every home? homes for the homeless? hospitals in federal hands? the nationalisation of the Murray-Darling river system?

paraclete answered on 02/02/09:

What do you want from the boy? he is just a simple country lad and a queenslander to boot.

It seems we are destined to try everything that everyone else tries including the americans and destined to see the same spectacular failures. Our big bailout, courtesy of Kyoto Kev, in December, was a fizzer, no real improvement in retail sales and a big investment in gambling. If the statistics are to be believed at least $8b disappeared in savings and repayment of existing debt, or is it that the recession in retail was already here and all Kev did was hold up the numbers for one more month and with bank deposits guaranteed, give people some money to put in a safe place.

Next, we are going to see investment in inferstructure as if we have, as the yanks say, many shovel ready projects just waiting for a handout. The reality is we don't, so this initiative will take longer as well any investment in renewables.

If Kev wants to give the motor industry a boost he should immediately announce the replacement of all commonwealth vehicles with new environmentally friendly models, locally produced, of course. This will benefit both the motor industry and the steel industry, cushioning them against rising protectionism. I wonder what happened to the fleet of patrol boats promised by the Labor Party in far off days. No better time to build them, Kev, and recruit all those now unemployed workers in operating them. A complete review of aboriginal housing should give the opportunity to rebuild many communities and train the aboriginals at the same time, a learning on the job scheme which strangely they haven't thought of yet, such communities could be provided with renewable energy in the form of wind and solar solving some other problems, come on Kev, stop writing tripe and start doing something meaningful. I think there are a few outback roads that could do with a tar surface and no shortage of local labour, now is the time to hard surface every road in Australia

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 01/27/09 - More KRUDD from Mr. Rudd?

The latest in our unique way of dealing with the economic crisis and all that.

recruit volunteers from those who have a HECS (Higher Education Loans for the unitiatiated on the other side of the pond) debt. Kev's move to the right.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24973793-5000540,00.html

In an extraordinary display of generosity Kyoto Kev is going to let young graduates work off their HECS debt, so now they have choice, do extra in low paid meniel jobs or get a real job and pay it off the usual way. I expect this is Kev's way of recognising two things, welfare agencies need help and well trained youth are the ones to give it to them, and, with economic downturn, all these bright young minds arn't going to be returning their loans to the government coffers anyway.

So says Kev, we won't give the welfare agencies extra money to deal with the crisis, we will give them workers paid in a new currency; HECS. I have one word for this initiative; KRUDD!!!! This is a very cynical exercise, because this initiative represents no new spending, just a accounting exercise juggling the figures. The money has already been spent, it came out of the budgets of the last few years. I wonder what small L young Liberal recent graduate in the Treasury came up with this one, because it certainly doesn't smell like Labor.

What an incentive to the new crop of uni students, you can pay off your loans doing low paid work, and we will even show how much we recognise your effort by saying you are a volunteer. I expect it is a short step to making it compulsory that all outstanding debt be acquited this way if it isn't acquited by actual earnings. This is cloaked step in getting free university education for the masses past an unreceptive Senate. Hawkie eat your heart out.

I haven't researched it but such a program would do credit to the Germany of the 1930's, I expect Krudd will propose the "joy through work" program soon.

paraclete answered on 01/27/09:

Kev's certainly trying hard, perhaps too hard.

It seems Rees will insist our Kids in NSW get an education with a hike in the leaving age and Kev will see they get employment one way or another. It seems it's a big day for the young ones with many changes in the wind.

But Kev's missed the boat he should have seized the opportunity to put all the layabouts to work with a plan of enforced training for anyone who cannot find employment, heavens knows all those abos need training in planting trees and all the others need training in mowing the grass and keeping the place tidy. In a short time we could have a clean green Australia.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 01/27/09 - Is it too late?

People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true
Susan Solomon Lead author

Scientists now say we cannot reverse the effects of our lifestyle on the environment, in other words the effect is our of our control.

Global warming is 'irreversible'

Politicians must offset damage from man-made pollution, the report says

A team of environmental researchers in the US has warned many effects of climate change are irreversible.

The scientists concluded global temperatures could remain high for 1,000 years, even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted.

Their report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and comes as President Obama announces a review of vehicle emission standards.

It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists have been researching global warming and the consequences for policymakers.




The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.

The scientists say the oceans are currently slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, but they will eventually release that heat back into the air.

They say politicians must now offset environmental damage already done by man-made pollution.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true," said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.

Their conclusions come as President Obama ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to review rules on carbon emissions from passenger vehicles.

paraclete answered on 01/27/09:

At last someone is prepared to say what we need to know. No amount of economic pain is going to change the future of our grandchildren in regard to climate change but it will mean their quality of life may be lessened for little purpose.

This also tells us what hasn't been said, The only way out of the problem is to lessen human activity significantly and the only way to do that is significant population reduction. It's a difficult pill to swallow but the nations of the world can no longer be allowed to breed like rabbits and expect that they can have the benefits of advanced technology and life style.

Rather than licensing carbon dioxide emissions, and trading those, what we need is a human breeding trading system where licenses to breed can be traded and only those who can demonstrate their ability to support their offspring and not add to pollution and poverty, etc can be licensed. It's radical and reeks of nazism but such a solution will ultimately be proposed.

The world can no longer afford out of control population growth any more that it can afford out of control growth in emmissions. The two are linked in such a way that any movement in one parallels the other. In order to curb consumption it is necessary to curb consumers. Why have the governments of the world not seen this?

Just as we cannot afford to bring every individual in the world up to the standards of the most advanced societies, we cannot afford society to continue to grow unchecked. The threat isn't climate change, it is population growth. As population has risen, so have carbon emmission and industrial growth.

The Kyoto protocal was a failure, not because it sought to limit emmissions to 1990 levels but becuase it didn't also seek to limit other growth factors such as population and industrialisation. We have enough factories, enough electricity generators what we need to do is limit the one thing that requires we build more.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 01/21/09 - cooling = warming?

Antarctica is melting

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24946650-401,00.html

this is of course contrary to the pundits who say it is cooling. Well it appears it depends where you take your measurements but taken as a whole it is melting. So much for the Planet is cooling brigade and guess who is stationed in the part that is cooling. Another case of if it isn't happening to the Americans, it isn't happening. They should change the name of that place to Ostrichvillia. What we might get is a smaller, colder, Antarctica but that is just my take on the news, it says nothing about the early onset of coastal flooding

paraclete answered on 01/21/09:

yes Antarctica is melting and getting smaller and as a result there will be higher seas and some interesting parts of the world will be under water, not to mention the habitat of many millions of humans. Those climate refugees will swell the ranks of the economic refugees looking for relocation in places like North America and Europe who are going to have plenty of their own problems it's goodbye Holland and South Vietnam.

Here is an interesting site where you can see the effect

http://flood.firetree.net/

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
dublin40 asked on 01/16/09 - Harry Truman's U.S. army pension

We know that Pres. Truman was in the army during WW1. Why did he receive an army pension of $13.507.72 per year?

Thank you

paraclete answered on 01/20/09:

There are bigger question to ask about Truman than the size of his army pension. Where did you get this interesting piece of trivia?

dublin40 rated this answer Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/22/08 - not in my backyard

The UK Telegraph reported "the wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed."
The British Wind Energy Association has admitted to cooking the books on its calculations of the amount of carbon dioxide displaced by wind power. According to the report a wind farm industry source offered this bizarre excuse for the inaccurate figures:
"It's not ideal for us. It's the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby."
It's the fault of the anti-wind lobby that the wind farm industry has been forced to tell the truth? Shame on those pro-pollution Neanderthals.
So how many windmills does it take to save the planet? (Or at least to make the "greens" on the tiny island of Britain feel good about themselves?) A lot.
Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity from wind power - would require 50,000 wind turbines.
But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of CO2 emissions.
That's at least 100,000 windmills to minimally reduce CO2 emissions. (All of these numbers assume, of course, that there is some wind to mill.) Picture it: a hundred thousand windmills doting the island. Should be a real boon for tourism.
ObamaNation wants to build a few windmills in America. Electrical generation in the United States releases just under 3 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To reduce the amount of CO2 by just 10% would require at least 150,000 windmills.

paraclete answered on 12/22/08:

apparently they even count the emissions in imported goods over there, under their system you could never get ahead and China and India get big credits for exporting.

I think they need to get with the program and worry about their own emissions. This whole thing is a nonsense, if a country does well and its exports rise so do its emissions so they have to work harder to offset this, If you are going to count emissions in imports too, it becomes ridiculous. There is an answer, turn out the lights

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/17/08 - The slight of hand in emission statistics?

We cannot but wonder at why governments continue to quote emission reductions against 1990 benchmarks. In fact, this is slight of hand intended to conceal exactly how much pain will be inflicted on the average punter. Australia's declaration of a 5% reduction against 1990 benchmarks mean a reduction in average individual emissions of 34-41% it was revealed today. No modest reduction this but the most ambitious plan thus far, far exceeding any proposal in the EU or US to date.

What are we, a bunch of fools? More KRUDD and the greenies have the gaul to ask for more or they will migrate to Europe, well I say go. To paraphrase a well known phrase from Australian politics; well might we say God save the planet, because nothing will save the Barrier Reef. (Apologies to Gough Whitlam and the constitutional crisis of 1975). I see the Labor Party setting its-self up for another dismissal. If the opposition is true to its colours, this legislation is doomed. It is hardly the balanced approach suggested but the destruction of a successful economy for no reason

paraclete answered on 12/21/08:

Of course we are fools, we are being talked into leading the way so KRUDD can strut the world stage and demonstrate how he has done more, when his stint at PM is over there is always Gen-Secretary of the UN to aspire too, where else would a career diplomat look to.

No one wants to talk about how much this all means in reduction of present levels, they all talk about a past benchmark which is meaningless to much of the population of the Earth who weren't even born then. The world has moved on, 1990 is a long time ago, and the realities are; keeping to the Kyoto targets is very difficult with a growing population, let alone reductions on the scale that are being suggested.

I have lived in a country where power is available for 50% of the day, I have no interest to returning to that third world life style but in reality that is what these reduction targets mean, not a lifting of the third world to first world standards but a reduction of the first world to third world standards.

We have the ability to change the way we do things but this is generational change, not something to be implemented tomorrow. We should look to building nuclear power stations, this curbs CO2 emissions and the nuclear waste is not an insurmountable problem, shoot it into the sun if needs be. But right now we are paralysed by the greenies who throw up an environmental issue to every solution. Ok some solutions are a not a net sum gain, such as ethanol,it makes no sense to turn corn into fuel while starvation exists in the world.

So yes the statistics are flawed and being used to hide the real issue, the pain we are all going to feel

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/20/08 - The absolute failure of a stimulus package?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-financial-crisis/2008/12/20/1229189947520.html

Just weeks after the $10.4B stimulus package was announced with the injunction for all who recieved it to spend it to stave off a slump it must be counted as an abject failure when retailers expect a modest $700 million increase in sales. So where have the billions gone? Perhaps they have been squirreled away for the post Christmas sales or perhaps common sense has prevailed and the bonus has been used wisely to reduce debt or catch up on the rent/mortgage. What ever has been done with it, it hasn't given the stimulus sought. Another failed economic policy, spend for security from a government with few real ideas.

Please Mr. Rudd, no more Krudd like this. Stop spending like a man with no arms and start stimulating the industries which can pull us out of recession. The industries that don't rely on imported content Building, Medicine, Education, Charities, Agriculture, Infrastructure but please no more quickie failures?

paraclete answered on 12/21/08:

Well what did you expect? radical ideas from a Labor politician. The unions have him by the proverbials and everything he does will be to "protect" jobs, as if this country hasn't seen unemployment before. I remember another Labor politician, skumbag Keating and the recession we had to have. He led us into the banana republic and KRUDD will make sure we stay there.

It won't be long before we see more industry restructuring, I expect the motor industry to be moved off shore or amalgamated in the interests of producing an environmentally friendly car, appropriately christened the KEV, perhaps a new "Commonwealth" bank to protect the workers savings and superannuation, a national rail corporation, oh sorry, we already have one of those, national hospitals administration, a new national broadband network owned by the government, a national aboriginal housing authority and of course we have the newly announced but as yet unnamed national homeless accommodation authority and protection for landlords in the mandatory Centrelink payment of rents for the government's unfortunate clients

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/15/08 - Capitalism in action?

inverstors including the largest banks have lost $50 Bil in a scam. Now you would have thought there was some sort of prudential regulation that prevented this sort of thing at least for financial institutions, it proves there is one born every day and most of them are rich, and there are actually people who think that there shouldn't be regulation. Well I think the american taxpayer can foot the bill for this one too, how about you?

paraclete answered on 12/15/08:

Yes this is capitalism in action, caveat emptor, and obviously very few were cautious. So I don't get it, a scheme like this can be illegal but be run for decades without anyone realising they have been had.
It shows you that BS rules

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/14/08 - KRudd, KRudd and more KRUDD?

Australia's feeble attempt to deal with climate change by setting "unconditional" targets conditional upon the world doing better is sort of like holding a dutch auction. The "we will if you will" approach has been shown to be a failure. We will reduce emissions by 15% if you will do better otherwise we will reduce by 5% but this is not conditional, so 5% it is. To be fair 5% below 1990 is a long way below where we are now but we have no weapons in our arsenal to even make 5% realistic, we will not use nuclear to reach the target, the greenies will not allow us to build dams so hydro is out even if we had the water, the wind doesn't blow very strongly so wind is a weak solution and that leaves solar, a very expensive and some what polluting alternative (silicon refining is a heavy polluter). There is plenty of opportunity for wave and hot rocks but it just doesn't capture the imagination so pumping coal fired generation emissions underground is all we have. Krudd, save our money and demand electric vehicles now, at least we will make environmentally friendly use of the electricity generated

paraclete answered on 12/15/08:

I don't know what you expect, nothing we do will have any impact on global emissions, so whether we reduce by 5%, 15%, 50% or 100%, two-pennith of nothing is still nothing. I think the penny has finally dropped and Krudd has done a Howard and realised that it is all a waste of time, energy and money and he has more important things to do.

Now while this may be true of Australia, and some other small nations, the same isn't true of the major polluters, USA, Russia, China and soon to be India as well as the old players in the game. It's easy to reduce emissions, we did it years ago, we just did it too soon for it to count. You shut down your manufacturing industries and get some cheap labour to do the job for you. All the pollution goes somewhereelse and you meet your targets, all you have to do is sell them some minerals and buy back the finished product or some of it.
Just when they thing everything is great you pull the rug out from under them and start up the industries somewhereelse. It's a real shame that the next place for startup with cheap labour just isn't politically stable.
Mr Krudd has the right idea, put your resources into making it easier to export the pollution, so now we will have better railways to our export ports so we can sell more coal to the world

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/11/08 - How do you stimulate an economy?

Do you do it by plowing money into infrastructure projects with uncertain start dates, sounds like grandstanding to me! Do you do it by allowing business to defer tax payments? More grandstanding!
Do you do it by loaning money to institutions which continue to announce massive job cuts?

No you cannot stimulate an economy doing any of these things because they do nothing to provide certainty about the future.

What I ask is why can't politicians see that this isn't the time for grandstand gestures?

paraclete answered on 12/11/08:

No, slick, you do it by boondoggling but boondoggling takes too long, what we need now are potholes filled, roads resurfaced, verges mown, rocks painted and moved about,parks planted; anything that can keep anyone without a job in work. If we happen to widen a few roads and bridges and relay some track that would be good too.

The days are gone when rural work could absorb a city out of work but I hear fruit pickers are still in great demand. I vote we send all those hangers on in the form of refugees back where they came from, that should free up the job market and stimulate the airline industry which has some empty seats, it will also free up the rental market. This is an ideal time to tackle climate change by replanting trees, there are huge tracks of land which are no longer viable for farming, so why not stimulate the economy by replanting them with trees; this reduces carbon di-oxide and provides employment and the carbon credits can be sold to fund the exercise, a win-win scenario.

You expect politicians to actually contribute something but in reality they are just being fed more of the same by public servants, the programs don't change much regime to regime, just emphasis so unless we get some radical ideas we all go down the gurgler together

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 12/10/08 - God and bad economic policy?

when journalists write of government's bold new stimulus package, they look no further than the visible benefits and ignore the hidden costs. If a bridge it to be built, construction workers and steelmakers will no doubt benefit But there are hidden costs. In this new eeconomic environment we see a rush to promote infrastructure projects what are the consequences? The price of steel and construction wages will be higher, discouraging private investment. If the funds are to be borrowed in the marketplace, that will restrict funds available for private investment. And what will happen to unemployment when the infrastructure is completed?
The key to recovery is sustainable investment — not temporary jobs.
A further example of this was a stimulus package given to the solar industry by the Australian government created a boom in the industry, but change of government and change of policy has seen the industry going from boom to bust, where will the skilled workers be when the government again decides to turn on the tap as part of their new stimulus package, working on another infrastructure project?

Welfare Spending
If you give a man a fish he will have a single meal.
If you teach him how to fish, he will eat all his life.

~ Kuan-tzu, Taoist philospher (7th century BC).

comments?

paraclete answered on 12/10/08:

With this sort of thinking no one would do anything, sort of paralysis by analysis.

Yes I agree the Australian government's attempt to stimulate the economy by giving money to low income people is a deeply flawed ploy carried out without thinking but infrastructure projects take months and years to produce any impact.

If governments want to stimulate the economy they could start by replacing their vehicle fleet immediately, replacing rolling stock on railways, replacing PC and equipment in schools and government offices, recruiting into the armed forces, subsidising housing construction for the low income rental market, stimulating local tourism and mandating that no organisation that takes government assistance or government contracts can cut back on employment

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/02/08 - Alinsky community organizing goes international

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24738950-5006786,00.html

Protesters have swarmed the Gold Coast City Council headquarters, and with blaring rock anthems vented anger over a planned Muslim school.

Almost 200 residents turned out for the demonstration, draped in Australian flags and shouting pro-Aussie slogans while Australian rock classics such as Down Under and Great Southern Land boomed across the parkland, The Courier-Mail reports.

Australian International Islamic College, planned for Carrara, has raised the ire of residents who fear it will lead to the local Muslim population withdrawing from the rest of the community. A rally last week attracted about 400 people, while people turned out yesterday carrying placards bearing slogans such as “no Muslim school, hell no” and “integration, not segregation”. Resident’s spokesman Tony Doherty said Muslim schools did not encourage multiculturalism. “It’s segregation, not integration,” he said.


lol

The interesting thing is their use of the terms “segregation” and “multiculturalism” to oppose the school.

Saul Alinksy ;the spiritual mentor of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama once wrote that you can beat the Establishment to death with their own book of rules. Now that the libs are the Establishment the lesson still holds.

In the name of diverity they have opened their tent to all types of special interest groups....militant gays,radical muslims, feminists, latte sucking atheists etc. As we saw in the primary contest between OB1 and Evita Clintoon it is a fragile alliance indeed that almost fractured because their various special interests conflict. Once in power they turn on each other . It will happen here in the US also.


paraclete answered on 12/02/08:

I think these things need to be seen in a broader context, Just because some thing happens in Australia doesn't mean it will reproduce in the US or vise versa. Australia is a liberal democratic society not often given to extreme conservatism. the word liberal here doesn't mean socialist as it does in the US, however Muslims have proved difficult because of failure to integrate and assimilate

Muslims schools are being opposed all over Australia whereever they are proposed. This is because the Muslims typically attempt to establish these schools in greenfields sites where there is no Muslim community and therefore no community of interest. In Australia the federal government subsidise non state schools in order to promote choice so a lucrative financial incentive exists for Muslims to attempt to establish schools. If this incentive did not exist they would not do it. The Australian community doesn't welcome Muslims because it sees their presence as a watering down of the basic tenets of established law and ethos which is based on Judeo/Christian values and British common law. We don't want Sharia Law and we will not cave in to these interests as the British have done. Take your lesson from what happens elsewhere. Europe is being overrun by these people who become a new underclass with all its attendant problems

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ken123 asked on 10/15/08 - Dictators

Can someone please explain how a dictator with records of human rights violations, such as Papa Doc Duvalier, can seek refuge in other countries with impunity (France in this case)? Thanks

paraclete answered on 10/19/08:

Papa Doc did not seek refuge in France you refer to Jean-Claude Duvalier (nicknamed Bébé Doc or Baby Doc. Although he moved to France it was not with total impunity.

There are instances where countries will offer refuge to a leader who is deposed because they have ruled a client state or as an expedient to resolve a situation. George Bush made such an offer to Saddam Hussein before launching the Gulf war attack, he offered Hussein the opportunity to leave to avoid the attack. Whether Hussein had somewhere safe to go, Syria or Russia is not clear

Duvalier had not committed an offense in France and so was accepted to enter the country. It is often the case that Presidents have immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office and it takes prosecution in an international court to overturn this. Remember money opens many doors

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 08/13/08 - Another Bush Gigantic Failure-Russia

Yet, only a few months to go in a disastrous Presidency, and we see the results of Bush's blundering in foreign relations with the advent of Russia's bombing and invasion of Georgia.

Remember how Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a man he could work with??!! BWAH HA HA HA

Bush even has Condolezza as a top aid and Secretary of State...she, an academic EXPERT IN RUSSIA and they just ignored Russia.

I wonder if they are going to leave the problems to Dr. Strangelove-McCain?????

What a nightmare of a presidency!!!

NO MORE YEARS OF TRAGIC LEADERSHIP FROM REPUBS!!!

paraclete answered on 08/13/08:

I think you expect too much from that down home texas boy, he is just not equal to the task

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 08/09/08 - HELLO:

Good morning guys and gals. HANK is back. I've noticed that there's a lack of activity on this Board. Let's get the ball rollin', especially since there's so much going on in the political stream that's flowing sideways, upwards and downwards. No happy medium presently.

HANK

paraclete answered on 08/12/08:

Hank Panky, you're back. Does this mean golf has lost its allure? I expect there are only so many balls you can hit at your age.

So which of the new campaigners have you sided with. McPain or o-BAM-a? one sounds like a hamburger and the other a southern state, perhaps they will meet in the middle and we will have KFC.

As to things political flowin, it's all down hill from here

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 08/12/08 - War Protesters ...where are they now ?

So where are those hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters ? Shouldn't they be on the streets protesting in Europe ;and the United States over the illegal war of aggression being conducted by Russia against Georgia ? Where are the burning Russian flags and paper mache Putins hanging in effigee ?

The Great Victor Davis Hanson has a brilliant observation :

The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.


The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).

From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good.

paraclete answered on 08/12/08:

At least the americans for whatever reason are protesting the russian methods, we shall see what comes of this but america doesn't need another Iraq or Afganistan and Georgia could quickly become that. Geographically Georgia is in a difficult position for the US because to help them the US must draw others into the action. Its not a great idea to go play in Russia's sandbox

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 08/10/08 - Iraq & Afghanistan:


Something has been buggin' me for some years now. I would like to know if anyone in our government took the time to analyze the mind-set of the Muslims BEFORE we bombed IRAQ and AFGANISTAN. As we now know, the Muslims are destined to kill everyone who doesn't conform to their religion. We now know the Muslims knew about guerilla warfare. It seems to me that those powers-that-be were very naive about both.


Let me hear from you. Thanks.



HANK


paraclete answered on 08/12/08:

My views on Muslims and the brain dead american administration are well known Hank. This is very old news and you should be thinking on how to extract yourselves from a very difficult situation, No power since Alexander the Great has been known to conquer Afganistan, as far as Iraq is concerned every power known to man has managed to conquer the place in short order except the americans. What does this say about american methods?

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 07/03/08 - What is the *Real* Reason??

...that fundi/Ev Christians reject the climate crisis?

What is the reason?

paraclete answered on 07/09/08:

I think you have stuck that label on me in the past and you well know that I have not rejected climate change as an observable event so why don't you be specific and ask why Bush a professed Christian rejects climate change and I would say that it is the love of money which prevents him from seeing reality.

Doing something tangible about climate change is going to cost and it is going to cost those who have most to lose the most. Oil has to go as an energy source, coal has to go as an energy source and any nation which has a carbon based economy and that is your nation, my nation and most of the world is in big trouble economically when it tries to address the changes that are necessary. It is politically unpalitable because there is nowhere vested interest can do something for the folks back home. Look at what they have done already, forced up the price of corn by converting food stuff to fuel, what idiots! Now if they had taken an over subsidised sugar industry and converted that to fuel you might have seen some sense but that would have taken that industry out of the trough. No votes there.

Old T-bone may have had a good suggestion the other day but that solution only works for a few and it is still a carbon based solution.

So stop ranting about the fundies and start to see that this isn't a faith issue, it's a life style issue. The SUV has to go, the holidays abroad have to go, the rabid consumerism has to go, the population growth has to go and if we can't solve the problem the planet will solve it for us.

people are a virus an infection and for planet Earth the infection is terminal

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 07/02/08 - Did you know that there are massive volcanoes under the ice?

This might blow your mind the more you think about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374542,00.html

paraclete answered on 07/07/08:

Fred we know global warming is a conspiracy aimed at the United States. We all want you to consume less, based on the size of your waste lines this is not an unreasonable request

What we suggest is this, down size McDonalds so that when some one asks for a burger that's what they get nothing else that should reduce the green house gases in north america by half

There are many volcanoes on the face of the earth Fred and have been for many centuries, from the statistics these did not add to the carbon diooxide sufficiently to cause Global warming and they certainly are no melting the glaciers.

I personally will be glad to see the demise of the SUV I cannot think of a more stupid use of such vehicles as urban transport and who led us into this stupidity; the north americans

You will get what you deserve, you reap what you sow.

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 06/22/08 - Have you heard, global warming is a proven fraud.

Proven by an overwhelming number of scientists.
Many times more than those few who make the claim of global warming.
Look here......
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

paraclete answered on 06/23/08:

Ok Fred let's review a few facts that this person puts forward. Smog, so he thinks the problem is beaten, obviously he has not been to China or the other growing economies in Asia. Smog from vehicle and factory emissions is a serious problem in these places. So serious that sunlight is a rare commodity. What I suggest is that the US has succeeded in exporting its problem, not solved the problem.

Carbon dioxide as a trace element. To suggest that because its concentration is small in relative terms it cannot have an undesirable effect is false logic, the undesirable effect is a general warming and to suggest that a short term sun spot cycle in recess is a long term offset permitting continued pollution is an attitude worthy of a trogladite.

Gore (and others) has demonstrated a correlation between rising concentrations of carbon dio-oxide and a rise in average temperatures which far outstrips other known reasons. To suggest otherwise is suggest that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Whether the conclusions drawn are correct is a horse of a different colour. Sea levels are rising, since the supply of water is finite, this leads to the conclusion either ice caps are melting or sea temperature is rising. There appears to be evidence of both. There is wide spread glacial melting and sun spot activity cannot be the explanation since sun spot activity is a cycle well observed.

So lets not swallow the propaganda of the oil industry whole but realise that change is needed and change is going to cost those who make most use of resources the most. That means both you and I are going to pay more. Do we like it, no. I may even have to buy a car that uses less fuel, is this a bad thing, probably not.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 05/21/08 - Did a long term cooling trend start in 2007?

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
May 5, 2008
BY DENNIS T. AVERY
CHURCHVILLE VA—Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.

For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.
Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.
The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic—but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified.

paraclete answered on 05/21/08:

Yes Fred the climate change statistics are very interesting. This certainly has been a cooler year, but the southern oscillation index indicates a el nino is back in effect so the drought goes on. If I intrepret the PDO statistics correctly this means the SOI will continue to bring drought to my neck of the woods and the lower temperatures may be short lived as sea temperatures rise off my eastern coast. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Greenhouse gases continue to rise and although they are only a small percentage of atmospheric gases they appear to be associated with rising temperatures. I expect we will know more if we see more sea ice at the north pole or glaciers beginning to grow again, but the PDO cycle doesn't appear to be tied into the longer term warming trend

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 05/17/08 - Do you believe this guy? I think I do.

He claims that the USA has more crude oil in the ground that the Arab counties all together do.
Watch and listen to what he says here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

paraclete answered on 05/20/08:

What the man says is interesting Fred, we know Bush has vested oil interests and that includes benefiting from a rising price, however Lindsay takes an "American" view and fails to recognise that world demand for oil is rising rapidly and this will keep the price high. Bush pushed the Saudi to pump more oil, this may have been a grandstand play. You look to $1.50 an gallon, I would like to see $1.50 a litre again. Until that sort of inequity is redressed, America has no sympathy from me for lower oil costs. It's long past time you felt the same pain the rest of us have to deal with

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/13/08 - Another Good Strategy ... but not for us:

Why couldn't the insurgents go into hibernation for six months? Our forces would pull out, thinking we won the war. Then the insurgents would clean up Iraq with carnage ... but not American carnage. And another thought: I readily believe that if we have a war with Iran, it will be Earth's FINAL WAR. Religion and politics will be the causes and involve the Jews, Islam and Christianity. When will this happen? In 2009!


Any comments?

Hank

paraclete answered on 04/13/08:

Perhaps you would like to tell OBL that one Hank, you have once again demonstrated how much you care. You don't get it, do you? If there are no American troops in Iraq then there is no need for al qaeda in Iraq, they can then concentrate on some other place, like America, isn't that what Bush has been telling you as a justification for staying there. What you suggest is a recipe for carnage in America or perhaps a recipe for the end of that obscene war.

Will it happen in 2009, it might if the Dems win the election, Johnny can come marching home.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
purplewings rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 02/13/08 - Have you seen this?

Take a look and tell me your opinion of it.
Thanks,
Fred

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/answers/information/2many.html

paraclete answered on 02/14/08:

If you would believe that you would believe anything Fred, it's an ad for a bookshop

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 02/14/08 - Are you for the Global Poverty act?

Can you believe that ANY American would sponsor or vote for a bill like this?

www.NewsWithViews.com
February 13, 2008
New Articles

Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.........
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm
by Cliff Kincaid

paraclete answered on 02/14/08:

Hi Fred after looking at the detail I am suprised that any individual in any country would sponsor the content, however well meaning, becuase it signs away soveriegn national rights. However no doubt you would be unaware that there would already be legislation committing your nation, and mine, to follow the dictates of the UN by default.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
purplewings rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 01/11/08 - BUSH'S IDEA OF NAT.ID CARD, CALLED "REAL ID"

WASHINGTON (AP) - Residents of at least 17 states are suddenly stuck in the middle of a fight between the Bush administration and state governments over post-Sept. 11 security rules for driver's licenses - a dispute that, by May, could leave millions of people unable to use their licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was unveiling final details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the legislation.

Chertoff, as he revealed final details of the REAL ID Act, said that in instances where a particular state doesn't seek a waiver, its residents will have to use a passport or a newly created federal passport card if they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.

``The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love to have a REAL ID license but can't get one,'' Chertoff said. ``But in the end, the rule is the rule as passed by Congress.''

Chertoff spoke as he discussed the details of the administration's plan to improve security for driver's licenses in all 50 states - an effort delayed due to opposition from states worried about the cost and civil libertarians upset about what they believe are invasions of privacy.

Under the rules announced Friday, Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years.

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure ID initiative that Congress approved in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key deadline in 2011 - when federal authorities hope all states will be in compliance - and then further measures to be enacted three years later.

To make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to $3.9 billion, a 73 percent decline, said Homeland Security officials familiar with the plan.

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to ensure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data; critics such as the ACLU say that creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its personal data pilfered.

In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to the ``first-ever national identity card system,'' which ``would irreparably damage the fabric of American life.''

The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: ``One driver, one license.''

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

So far, 17 states have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to the REAL ID Act's provisions, many due to concerns it will cost them too much to comply. The 17, according to the ACLU, are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington state.

Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that if someone is rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's photo would be kept on file and checked if that person tried to con the system again.

The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which security measures they will put in their cards.

Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license applicants.

Most states already check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, have already implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks, including state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify those applicants who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying birth certificates and checking with other states to ensure an applicant doesn't have more than one license.

A few states have already signed written agreements indicating they plan to comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to it, often because of concerns about the cost of the extra security.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What are your thoughts on this plan involving 50 states???

paraclete answered on 01/14/08:

It seems you have a storm in a tea cup over there, or a number of people who have reason to buck the system. We have had a number of such measures in place for years requiring photo ID for bank accounts and drivers licences. The layer of security which requires checks in other states must be cumbersome but you can overcome this by having a national licensing system. What is the problem with an identity card anyway, if you go overseas you have a passport, It can simplify how many cards you have to access Government. I don't get it, if security is an issue why isn't it an issue for everyone

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 01/01/08 - HAPPY NEW YEAR POLITICOS!!

Two days to the Iowa Caucus'!

Election year his here.

paraclete answered on 01/13/08:

this is supposed to be important do you know that 98% of the world arn't interested

Mary_Susan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 11/27/07 - Australia, the World's Next Republic??

Australia will be taking a vote due to recent election change to the Liberal Party to change to a Republic and drop the monarchy. The change to a Republic has a lot of support among the citizens.

What do you think???

paraclete answered on 11/27/07:

Australia has already taken a vote on being a republic and the move was rejected. There is no advantage to Australia becoming a republic since it's parliamentary democracy is extremely efficient and the only thing that would changed would be the role of head of state. No doubt the matter will be reviewed as it is periodically however the chief proponents are not the now ruling Labor Party but elements of the defeated Liberal Party

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mary_Susan asked on 11/26/07 - It's Official-US Troops in Iraq Indefinitely

"So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference.

Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.

Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.

The White House is also taking steps to argue that there's nothing unusual about what it intends for Iraq. Here's that fact sheet again:

The Declaration Sets The U.S. And Iraq On A Path Toward Negotiating Agreements That Are Common Throughout The World

The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries.

Not stated, of course, is that Iraq would represent a military commitment opposed by most of the American people. Nor that it would represent codifying an unpopular war into an unpopular, indefinite war. Nor even what that commitment would entail. Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:

To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.

In other words, we're staying in Iraq to defend Nouri al-Maliki against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What will the presidential candidates say about this?

From HuffPo lead Blog 11-26-07 4:00 PM Central

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments?
A majority of Americans are against US Troops in Iraq indefinitely....how will this play out in your opinion??

What about the candidates of both parties???

paraclete answered on 11/26/07:

american troops will stay in Iraq as long as is necessary to protect oil supplies, that is a given and certainly while the Iranians are an issue

Mary_Susan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 10/26/07 - Gaffe of the day .......................................

The gaffe of the day [week, month, year, decade, century, millennium, etc] was made by Brian Paraclete and Tom who say that Jews worship the Christian Trinity. This statement has severe political overtones that could end in bloodshed because Tom and Brian are claiming that Jews are exactly the same, and so are gathering Jews against their will into their own odd cults.


How can this be dealt with without bloodshed?

Ronnie


paraclete answered on 10/26/07:

So now Christian belief has political overtones does it Ronnie? I suppose next you will be telling us that the Mormons were driven out of Missouri for political reasons.

For the Record - The Jews believe in YEHWEH - JEHOVAH (however you wish to pronounce the name of God) and the Christians also believe In YEHWEH - JEHOVAH as the Lord Almighty, the Father, but it can also be demonstrated that both the Jews and the Christians believe in the Messiah as God they are just not in agreement regarding his name. Scripture in referring to God and the Messiah Refer to Jesus as I am your Salvation. Scripture also refers to the Spirit of God, a belief held in common by both Christians and Jews. The difference of opinion lies, if there is a difference of opinion as to where God is divided into three separate entities or is one individual. Both Jews and True Christians hold that God is one individual.

There will be no bloodshed over this all the blood that needed to be shed was shed two thousand years ago

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Yiddishkeit rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
purplewings asked on 10/23/07 - Concerned about our government erosion.

I'm not just referring to the President being able to make new policy or ignore the wishes of the citizens, but to all politicians in general. In Michigan, we are in distress because of plant closings, corporate shut-downs, and lay offs with people losing their homes. At the same time, politicians in Lansing have overspent their budget leaving the state without proper funding for necessities such as police, prisons, schools, etc. Our elected officials have decided to rectify that by having another tax raise. Imagine losing jobs and homes to now being expected to pay for the state's failure to properly budget.

I recently read that when people stop paying attention or caring what the government does - it gives free rein for them to do whatever they like. It's hard to be interested when we are ignored and overburdened. How can we best get the government to do what they've been elected to do......serve us?

paraclete answered on 10/24/07:

don't you love democracy, now you have the opportunity to get rid of those incompetent politicians and get some even more incompetent politicians to replace them. You get the government you deserve, if you hold them to a high standard you get politicians who can perform, if you don't hold them to account you gets monkeys

purplewings rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
purplewings asked on 10/20/07 - Just dipping my toe in the water.

Is anyone here still? Can we start rumbling again?

paraclete answered on 10/20/07:

There are some of us here but it doesn't seem like there is much worth discussing just same old list of characters and thats been done to death

purplewings rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 09/28/07 - How the heck..........

...does Hillary plan to pull off a $5,000.00 bond to every baby born and not expect to have to raise taxes or anything to cover it?????????

paraclete answered on 09/28/07:

She will just follow the Australian example. You see the reality is if you lower personal taxes and have a broad based consumption tax then suddenly all things become possible because all those who are successfully evading tax get caught in the net, national debt can be reduced, the economy blossoms even if your manufacturing industries go offshore and unemployment becomes a thing of the past. More money for all means more money in the treasury, more taxes collected. the government is happy, the politicians are happy and the people are happy. It's called a win, win, taxation by representation. Come on, join in banana republic economics.

Fritzella rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 09/16/07 - I shall never complain again about the lack of a moderator here

Scottgem is a real “Jewel.” He is the head moderator at askmehelpmedesk.com. He just deleated 6 perfectly innocent posts and closed a topic in politics after making an ass of himself...I shall never complain again about the lack of a moderator here.

paraclete answered on 09/16/07:

and we need to know this, why?

Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 08/23/07 - have you caught the flu, Islam Flu, that is?


Muslim immigration likened to bird flu

By Nick Ralston

August 23, 2007 03:12pm
Article from: AAP

A NSW Senate candidate has compared the immigration of Muslims to Australia to the bird flu and says it should stop.

Christian Democratic Party (CDP) Senate candidate Paul Green called today for a moratorium on Muslim immigration while a study on its social impacts was carried out.

He said it would be easier to carry out such a study with the country's Muslim population at 300,000, rather than three million at a later date.

A study would also give the Australian people a chance to have a say on the immigration program, Mr Green said.

He said that in the last 12 months, a number of local Muslim senior clerics had made statements that were not of "the Australian nature".

"If there was bird flu coming from a people's group across the nation would we not halt, assess the risk management of what it means to Australia and then assess the factors and then say, is it not safe to continue that or withhold it until it is dealt with," he said.

"We are saying there's cracks in the foundation, we need to address them."

Mr Green said Australia would suffer the same fate as "Britain, France and Holland" unless the study was carried out.

However, he said the social impact study would not form part of any political deal done with the Liberal Party for preference swapping ahead of this year's federal election.

Christian Democrats leader Fred Nile said his party's immigration policy also called on a priority for Christians who have been persecuted, particularly in Muslim countries, to be allowed into Australia.

"It's a very broad policy, and it is certainly not racist," Mr Nile said.

"We don't care where the people come from, what colour of the skin they are, we are happy to accept them, particularly the Christians who have been persecuted."

Mr Nile said he believed the Federal Government was already starting to adopt some of the CDP policies.

paraclete answered on 08/29/07:

Yes this is the flu season and Islam is like the flu it just won't go away

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 08/29/07 - Is this funny or the truth????????????????????????????

Tax truth

At first I thought this was funny...
then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State a ND Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt,
had the largest middle class in the world,
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

paraclete answered on 08/29/07:

It seems you have more taxes than we do but then we sort of rolled a lot up into one. I think we borrowed some from you.

Goods and Services tax
Fuel Tax
Income tax
Medicare levy
Road tax
Liquor and Tobacco exise
Land Tax
Property sales stamp duty
Local Government Rates
Fire Brigades levy (Property tax)
Business Registration
E-tag (transport tax)
Fringe Benefits tax
Airport landing tax
Payroll tax
Building licence fees

Everything than can be taxed is taxed and if it isn't it will be. User pays, the great capitalist principle

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Tempus-Omnia-Revelat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 08/08/07 - George W. Bush Tin Hats, $2.00

"For a while there, back when the Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress, they were naming things after Ronald Reagan everywhere. Airports. Aircraft carriers. Federal buildings. There was even talk of replacing Roosevelt with Reagan on the dime.


Now, with the national landscape cratered with reminders of the apocalypse their public policy has wrought since 1980, maybe it's time to revisit the concept and start naming American disasters after the people and policies that caused them.

Obviously, the new 35W bridge in Minneapolis should be named for The Great Communicator. Infrastructure on the cheap began on his watch. Elsewhere locally, we might consider naming the boarded up school where my kid used to go, "No Child Left Behind Unfunded Mandate Park."

Baghdad? Rumsfeld City. Iraq? Cheneyland. We could have the George W. Bush National Deficit. For whom should we name that steam pipe crater in Manhattan?

We might even consider selling the naming rights to our institutions the way we sell the naming rights to our new, publicly-funded arenas and stadiums. Halliburton could donate a share of its Iraq windfall to New Orleans and put their name on a rebuilt Ninth Ward. For less than he paid for the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch could have the, "Rupert Murdoch Memorial Federal Communications Commission." And who would protest if the Carlyle Group were to plunk down a few billion to call it the "George and Barbara Bush Memorial Supreme Court"?

Santayana said those who cannot remember the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. Maybe naming these disasters and debacles after their authors will help us remember." Peter Smith, blogging
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


paraclete answered on 08/08/07:

It think that rebuilt Minneapolis bridge could be name the Geo. W. Bush Road Map to Failure Bridge giving a lasting legacy of three great and famous failures, the Minneapolis Bridge, George W. Bush and the Road Map to Peace. not often you get three for the price of one.

As to the rest I think Americans should stick to naming momuments in their own country

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 07/22/07 - BUSH TO BE CENSURED--MY FINAL POST

WASHINGTON — "Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions _ measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.

The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney and perhaps other administration officials.


The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said. It would also ask for a reprimand of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and maybe others.

"This is an opportunity for people to say, let's at least reflect on the record that something terrible has happened here," said Feingold, D-Wis. "This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, "somethng terrible" happened here in America....Shit for brains Christian voters electing a shit for brains President who fucked up everything he touched.

paraclete answered on 07/22/07:

so it finally comes out you are continuing your hatred of Christians on the politics Board.

The decisions Bush makes are not Christian, they are political motivated not by Christian values but by the almighty dollar.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 07/19/07 - Joe Biden on Bush

Senator Biden appeared On PBS's The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer this evening, and spoke about President Bush and the war in Iraq. While he argued that neither the Democrats or the President have offered a sustainable political solution for Iraq, he also said,

"There's a famous justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who once said, 'Prejudice is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more tightly it closes.' Well, for this president,information is like the pupil of the eye. The more information you give it, the more tightly he rejects it. He is living in an unrealistic fantasyland about the state of affairs on the ground in Iraq."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No one disagrees, do they?

paraclete answered on 07/19/07:

saw the interview, I think he said more that that

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 07/19/07 - Bush will ask for more troops in Sept after "Surge"

The Bush Administration has indoctrinated many Americans of lower intelligence into believing all his lies and misinformation about the War on Jihadists and Iraq. (See poll results of questions on the War on Iraq.)

In September after the current "Surge", Bush plans to send in *more troops*. (Washington insider rumor)

How do you feel about this?

paraclete answered on 07/19/07:

it would be foolish to build up troops in Iraq as it will fuel tensions in the region that US has other aspirations.

Recent commentary suggests that 50,000 troops are sufficient for terrorist suppression if Iraqi take over policing and solve the political problems such as oil wealth distribution. All that is achieved by troop buildup is to offer insurgents more targets. The US must now focus solely on persuing the war on terror.

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 07/18/07 - BUSH-his strategy for fighting AlQuaeda a Failure

WASHINGTON, July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.


Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in Turbat recently. His strategy in tribal areas has been criticized by President Bush’s advisers.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush's man Chertoff of Homeland Security said that there will probably be an attack on America this summer by alQuaeda.


Why did Bush and the Neo-Cons totally screw up all the wars:

War in Afghanistan
War against Iraq
War against Jihadists

We are now worse off than we were on 910, no doubt about it.

paraclete answered on 07/18/07:

you don't get it do you. In earlier wars the US either had significant numerical and weaponary advantage or significant time to plan their attack or both. In these wars the push was on particularly in Afganistan and so early success is marked with stalemate as the opposing forces recover from the US strikes, and the will of the US to pursue the war wanes. Artificial borders have hampered the efforts in Afganisatan. In Iraq the politics took over early and the US alienated the locals with heavy handed tactics. Everyone was seen as an Baathist and an enemy to be suppressed. As far as a war on the jihadists goes, this is rhetoric. It is, and can only be an intelligence war, with few battles. The battles you can win with force of arms. Think about what happened in your own civil war, dispite significant numerical advantage, the north was at virtual stalemate around Washington. It took audacious action in other parts of the country to win the war. Leadership was lacking then and it is lacking now, but rhetoric abounded.

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 07/17/07 - Political Live Chat Tomorrow

"...tomorrow at 2 pm EDT, as the dust settles on the Senate showdown, HuffPost will host a live chat with MoveOn.org's Tom Matzzie, who is currently spearheading a multi-state, multi-media, multi-million dollar campaign focused on turning up the heat on Republicans who are obstructing an end to the war. To take part, please send your Iraq questions, along with your name and town, to livechat@huffingtonpost.com between now and the start of the chat. Then be sure to log on to HuffPost Wednesday at 2 o'clock Eastern for this timely and vital conversation..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Join me and sign up to be a participant on the live chat event on huffingtonpost tomorrow at 2. Start sending in your questions now so you will be considered!

Mary Sue

paraclete answered on 07/18/07:

You are, of course, kidding?

MarySusan rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 07/17/07 - Congratulations!

I want to congratulate the good people of this Board for their good manners and the lack of spam which seems to infest certain other places on answerway

paraclete answered on 07/18/07:

I accept your gracious congratulations

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 07/17/07 - Are you bored?

I am and although I seldom post nwes articles I couldn't resist this one.


Global Warming now world's most boring topic: report
Jim Schembri
July 18, 2007

Global warming and the debate over whether man-made carbon gas emissions are having a detrimental influence on climate change has been ranked as the most boring topic of conversation on earth, according to a new report.

The issue of global warming far out-performed other contenders for the title, such as the production of goat cheese, the musical genius of the artist formerly known as P Diddy and media speculation over the likely outcome of the upcoming federal election.

These topics still tracked strongly, according to the report, but global warming was identified as the topic most likely to prompt people into feigning heart attacks so as to avoid hearing the phrases "procrastination penalty", "precautionary principle" and "peer-reviewed analysis" ever again.

The study, conducted by a non-partisan think tank located somewhere between the small township of Tibooburra and the NSW border, identified global warming as the current topic of choice for people who want their dinner party to finish early.

According to the parents in the survey, global warming has now replaced the traditional bedtime story when it comes to putting children to sleep. The study found the topic was also being used instead of water cannon by riot police around the world to disperse crowds.

In a key finding, the survey revealed that the amount of damaging carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of discussing the global warming issue now exceeds the greenhouse gas emissions of northern China.

The survey also raised a number of important issues regarding the global warming debate.

Of those surveyed, 83 per cent said that while they understood both sides of the issue, they did not understand Al Gore.

Participants in the study were asked whether Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth had helped enlighten people to the importance of the global warming issue.

The standard response was that if the issue of global warming is as important and urgent to Gore as he keeps saying every time he is on Letterman, then why didn't he make the movie during the eight years he was vice-president of the United States, the second most powerful position in the world? Why did he wait until his political career was dead?

The issue was also raised as to why Gore personally came out to promote his film in Australia - a relatively insignificant market - and then make a big deal about all the carbon off-setting he had done to counter the pollution his trip had generated. Over 95 per cent of those who took part in the survey wanted to know why he didn't just do it all from his house via satellite.

Other key findings of the survey were:

* 89 per cent wanted to know how it was possible for humans to control the climate, given that they have enough trouble forecasting it;

* 96 per cent believe those who use the term "climate change denial" are attempting to equate it with "Holocaust denial"

* 100 per cent of these respondents also believe such people should receive lengthy prison terms for crimes against the English language;

* 79 per cent of the bands that took part in the Live Earth event did so because they feared the planet would be destroyed by global warming before they had a chance to receive free worldwide television exposure;

* 87 per cent only tuned in to watch the lead singer from Sneaky Sound System, who is hot;

* 92 per cent of those same people watched her on mute because they didn't want to hear that song again;

Of all the issues raised in the survey, most common was whether the global warming debate was all just an elaborate ruse designed to sell stuff.

The study highlighted how those who subscribe to the prophecy of global warming automatically commit themselves to purchasing a vast array of expensive products, whereas sceptics don't have to buy anything to support their point of view.

Over 98 per cent of people surveyed also predicted that the standard response from global warming proponents to that last statement would be: "yeah, it won't cost anything - except the future of your planet".

paraclete answered on 07/18/07:

sounds like they have been out in the sun too long, Mat.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 07/15/07 - Aboriginal Peoples(Aus) and Native Americans

I was watching a program on Discovery about Aboriginal Peoples of Australia in the last few days. In Australia, the white settlers set out to exterminate aboriginal people and almost succeded in a couple of areas. JUst plain exterminate.

IN America, the govermnemt and settlers engaged in warring and moving Indians to different locations.

IN both cultures, the original native cultures are really floundering.

So, do you think that the governments have a responsibility to these defeated subjugated peoples? Political responsibility?
MOral responsibility?

paraclete answered on 07/15/07:

I think what you have seen is individual greed in both nations resulting in wholesale murder for land. however the position in Australia is different to America. The Colonial governments in Australia (British) never waged a military campaign against aboriginal peoples, and the Commonwealth government(after 1901) certainly never has. The aboriginal population was never large and conflicts were usually the result of aboriginals spearing livestock. The aborignal culture in Australia is floundering because of inter racial breeding. The half breed black is a fringe dweller. Those aboriginals keeping to their old ways are not floundering. The American Indian was a conquored people, the aboriginal was decimated by disease but never conquored because they never fought a discernable war, just a few raids against isolated homesteads. We have a term, Terra Nullius, the empty land, this is how Australia appeared to early settlers

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 07/12/07 - Cleaning House:



Let's bring all of our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's round-up all the illegals in America and send them back to where they came from. Let's get health insurance for everyone in the United States. Bottom-line: Let the greatest country on Earth take care of itself and allow us to quit worrying about everyone in the World. We should be spending more money on self-preservation instead of pooping it away on lost causes.

At least that's one scenario! However, not necessarily mine! Any comments?

HANK

paraclete answered on 07/12/07:

interesting ideas, who is going to clean up after you once all the servants have gone home. Look you go ahead and do that, the world would be be better off without you telling them what to do, but remember to take your trade with you when you go, then we can have fuel efficient cars, real food and withdrawl of american culture as well and best of all we get to keep the oil

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 07/04/07 - FREEDOM:



What is the dialectic of freedom, and how is it achieved?

HANK

paraclete answered on 07/04/07:

freedom is the ability to act responsibly without undue restraint, it is not being able to do what ever you want to do

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 07/02/07 - BRING THEM ON!!!!

Today is the fourth anniversary of the famous Bush expression named above:

"..anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.

Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on!"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Comments?

paraclete answered on 07/04/07:

Seriously four years and you haven't defeated them yet, why repeat this inane rubbish. Bush had no idea what he was up against then and he still has no idea today. How is it you think a few thousand fighters can hold off the "might" of the US. only because the US is impotent. They can level cities but cannot find an individual in a crowd. Bush is happy to fight in Iraq because his own home isn't being trashed. A big man, a coward more likely, if you truely want them to bring it on let the fight take place in NY, you then have the advantage of terrain and populace

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/22/07 - Why do the European’s hate America?..............

I’m told it is because of capitalism; especially Germany, others say it is still a “Jewish” problem. That the moods of the rural populations reflect the mood of the thirties, and when the economy fails, and it will, there will be hell to pay.

Which brings me to the other question: Why don’t we pay attention to where our future lies, across the Pacific, and forget about the E.U. and especially Germany; where Democracy will soon end - That is, stop asking why certain people are not our friends (I already know, they have become Socialist.) .

paraclete answered on 06/22/07:

inequality, there can be no other explanation. and it has nothing to do with socialism, America has great relations with some socialist countries such as Australia. The Europeans mourn their lost empires and the influence that went with it, now an upstart empire from the other side of the world tells them what to do and doesn't listen to their collective wisdom

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/15/07 - Mass. preserves gay marriage

The state legislature defeated a constitutional amendment to let the voters decide on a ban.
"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," (homosexuality)said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

What perversion next?

paraclete answered on 06/15/07:

it's only a short step now to legalise paedophilia. Watch out they will want to make it compulsory soon

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jim.McGinness rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 06/14/07 - NEW MODERATOR TO BE MARYSUSAN

I will be the new moderator for the Improved Policics Board when it opens. At that time, I will post the guide of conduct for discussing Politics here.

Cordially,
Mary Sue

paraclete answered on 06/14/07:

you are uninvited

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee2 asked on 06/05/07 - More fun -- fencing our southern border...............

From Digger online --

Experts (And Digger) Say Virtual Fence Won't Work
By Digger

Experts -- and I -- agree that virtual fences don't work. They've been tried and failed. However where real fences have been tried, like in San Diego, they have been very effective. The cost differential is mild compared to the amount of money already thrown away on these experimental programs.

Washington Post

Since 1995, spending on border security has increased tenfold, from $1.2 billion to $12.7 billion, and the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled, from 5,000 to 12,319, according to the House Appropriations Committee. Yet the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has jumped from 5 million to more than 11 million.

In that same time no less than 2 "virtual fences" have been tried and failed. They obviously don't work and other than someone scratching someones business buddies back to the tune of $2.5 billion in taxpayer money, the latest "virtual fence", called the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet) awarded to Boeing, is doomed to failure as well.

The Department of Homeland Security and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service spent $429 million since 1998 on video and remote surveillance on the borders. But nearly half of 489 planned cameras were never installed, 60 percent of sensor alerts are never investigated, 90 percent of the rest are false alarms, and only 1 percent overall resulted in arrests, the Homeland Security inspector general reported in December.

That was really successful! And people are complaining about a few billion for a real fence.

Last week the House passed HR 6061 The Secure Fence Act and the Senate will be voting on HR 6061 which provides 700 miles of physical border fence next week.

"There has been a huge amount of money poured into the border . . . but the track record of the performance of these technologies is disappointing," said Doris Meissner, former INS commissioner.

Because they don't work and people keep proposing them because they don't want them to work. There are enemies in our midst that want these illegal aliens to keep pouring across. They make big money on them. Of course it's at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I'd say these "virtual fences" are "virtually" worthless.

paraclete answered on 06/05/07:

where I come from we have a saying;
good fences make good neighbours.

In the absence of a real border investing in a fence is the best idea

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 05/27/07 - moonbat! LOL

paraclete answered on 05/27/07:

sounds about right, capitalism can not tolerate rivals

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 05/22/07 - Muslim survey

And I'm not believing what I heard...ABC Radio news reported that most Muslims in America believe suicide bombings can never be justified, but "thirteen percent do in some cases." They then played a clip of some Muslim dude telling us Americans can now rest easy in knowing American Muslims are Americans first and Muslims second. Well now, that's comforting.

First, thirteen percent of Muslims believing suicide bombings can be justified to me is a disturbing number. And considering there are roughly 2.35 million Muslims in this country, that would mean over 300,000 don't have a problem with suicide bombings. On top of that, twenty-six percent of young Muslims can justify suicide bombings.

Moreover:

    63% identified themselves as Democrats or as "leaning" toward the Democratic Party, although "On key social issues," Pew says, "Muslims in the U.S. are much more conservative than the general public. Most say that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged, rather than accepted, by society. A large majority of Muslims (59%) also say that government should do more to protect
    morality in society."

    Only 25 percent consider the U.S. war on terrorism a sincere attempt to curtail international terror. Only 40 percent said they believe Arab men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    By six to one, they say the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq, while a third say the same about Afghanistan -- far deeper than the opposition expressed by the general U.S. public.


And ABC tells us don't worry, be happy. Pew themselves headline the report, "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream."

    The first-ever, nationwide, random sample survey of Muslim Americans finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.


So American Muslims are more conservative on social issues than most Americans, but 63% identify with the party of abortion and gay rights - 71% having voted for John Kerry. 300,000 can find a way to justify suicide bombings and only forty percent believe Arabs had anything to do with 9/11 ... yet Muslims in America are mostly moderate and mainstream.

I don't know about you but I find it all quite disturbing on many levels.

paraclete answered on 05/22/07:

sounds like you are waking up over there. The muslim population represents a potential third column in any nation they exist in, because their loyalties are first to Islam and second to the country, no matter what they say. I would be very concerned that you have allowed this menace to grow to these proportions

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/19/07 - Vigilantes:



Could vigilanty societies help law enforcement clean up drug traffic?

HANK

paraclete answered on 05/19/07:

Yes if you are willing to sanction wholesale murder and are prepared for the star chamber to operate. You might be the first accused Hank what would you do then

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/19/07 - A Frightening Scenario:



As we have been told, there are 100 million Hispanics in the United States. Then there are a great number of men/women in our prisons, a goodly population of Muslims frequenting all walks of life and only Heaven knows the number of those who make up other minority groups in America. Many countries hate our guts. A large number of our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and a large number of our soldiers are stationed in foreign countries. Folks, I ask you: How would the United States ward off a revolution in America IF things heated up and those factions came together as an army of one?

HANK

paraclete answered on 05/19/07:

Hank have you given yourself over to paranoia

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/19/07 - US opens door to millions of Muslims

The proposed immigration deal will throw open our doors to increased immigration from Muslim lands, not just Mexico. From the US State Department website:


"The fourth and most recent wave of Muslim immigration (into the US) has come after 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson sponsored an immigration bill that repealed the longstanding system of quotas by national origin. Under the new system, preferences went to relatives of U.S. residents and those with special occupational skills needed in the United States. The new law was a signal act in American history, making it possible for the first time since the early part of the 20th century for someone to enter the country regardless of his or her national origin. After 1965, immigration from Western Europe began to decline significantly, with a corresponding growth in the numbers of persons arriving from the Middle East and Asia. In this era more than half of the immigrants to America from these regions have been Muslim."

The new immigration bill will allow hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims to come into the United States over the next decade. Many of them have been indoctrinated all their lives to hate the United States, but that's not on the immigration qualifications. Nobody asks newcomers "have you been taught to hate the United States?" But that is exactly how France and Britain created their domestic terrorist threat: By importing hundreds of thousands of unassimilated people under the guise of multicultural love and peace. Almost all vote for the Left.

paraclete answered on 05/19/07:

yes it's the sort of mistake we made too, no doubt influenced by the UN policies on refugees. But afterall you have a special interest in these peoples since it is your policies which contributed to their wish to move. The only hope any of us have now is to return to the isolationist past.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/19/07 - Self-defense:



Is it time for all Americans to arm themselves?

HANK

paraclete answered on 05/19/07:

I think the time has passed for that Hank, it's time for them to shoot themselves

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 05/17/07 - illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON - In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully.

Sealed after months of secretive bargaining, the deal mandates bolstered border security and a high-tech employment verification system to prevent illegal workers from getting jobs.

President Bush said the proposal would "help enforce our borders but equally importantly, it'll treat people with respect."

The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said debate would begin on Monday, but he cautioned, "I don't know if the immigration legislation is going to bear fruit and we're going to be able to pass it."

Almost instantly, the plan brought vehement criticism from both sides of the immigration issue, including liberals who called it unfair and unworkable and conservatives who branded it an overly permissive "amnesty."

The proposal constitutes a far-reaching change in the immigration system that would admit future arrivals seeking to put down roots in the U.S. based on their skills, education levels and job experience, limiting the importance of family ties. A new class of guest workers would be allowed in temporarily, but only after the new security measures were in place — expected to take 18 months.

"This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty but without animosity," Bush said.

Kennedy hailed it as "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."

Kyl said the measure wasn't perfect, "but it represents the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem."

It was clear, however, that many Republicans and Democrats were deeply skeptical. Reid said it needed improvement.

"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration," Reid said.

Conservatives on both sides of the Capitol derided the deal as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, using a politically charged word that figured prominently in campaigns across the country last year.

"I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty," said Sen. Jim DeMint (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new crop of low-skilled guest workers would have to return home after stints of two years. They could renew their visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time. If they wanted to stay in the U.S. permanently, they would have to apply under the point system for a limited pool of green cards.

The program drew fire from liberal groups that said it was unworkable. They had joined Democrats in pressing instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S., and ultimately earn the chance to stay.

"Without a clear path to permanent residence for a healthy share of the future temporary workers, we run the risk of reproducing the widespread illegality that this bill is designed to address," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said he would try to kill the temporary worker program because it would bring in a potentially unlimited stream of immigrants to compete with Americans for jobs and depress wages.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. Strict new limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

The issue quickly became a subject of debate among presidential candidates in both parties, exposing divisions among Republicans.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who led the charge last year to push through an immigration overhaul, called the deal "the first step" and urged moving it forward before the politics of 2008 made such action impossible.

"We all know that this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible," said McCain.

Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential hopeful, issued a statement calling the plan "the wrong approach," saying it conferred "a form of amnesty" on illegal immigrants. "That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.," the former Massachusetts governor said.

Former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who is weighing a presidential bid, said the measure should be scrapped in favor of one that secures the border.

"With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security," Thompson said in a statement.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois said the compromise needs work.

"Without modifications, the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guest workers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers," Obama said in a statement

paraclete answered on 05/18/07:

looks like the US will have a new open borders policy

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 05/15/07 - Just How Crazy are the Democrats?

The paranoid style in American liberalism.

By Jonah Goldberg

    Most fair-minded readers will no doubt take me at my word when I say that a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.

    But, on the off chance that a few cynics won’t take my word for it, I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here’s how the research firm put it: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.”

    So, one in three Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.

    There are only three ways to respond to this finding: It’s absolutely true, in which case the paranoid style of American liberalism has reached a fevered crescendo. Or, option B, it’s not true, and we can stop paying attention to these kinds of polls. Or there’s option C — it’s a little of both.

    My vote is for C. But before we get there, we should work through the ramifications of A and B.

    We don’t know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.

    The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”

    Similarly, why try to explain that it’s implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he’s such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

    And, if Bush — whom Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to green-light one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMD?

    No, the right response to the Rosie O’Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is, “It’s just make-believe.” But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the “reality-based” party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61 percent of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, “blame America first” doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it?

    So then there’s option B — the poll is just wrong. This is quite plausible. Indeed, the poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably just saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they’re just answering the question in a fit of pique. I’m game for option B. But if we’re going to throw this poll away, liberals need to offer the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to data that are more convenient for them. For example, liberals have been dining out on polls showing that Fox News viewers, or Republicans generally, are more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, however flimsy, tendentious, equivocal, or sparse you may think the evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 may be, it’s ironclad compared with the nugatory proof that Bush somehow permitted or condoned those attacks.

    And then there’s option C, which is most assuredly the reality. The poll is partly wrong or misleading, but it’s also partly right and accurate. So maybe it’s not one in three Democrats suffering from paranoid delusions. Maybe it’s only one in five, or one in 10. In other words, the problem isn’t as profound as the poll makes it sound. But that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party doesn’t have a serious problem.


Comments?

Steve
P.S. And for you conspiracy theorists that don't believe the fire in the World Trade Center couldn't possibly be hot enough to melt steel, I give you this reminder.

paraclete answered on 05/16/07:

Bush may be many things but it is doubtfull he is a mass murderer of Americans.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/15/07 - I can't figure this shiite out

The Boston Globe,a NY Slimes affiliate reported yesterday about the Iraqi Shiites growing influence in Iran .

So some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where -- Iraq's myriad problems aside -- imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required.

In Tehran's storied central bazaar, an increasing number of merchants are sending their religious donations, a 20 percent tithe expected from all who can spare it, to Iraq's most senior Shi'ite cleric -- rather than to clerics closer to Iran's state power structure, said Jawad al-Ghaie, 48, a wholesaler of false eyelashes and nail extensions and a respected lay donor.

Speaking carefully to avoid directly challenging the Iranian government, he and several fellow merchants suggested that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani holds more spiritual sway because of his lifelong commitment to quietism. That is the school of thought that says Shi'ite leaders should stay out of government, and Sistani has stuck to it despite the great temptation to wade into the chaos of Iraqi politics.


So here is some direct positive improvements rippling across the Iraq border (that coincidently neo-cons predicted )being reported by a NY Slimes sister paper .Potentially good news right ?

Yet the NY Slimes editorial board still is beating the drum that all is lost .


paraclete answered on 05/16/07:

What's to figure out? the man obviously believes in some form of seperation between religion and State. We all know that this is not an attitude demonstrated by the Islamic (shiite) Republic of Iran but in a religiously mixed society with warring factions it is a realistic position.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 05/14/07 - Did you know.......................................

.......that trying to teach the concepts of chivalry (honor, dignity, selflessness, etc) to 7th grade wannabe gangsters is like trying to teach a damn pig to sing?

....sigh....

Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?


DK

paraclete answered on 05/14/07:

don't give up, they will appreciate your efforts as adults, right now they think it's smart, and in, to show disrespect. A good belt around the head can sometimes improve their point of veiw.

Why are you in this handbasket? because the dogooders don't want you to bruise their prescious psychies along with their butts

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/11/07 - Don't you wish Harry Truman was President?



Why Harry S. Truman is the president we want now!

By Marshall Loeb, MarketWatch
Last Update: 4:59 PM ET May 11, 2007


NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The cover of the current issue of Newsweek magazine features the jaunty photo of a president from the U.S. past, with the headline: "Wanted: A New Truman."
To which we say, Amen!

Several times in these columns we have praised Harry S. Truman, the nation's 30th president (from 1945 to 1953). Now that he is being held up as the prototypical example of the president we presumably want, it's a good time to examine just who and what he was.

Harry Truman was cantankerous and controversial, but also honest, loyal, determined, far-sighted, fearless, and -- above all -- courageous. He made more decisions that changed the course of history than any other president. Had he not occupied the office, America's story would have been quite different, and not nearly as ennobling or successful!

* Just a couple of excerpts from Loeb's article.

What do you think?

HANK

paraclete answered on 05/11/07:

I think you might already have him in George Bush, both embroiled the US in a war with long reaching consequences, both were willing to play brinkmanship with nuclear weapons and both were willing to follow a bomb them back to the stoneage mentality

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/10/07 - Democrats again display their lack of ability....

...to conduct foreign policy .Bob Novak describes the brutal treatment Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe received from the Congressional Democrats :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Capitol Hill in Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.

This is remarkable U.S. treatment for a rare friend on the South American continent, where Venezuela's leftist dictator Hugo Chavez can only exult in Uribe's embarrassment as he builds an anti-American bloc of nations. A former congressional staffer, who in 1999 helped author Plan Colombia against narco-guerrillas, told me: "President Uribe may be the odd man out, and that's no way to treat our best ally in South America."

Uribe has not given up on the Yankees. When he returned to Colombia, he issued boilerplate about his visit being "very important in opening a dialogue with American leaders." This week he publicly urged the sluggish army to "rescue the hostages" held by narco-guerrillas and "go after the ringleaders," while privately chewing out the generals for inactivity. At the same time, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, whose Foreign Service career includes Latin American duty, was in Bogota Tuesday insisting that the United States remains a great friend of Colombia.

A truer portent of the Colombian reaction to the rebuff in Washington last week was Vice President Santos's television interview Tuesday. Santos, a University of Texas graduate and former editor of the influential El Tiempo newspaper, said failure to ratify the free-trade agreement would "send a message to the external enemies of the United States" (meaning Venezuela's Chavez) that "this is how America treats its allies." He added that Colombia might "have to re-evaluate its relationship with the United States." A U.S. diplomat called that "a cream pie in the face" of the visiting Negroponte.

Hopes that the Democratic majority in Congress might perceive the importance of supporting Colombia were dashed April 20 when Al Gore canceled a joint appearance with Uribe at an environmental event in Miami. Gore cited allegations of Uribe's association with paramilitary forces a decade ago, charges denied by the Colombian president.

Gore's snub legitimized what the new congressional majority is intent on doing anyway. Democrats follow both left-wing human rights lobbyists and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney's protectionist campaign against the Colombian free-trade agreement. Rep. Sander Levin, chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on trade, as usual echoes labor's line against the bill.

In the wake of Uribe's visit to Washington, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.

Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian president. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man.

President George W. Bush at least gave lip service to Uribe last week, but his concentration is on Iraq as the U.S. position in its own backyard deteriorates. Passivity is the best description of the administration's posture, while Democrats follow human rights activists, environmentalists and labor leaders on the road to losing an important ally.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What we have here is a moderate leader ,a key ally in a region where trouble is brewing coming to Washington and seeing the extremism of the Democrat party in action .I'm sure all our allies and the other fence sitters around the world are looking on with interest and concern over the actions and rhetoric coming out of Congress .As VP Santos said failure to ratify the deal would ``send a message to the eternal enemies of the United States that ... this is how America treats its allies. I guarantee ;if the US doesn't do business with Columbia ,Panama ,Peru ,the Chinese will be more than willing to do so.

I'm sure if Hugo Chavez or Daniel Ortega were to pay Pelosi a call I bet she'd be orgasmic in her praise. Word of advice to Uribe ; Next time you visit Washington ,wear a Che Guevera T-shirt and chant "gringos out of Iraq" . You'll be treated like a rock star. .

paraclete answered on 05/11/07:

Just typical of the paternalistic or is it mom knows best attitude of the americans towards other countries

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 05/10/07 - Howard Dean on the hurricane

Listen to
Jim Quinn of www.warroom.com
on XM satelite radio channel 165 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.

For follow ups on....

He says reliable source says

The Kansas Governor told Brownback that she
'could not allow an opportunity pass. I made sure not to blame anybody outside the whitehouse. With Bush's numbers you can't really blame me for that'.

Brownback replied he was 'disappointed in her'.

She said, 'you know me I wouldn't say that if I didn't have to but Howard Dean told me [to].' She tried explaining it away saying 'well it could happen' [that way someday]. 'I didn't think it was right to use it either but in this climate I had to' [to not disappoint Dean]

She also said they have more than enough National Guard and humvees.

QUINN SAID HIS SOURCE SAID 'HOWARD DEAN CALLED HER AT
5 AM AND SAID HE WOULD GET BACK TO HER WITH THE DETAILS' [of what he wanted her to say].
DICK DURBIN CALLED HER BACK WITH THE DETAILS.
Layhe is somehow involved too.

She (the governor) called Brownback's office and the call was forwarded to him personally on his cell phone.


paraclete answered on 05/10/07:

What is the point here, this is totally unintelligible, is all of american politics so confused, or is it just american media

tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/09/07 - Iran kidnaps again.

An employee of the organization that Lee Hamilton heads, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, has been kidnapped and is being held hostage by Iran.

This must be disheartening to Hamilton who, along with James Baker, headed up the Iraq Surrender Group that proposed "outreach" and diplomacy with Iran as a solution to the Iraq war. The way I see it ;kidnapping "outreach" has always been a part of the Iranian diplomatic play book .

paraclete answered on 05/09/07:

you cannot appease Islamics

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 05/04/07 - HIllary sHillary

she accents a southern gospel persona
now she pitches her voice to sound like a farmer claiming she grow up on the farm working along side with illegal migrant Mexican workers babysitting their children
yet here is her biography
does it all add up or not?

Hillary Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in a Methodist family in Park Ridge, Illinois. Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of English immigrants and operated a small business in the textile industry. Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was a homemaker. She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony.

As a child, Hillary Rodham was involved in many activities at church and at her public school in Park Ridge. She participated in a variety of sports and earned awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout.[2] She attended Maine East High School, where she had participated in student council, the debating team and the National Honor Society

A curmudgeon was the way one Hillary biographer, Norman King described Hugh while another, Roger Morris finds him guilty of the "psychological abuse of his children. Chief Petty Officer Hugh Rodham was a drill instructor who trained recruits in the Navy during World War II. Afterward he became a successful businessman in Chicago who moved his family to Park Ridge, an upper middle class suburb from a city apartment three years after Hillary was born. He was a regal presence in this family; Hillary says it was like the television sitcom, Father Know Best. But the humor was lacking according to Dorothy who said of Hillary, "She had to put up with him." Of course, Dorothy did too.
Hillary was Daddy Hugh's girl but what does this mean?
She was Hugh Rodham's victim who wanted his love and approval even as she tried to escape his stinginess, irascibility and perfectionism. The victim survived and was marked by an identification with the aggressor. Like Hugh the adult Hillary became irritable, demanding and the family breadwinner but that's getting ahead of her story. When she brought home a report card with all A's, Daddy replied that it must be an awfully easy school. We're not told what Dorothy Rodham said when she saw the grades maybe because this wasn't important or perhaps Mother Dorothy was also hard to please. It was Dorothy who said there was no room in the house for cowards when little Hillary ran home after an attack by an "obnoxious girl." Forced to confront her attacker, she won the battle and now had the respect of the neighborhood players, says biographer David Brock.


While Hillary's childhood is usually described as solidly middle class, Oppenheimer offers a grim portrait. Hugh Rodham may have driven a Cadillac and owned a home in a white-bread Chicago suburb, he writes, but he was a cheapskate who refused to take care of the place, and his drapery business was a one-man shop with walls stained brown from chewing-tobacco juice. Hillary has her brother Tony to thank for many of these details, since Tony told Oppenheimer about a cousin, Oscar Dowdy, who became the source for them. Dowdy also says that Hillary's mother was given to making anti-Jewish slurs (some about Hillary's grandmother's second husband Max Rosenberg).





paraclete answered on 05/06/07:

poli speak, "I'm one of the common people". Yes common enough to be able to afford domestic servants

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 04/28/07 - Now for something of absolutely Earth shattering importance!


Cricket World Cup

Adam Gilchrist


Farce ruins Cup defence

By Toby Forage
FOXSPORTS.com.au editor
April 29, 2007

AUSTRALIA won an historic third successive World Cup this morning, but not before celebrating prematurely as the tournament's troubled run ended in complete farce.

With three overs left in the match, reduced to 38 overs-a-side because of rain, Sri Lanka's batsmen were offered the light and accepted, sparking wild celebrations from the Australia players.

But after whoops of delight and much prancing around, Ricky Ponting's men were told the game wasn't over after all, and after a long discussion with umpires Aleem Dar and Steve Bucknor, as well as off-field officials, play continued in near darkness.

It was an appalling way to finish a tournament that has been pilloried for its excessive length and lack of depth, and the International Cricket Council will have much to ponder in the four years between now and the next tournament on the sub-continent

The biggest shame is that Australia historic moment, and a performance of sheer class from Adam Gilchrist, will be forgotten as a result of a quite ludicrous finale.

Even the presentation rostrum was sent back into the stands by the officials when the only result possible was an Australia victory.

Three overs in darkness and another wicket later, the game mercifully ended with Sri Lanka on 8-215, chasing Australia's imposing 4-281, losing by 53 runs in a match punctuated by rain delays and the chaos of the ilk Fawlty Towers scriptwriters would have been proud of.

Australia's total was set up by an awesome knock of 149 by Gilchrist, who racked up his runs in little more than two hours from just 104 balls to set a new individual high score record in the World Cup final, beating Ponting's record of four years ago of 140.

"It's been a while between drinks for my hundred, and really pleasing to do it on such an important day," Gilchrist said in the gloom as Australia celebrated in front of a crowd that was probably grateful for its bright yellow team colours, given the ridiculous gloom.

"It's an unbelievable feeling. The guys have worked so hard," he added, without making mention of the bizarre circumstances of victory.

Gilchrist, dropped on 31, and fellow left hander Matthew Hayden's stand of 172 was a World Cup final first-wicket record, surpassing the 129 shared by England's Mike Brearley and Geoff Boycott during West Indies' 92-run win at Lord's in 1979.

Gilchrist opened up in Chaminda Vaas's second over. He flicked the bowler's eighth ball for four over square leg, and next ball he drove him over long-on for six.

Vaas, after an expensive three-over spell costing 24 runs, was replaced by fellow quick Dilhara Fernando, retained despite conceding 45 runs in five overs during Tuesday's 81-run semi-final win over New Zealand.

Fernando, in his second over, dropped a low caught and bowled chance off Gilchrist's checked drive, with the keeper on 31 and Australia 0-47, and conceded 74 from his eight overs.

Next ball Gilchrist struck him for four through mid-wicket to bring up Australia's fifty. The ball after was lashed through long-on and Gilchrist immediately topped that with a six in the same area.

He completed a 43-ball fifty with two sixes and five fours.

Off spinner Tillakaratne Dilshan wasn't let off the hook, Gilchrist driving the bowler over his head for two superb straight sixes as he passed his previous best score this tournament, 59 not out against Bangladesh.

The 35 year old then saw Australia to 100 in just 102 balls by off driving Fernando for six.

Gilchrist swept Murali for a six that soared over mid-wicket before Sri Lanka skipper Mahela Jayawardene brought back trump card Malinga in a bid to break the stand. His first ball back was smashed for six over long-off by Hayden.

Gilchrist then struck Malinga to the same boundary to bring up a superb century in 72 balls with six sixes and eight fours.

Hayden, renowned as a power-hitter and the tournament's leading run-scorer, was still in the 30s.

Sri Lanka's chase began badly when Upul Tharanga edged a ball into Gilchrist's gloves behind the wicket after less than 10 minutes of the reply.

But Kumar Sangakkara and veteran left hander Sanath Jayasuriya gave Sri Lanka hope of a repeat of the 1996 final, when it beat Australia, with a partnership of 116 before Sangakkara was caught on 54 by Ponting off Brad Hogg's spin bowling.

When part-time bowler Michael Clarke clean bowled Jayasuriya for 63 with a short ball that didn't bounce, Sri Lanka's chase had faltered, and victory began to look inevitable.

After the farce of the end that wasn't, victory eventually was Australia's, and it's third straight World Cup in the bag.

Australia did not lose a single match at this World Cup, extending an extraordinary run of victories that goes back to 1999 and defeat to Pakistan in the group stage of that tournament, which it won to start the hat-trick of titles.

With Agence France-Presse

paraclete answered on 04/29/07:

Yes indeed in sport Australia has once again truimphed. I would that we could win all our wars as easily

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/21/07 - pc'ers at it again

Now they are complaining about Geico's caveman commerical's being insensitive to the dead. They
say just because cavemen are extinct doesn't give them the right to make fun of them.
WHAT NEXT????

paraclete answered on 04/21/07:

cavemen arn't extinct they merely moved up market, the fact is we still live in caves, it's just that we build them ourselves

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 04/20/07 - It's official

The Iraq war is lost . Harry Reid has proclaimed it so it must be true. "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." He is as certain of it as Churchill was of victory .


Chuck the schmuck Shumer is besides himself with glee. “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”....“The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” “We will break them [the Republicans ...not the jihadists ], because they are looking extinction in the eye.”

DNC will host a victory party this weekend .......BE THERE !!

Win the war, they lose. Lose the war, they win.

If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.

("The World Turned Upside Down")

paraclete answered on 04/21/07:

The war in Iraq was lost a long time ago, it just need someone with enough insight to say it

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 04/16/07 - I finally figured out the cause of global warming.

I have done a study of this issue, and I have come to the conclusion that the Liberals are right. Global Warming is indeed a man-made occurance. Furthermore, it is the fault of the Federal Government of the United States, just as the Libs have been saying for years.

The cause of global warming?

Taxes.

After having done a study of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is a positive corallary between taxes and temperature records.

First of all, just as temperatures have been going up for years, taxes have been going up as well. So there is the first correlation.

But the evidence is much stronger than that. I have done a review of Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP for the period of 1946 - 2006. I have also done are review of temperature records to obtain the average temperatures for the month of April (tax month) in Albany, NY. While temperature records for Federal tax collections were complete, the temperature records for Albany were missing 9 years worth of information. Nevertheless, despite the incompleteness of the data, I continued my study. (After all, if the pseudo-scientists who make claims of global warming can do so with huge amounts of data lacking, so can I.)

My study led to the following conclusion. Over the past 60 years, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have gone up by 190 basis points. If we eliminate the years for which we do not have temperature records, the increase in taxes as a percentage of GDP increases by 210 basis points. During the same period, temperatures for the month of April have increased an average of 0.03 degrees Celcius. This shows a clear correlation... taxes up, temperatures up.

Furthermore, there were 23 cases where both temperatures and percetage of GDP moved in the same direction. That is, when taxes as a percentage of GDP went up, the temperature went up, and when taxes as a percentage of GDP went down, temperatures went down. That's 23 out of 51 times when there was congruity between the movement of taxes as a percentage of GDP and temperatures in Albany. This shows a clear correlation between taxes and global warming.

Since US Federal taxes are a function of the US government, temperature change must also be a function of the US government. This would mean that the US government is at fault for Global warming, just as the Liberals have stated.

There are two clear solutions to global warming. The first would be to increase GDP while holding taxes at their current level. We need to increase the productivity of the United States so that taxes become a smaller percentage of GDP, thus driving environmental temperatures down. Of course, this would require an increase in our industrial performance and capacity. But since we have now proven that industrial emmissions aren't the real cause of global warming, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The second solution would be to hold GDP steady, but lower taxes. This too would result in taxes being a lower percentage of GDP. This might sound easier than the first solution... after all, it just takes a vote of Congress to make that happen. However, in reality, getting Congress to agree to lower taxes is never an easy task. It is easier to build thousands of new industrial plants than it is to get Congress to cut taxes. Nevertheless, it might be time for Congress to take the hard actions necessary to protect the world from tax-driven global warming. The US government has a responsibility to act.

Below are the data used to come to the above conclusions.

.......Taxes..%Chng..Albany..Chng in
Year...% GDP...GDP.. Temp....Temp.
1947...16.5...-1.1...6.4.....-0.7
1948...16.2...-0.3...8.5......2.1
1949...14.5...-1.7...9.1......0.6
1950...14.4...-0.1...6.3.....-2.8
1951...16.1....1.7...8.6......2.3
1952...19......2.9...10.2.....1.6
1953...18.7...-0.3...8.0.....-2.2
1954...18.5...-0.2...8.9......0.9
1955...16.6...-1.9...9.8......0.9
1956...17.5....0.9...5.8.....-4.0
1957...17.8....0.3...9.4......3.6
1958...17.3...-0.5...9.5......0.1
1959...16.1...-1.2...9.1.....-0.4
1960...17.9....1.8...9.8......0.7
1961...17.8...-0.1...6.8.....-3.0
1962...17.6...-0.2...8.7......1.9
1963...17.8....0.2...7.9.....-0.8
1964...17.6...-0.2...8.0......0.1
1965...17.0...-0.6...N/A
1966...17.4....0.4...N/A
1967...18.3....0.9...N/A
1968...17.7...-0.6...N/A
1969...19.7....2.0...N/A
1970...19.0...-0.7...N/A
1971...17.3...-1.7...N/A
1972...17.6....0.3...N/A
1973...17.7....0.1...9.2
1974...18.3....0.6...8.9.....-0.3
1975...17.9...-0.4...4.9.....-4.0
1976...17.2...-0.7...9.9..... 5.0
1977...18.0....0.8...8.6.....-1.3
1978...18.0....0.0...6.2.....-2.4
1979...18.5....0.5...7.7......1.5
1980...19.0....0.5...8.9......1.2
1981...19.6....0.6...9.1......0.2
1982...19.1...-0.5...7.2.....-1.9
1983...17.5...-1.6...8.0......0.8
1984...17.4...-0.1...8.8......0.8
1985...17.7....0.3...9.6......0.8
1986...17.4...-0.3...10.4.....0.8
1987...18.4....1.0...10.3....-0.1
1988...18.2...-0.2...8.0.....-2.3
1989...18.4....0.2...6.9.....-1.1
1990...18.0...-0.4...9.5......2.6
1991...17.8...-0.2...10.6.....1.1
1992...17.5...-0.3...7.0.....-3.6
1993...17.6....0.1...9.0......2.0
1994...18.1....0.5...9.0......0.0
1995...18.5....0.4...6.7.....-2.3
1996...18.9....0.4...7.9......1.2
1997...19.3....0.4...7.0.....-0.9
1998...20.0....0.7...9.5......2.5
1999...20.0....0.0...8.6.....-0.9
2000...20.9....0.9...7.4.....-1.2
2001...19.8...-1.1...8.7......1.3
2002...17.9...-1.9...9.9......1.2
2003...16.5...-1.4...7.0.....-2.9
2004...16.3...-0.2...9.3......2.3
2005...17.6....1.3...10.1.....0.8
2006...18.4....0.8...10.0....-0.1

Average Change 0.19..........0.03

Hey, it makes about as much sense as any argument the pseudo-scientific knuckleheaded environ-mental cases put out.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 04/16/07:

wonderbah! now this explains why Australia, which has worked diligently to reduce taxes, and increase productivity, is having no effect on global warming. Without the help of the US we are doomed, doomed I say, which is exactly what everyone is saying. It is all the fault of the US. We can all stop working long hours for our multinational bosses because it is having no effect.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 04/12/07 - Racist bile

I'm sure you've all heard about or seen the O'Reilly/Geraldo smackdown, and Joanne Ostrow,
Denver Post Television Critic has defined for us what "racist bile" is.

O'Reilly invited Ms. Ostrow to his program and she declined, so he sent his producer to talk to her. After asking her several times what "racist bile" O'Reilly had 'spewed' she finally boiled it down to this, he used the term "illegal alien" instead of "undocumented immigrant." There you have it, another phrase bites the dust - in spite of its accuracy, and in spite of the fact there is no indication of race in using the term.

Illegal - prohibited by law
Alien - foreign, owing allegiance to another country

Seems straightforward to me, but then what do I know, I'm apparently just a racist. And oh yea, I watched the video and read the transcript and the only one who used the term 'illegal alien(s)' was Geraldo - 8 times. One more episode of a liberal member of the media creating their own reality at the expense of the truth and someone else's reputation.

paraclete answered on 04/13/07:

well what do you expect in a country where illegal alien has the connotation of hispanic origin, let us think of some other non racial terms like - african american that PC would like to use rather than saying of southern african appearance, hey what do egyptian americans look like? Do you say mexican american or hispanic?

this racialism that you go one with over there has to stop. In my country we don't find it necessary to refer to a person's race very often but when we do we don't tack the country on the back end of it to make it seem like we are not being racist. When we are being racist you arn't left in any doubt. We have two types of people in this country, aboriginal and non aboriginal, this is a distinction aboriginal people make, the rest of us couldn't care less. You see we know?

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 04/12/07 - Some humor

A college professor, an avowed atheist, was teaching class one day when he shocked several of his students by flatly stating that there is no God, that the expression "One Nation Under God" is unconstitutional, and that he was going to prove that God did not exist. Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "God, if you are real, then I challenge you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"

The lecture hall fell silent. You could have heard a pin drop. Ten minutes went by. Again he taunted God, saying: "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

Just before the 15 minutes came to an end, a guy who had been in Special Forces and was now a civilian, newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent
the man ass over teacups from his lofty platform, knocking the professor out cold! At first the students were shocked and babbled in confusion.

The young ex-Green Beret looked around the room, sauntered over to a seat in the front row, and sat down. He waited silently for the professor to recover. The class fell silent, too.

Eventually, the professor regained consciousness. Clearly shaken, he looked around the room until he spotted the young man who had hit him sitting in the front row, a broad grin splitting his face. When the
prof regained his senses sufficiently enough to speak, he yelled: "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

"God was busy," the young ex-SF trooper drawled, "so He sent me."

--------------

Hard pressed on my right.
My center is yielding.
Impossible to maneuver.
Situation excellent.
I am attacking.

--------------

Rules for gunfighting...

USMC
1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a Ř."
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating or reloading.
14. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
15. And above all ... don't drop your guard.

Navy SEAL
1. Look very cool in the latest sunglasses.
2. Kill every living thing within view.
3. Return quickly to looking very cool in latest beach wear, check tan lines.
4. Check hair in mirror.

US Army Rangers
1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 95 pound ruck while starving.
2. Locate individuals requiring killing.
3. Request permission via radio from "Higher" to perform killing.
4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.
5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 95 pound ruck while starving.

US Army
1. Select a new beret to wear.
2. Sew combat patch on right shoulder.
3. Reconsider the color of beret you decide to wear.

US Air Force
1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.
3. See what's on HBO.
4. Determine "what is a gunfight."
5. Send the Army.

US Navy
1. Go to Sea.
2. Drink Coffee.
3. Launch airplanes and cruise missiles.

-------------------

A General died and went to Heaven. At the pearly gates he was met by St. Peter. He told St. Peter right away, "If there are Special Forces Soldiers in Heaven, I don't want to go in because I hate SF." St. Peter said, "Don't worry about it because no Special Forces made it to Heaven."

So the General went on into Heaven and began looking at all the wonderful sights, when all of a sudden he spotted something that he just couldn't believe.

There before his eyes was a 6' 5" 275 lb. muscle-bound specimen of manhood wearing a Green Beret. Not only that, this guy had a 4 day growth of beard, scuffed up jungle boots, big, fat cigar in his mouth, an M-60 in one hand, a Claymore in the other, bandoleers of ammo across his chest and numerous hand-grenades hung all over him. The General called over St. Peter and said, "I thought you said there weren't any of them Special Forces guys in Heaven...there's one right over there."

St. Peter looked where the General was pointing and said, "That's God, he's not Special Forces qualified, he just likes to pretend he is."

---------------

Back in Viet Nam, there were two fine Special Forces soldiers, Jeff and Dave.

One day, the two were enjoying a strong sarsaparilla in the Delta Hilton, when a SOG man walked into the bar with an NVA's head under his arm. The CO shakes
his hand and says, "I hate NVA! Last week the SOB's burnt an A-camp to the ground, shot up the troops, and killed some Indig troops." The CO then says, "If any man brings me the head of an NVA, I'll give him one thousand dollars."

The two Special Forces soldiers looked at each other and walked out of the bar to go hunting for an NVA. They were stalking around in the jungle for a while when suddenly they saw one. Jeff, in order to be silent, threw a rock which hit the NVA right on the head. The NVA fell down, but landed seventy feet down a ravine.

The two troopers made their way down the ravine and Dave pulled out a knife to claim their trophy.

Suddenly, Jeff said, "Dave, take a look at this." Dave replied, "Not now, I'm busy." Jeff urgently tugged him on the shoulder and says, "I really think you should look at this." Dave says, "Look, you can see I'm busy. There's a thousand dollars in my hand." But Jeff was adamant. "Please, take a look at this."

Dave looked up and saw standing at the top of the ravine were five thousand NVA. He just shook his head and said, "Oh my goodness, we're gonna be millionaires!"

------------

Elliot

paraclete answered on 04/13/07:

elliot just a little something especially for you
Three Texans are sitting together on an airplane. Two are hardy, tall men wearing cowboy boots and 10 gallon hats. The third is a little old Jewish man wearing a yalmuke, short pants, and high black sox with sandles.

The first Texan says: My name is Roger, I have 2000 acres and 3,000 head of cattle. I call my place "The Jolly Roger."

The second Texan says: My name is Gene. I own 5.000 acres and 5,000 head. I call my place "Gene's Ranch Estate."

The little old Jewish man says: I own 200 acres and got no cattle.

And what do you call your place says Roger sarcastically.

Downtown Dallas says the old Jewish man.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 04/11/07 - GWOT is merely a colloquialism

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean do many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”




Rep. Ike Skelton, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee decided lasst week that he is not comfortable with the phrase The 'Global War On Terrorism'. Can't say I blame him ;I quit using it a long time in favor of the 'War Against Jihadistan' or 'Islamo-Nazi scumbags' .

the chairman , said the decision to limit use of the “global war on terror” and the “long war” was done as part of an effort to the standardize grammar and terms to be used in writing the 2008 defense authorization bill. “Each year, the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee work to prepare the best possible defense authorization bill,” Skelton said in a statement. “When writing legislation, the words we choose are important, and we make every effort to be as precise and specific as possible so that congressional intent may be understood.”

U.S. military operations in Iraq are “separate and distinct from the war against terrorists, who have their genesis in Afghanistan and who attacked us on 9/11, and the American people understand this,” Skelton said, adding that Republican objections to “our efforts to clarify legislative language represent the typical Republican leadership attempt to tie together the misadventure in Iraq and the overall war against terrorists.”


So his real transparent motivation is to isolate the funding of the Iraq theater from the global war against the jihadists . When they tire of that one they will soon tire of Afghanistan ;and so on and so on.

By banning the phrase Skelton hopes to
restore the sense of calm and peace that prevailed during the Clinton Administration ;in other words ;let's just bury our heads in the sand like the good ole days and ignore those who want us gone. In Harry Potter lingo it is "the war that must not be named" . Just sprinkle some pixie dust and wave that magic lexicon wand ..maybe if we don't mention it it will go away !

I got it ! Let's change the name "Armed Services Committee " to "Surender Monkey Committee".I think I'll email San Fran Nan Belle al-Pelosi with the idea .

paraclete answered on 04/12/07:

you fellows over there talk a load of crap, if you just got on with it instead of getting in the way the job would be done by now

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/11/07 - LOL

driving directions from New york to London

1. Head southwest on Broadway toward Warren St 0.2 mi
1 min

2. Turn left at Park Row 0.1 mi
1 min

3. Slight right at Frankfort St 0.3 mi
1 min

4. Turn left at Pearl St 56 ft

5. Turn right onto the F.D.R. Dr N ramp 0.4 mi
1 min

6. Merge onto FDR Dr N 7.7 mi
12 mins

7. Take exit 17 on the left for Triboro Bridge/Grand Central Pkwy toward I-278/Bruckner Expy 0.4 mi
2 mins

8. Merge onto Triborough Bridge
Partial toll road 0.4 mi
1 min

9. Merge onto I-278 E via the ramp to I-87 N/Bronx/Upstate N Y/New England 0.6 mi
1 min

10. Take exit 47 to merge onto Bruckner Expy/I-278 E toward New Haven 1.9 mi
2 mins

11. Take the I-278 E exit toward New Haven 0.3 mi

12. Merge onto Bruckner Expy 5.0 mi
6 mins

13. Continue on I-95 N
Partial toll road
Entering Connecticut 62.1 mi
1 hour 12 mins

14. Take exit 48 on the left to merge onto I-91 N toward Hartford 36.8 mi
37 mins

15. Take exit 29 for US-5 N/CT-15 toward I-84/E Hartford/Boston 0.4 mi

16. Merge onto CT-15 N 1.7 mi
2 mins

17. Merge onto I-84 E
Partial toll road
Entering Massachusetts 40.7 mi
38 mins

18. Take the exit onto I-90 E/Mass Pike/Massachusetts Turnpike toward N.H.-Maine/Boston
Partial toll road 56.0 mi
56 mins

19. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi
1 min

20. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi
3 mins

21. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi

22. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi

23. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi
29 days 0 hours

...
24. Slight right at E05 0.5 mi
2 mins

25. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit onto E05/Pont Vauban 0.1 mi

26. Turn right at E05 5.7 mi
10 mins

27. Take the exit onto A29/E44 toward Amiens
Toll road 27.8 mi
23 mins

28. Take the exit toward Dieppe/Amiens/Calais/A151/Rouen
Toll road 1.1 mi
1 min

29. Merge onto A29/E44
Toll road 22.6 mi
19 mins

30. Take the exit onto A28/E402 45.6 mi
37 mins

31. Take the exit onto A16/E402 toward Boulogne/Calais
Toll road 44.3 mi
38 mins

32. Take exit 29 toward Boulogne-Centre/Outreau/Le Portel 0.6 mi
1 min

33. Merge onto N416 1.1 mi
1 min

34. At the traffic circle, take the 1st exit onto N1 0.4 mi
1 min

35. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit and stay on N1 0.1 mi
1 min

36. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit and stay on N1 0.9 mi
2 mins

37. At the traffic circle, take the 1st exit 0.6 mi
1 min

38. Slight left at Rue Ferdinand Farjon 427 ft

39. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit 0.4 mi
1 min

40. Slight right at Dover - Boulougne-sur-Mer 30.1 mi
1 hour 50 mins

41. Continue on Dover - Boulogne-sur-Mer 0.2 mi

42. Continue on Eastern Service Rd 0.3 mi
2 mins

43. Turn right at E Ramp 0.4 mi
2 mins

44. Slight right at Dock Exit Rd 0.1 mi

45. At Eastern Docks Roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A20 0.6 mi
2 mins

46. Slight left to stay on A20 0.3 mi

47. At Prince of Wales Roundabout, take the 2nd exit onto A20/Limekiln St 0.2 mi
1 min

48. At Limekiln Roundabout, take the 3rd exit onto A20 0.3 mi
1 min

49. At Western Heights Roundabout, take the 1st exit and stay on A20 7.0 mi
8 mins

50. Continue on M20 (signs for M20/London/Ashford) 49.7 mi
47 mins

51. Continue on A20 (signs for London (SE)/Lewisham) 9.7 mi
15 mins

52. At Clifton's Roundabout, take the 2nd exit and stay on A20 2.2 mi
6 mins

53. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit and stay on A20 1.3 mi
4 mins

54. Slight left at A2 0.7 mi
2 mins

55. Slight right at A2/Kender St 72 ft

56. Turn right at Kender St 0.3 mi
1 min

57. Turn left at A2 1.9 mi
5 mins

58. At Brick Layers Arms, take the 1st exit onto A201/New Kent Rd 0.6 mi
2 mins

59. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit onto A302/St George's Rd 0.4 mi
1 min

60. Turn left at A3203/Lambeth Rd 0.6 mi
3 mins

61. At the traffic circle, take the 2nd exit onto A3203 0.2 mi
1 min

62. At Horseferry Rd, take the 3rd exit onto A3212

COMPARED TO

Driving directions from Myrtle Beach, S.C. to San Diego, Ca

1. Head northeast on N Kings Hwy toward 5th Ave N 0.4 mi
1 min

2. Turn left at Main St 0.2 mi
1 min

3. Continue on US-501 14.1 mi
20 mins

...
4. Turn left at US-378 28.8 mi
42 mins

...
5. Slight right at SC-51 29.8 mi
44 mins

...
6. Continue on W Evans St/SC-S-21-31 0.2 mi
1 min

7. Turn left at W David H McLeod Blvd 1.6 mi
3 mins

8. Continue on I-20 W
Passing through Georgia
Entering Alabama 420 mi
6 hours 17 mins

...
9. Take exit 136 for I-459 toward Montgomery/Tuscaloosa/Gadsden 1.1 mi
1 min

10. Merge onto I-459 S 28.5 mi
25 mins

...
11. Take the I-20 W/I-59 S exit toward Tuscaloosa 1.2 mi
1 min

12. Merge onto I-20 W
Passing through Mississippi, Louisiana
Entering Texas 1,084 mi
15 hours 50 mins

...
13. Merge onto I-10 W
Passing through New Mexico
Entering Arizona 542 mi
7 hours 33 mins

...
14. Take exit 199 to merge onto I-8 W toward San Diego
Entering California 336 mi
4 hours 43 mins

...
15. Take the CA-125 S/CA-125 N exit toward CA-94 0.3 mi

16. Keep left at the fork to continue toward CA-125 S and merge onto CA-125 S 2.4 mi
3 mins

17. Continue on CA-94 W (signs for CA-94 W) 8.5 mi
8 mins

18. Exit onto F St 0.7 mi
3 mins

19. Turn right at 9th Ave 0.1 mi

courtousy Google

from shore to shore
62 steps across the ocean
19 across the USA

paraclete answered on 04/11/07:

are you raving mad?

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/04/07 - need another invention here

Tomder inc
We need to invent a comment back recording device that goes DIRECTLY back to a REAL person ASAP!
Yesterday I was at the car wash and noticed that it went up one whole dollar since last summer. Needing the bird poop washed off my windshield I figured what the hey! So I started plopping my quarters in the machine. After EACH and every quarter the machine says, (in a Betty Boop voice) 'Stop, don't hit me. Vandalism is just wrong'. I wanted to comment back, 'YOU are the one vandalizing me charging a whole dollar more for you to annoy me!'
THEN each button I pushed presoak, wash, rinse
it said the same thing 'Stop, don't hit me. Vandalism is just wrong"
I had to have heard that at least 15 times in the whole 2 minute and 54 second amount of my car wash time.

cordially
Tomder inc

CRC
sapph

paraclete answered on 04/04/07:

only in america

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/04/07 - Remember This?





The Pledge of Allegiance:


"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

One Nation under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

HANK

paraclete answered on 04/04/07:

No how does it go

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/03/07 - MEET THE 72 VIRGINS

yeah buddy we gottem here


paraclete answered on 04/04/07:

have the Muslims ever considered that if there were 72 virgins for every male muslim to make it to heaven that not very many are going to get there by believing Mudhutmad

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/02/07 - john travolta
wants us to
conserve

here is his house complete with two double garages and room for his five planes.

travoltas planes and excuses )

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.
Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.



Think we should contribute to the cause???

paraclete answered on 04/02/07:

another big mouth who expects others to do the hard yards, pity he couldn't put his money where his mouth is

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 04/01/07 - Good news on Iraq

In the form of no news? For the first time I can remember since the Iraq war began, our paper had NO articles on bombings and troops killed today. There were 4 blurbs, Biden and Obama criticizing the war, the UN sending staff back to Baghdad, and an agreement to relocate Arabs that Saddam had moved to Kirkuk to force out Kurds.

Could the tide be turning in the media? Or is it just that global warming has overtaken Iraq as the cause of the day?

paraclete answered on 04/01/07:



Did you miss this one. Old news admittedly for the most part but there nevertheless

Iraq Says Truck Bomb in North Killed 152
Alaa al-Marjani/Associated Press

An Iraqi man with his son, who was wounded Saturday by a blast in Hilla. Bombs also hit two other cities.


By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: April 1, 2007

BAGHDAD, March 31 — The Iraqi government on Saturday gave its first official reckoning of the truck bombing Tuesday in the northern city of Tal Afar, putting the death toll at 152 people, a number about double that in early reports.


The bombing, which left 347 other people in a poor Shiite neighborhood wounded, set off a wave of reprisals by Shiite policemen and others that left another 47 people dead and shattered the image of Tal Afar held up by American politicians last year as a model of a turbulent city turned peaceful.

When the bomb detonated, younger Shiite policemen “were motivated by emotions when they saw their parents and siblings getting killed, but this is not acceptable,” Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf said Saturday. He said that 16 policemen and 2 civilians were under arrest and would be fully prosecuted for the reprisals.

Sectarian violence continued around Iraq on Saturday, when 27 people were killed in shootings and car bombings and 10 bodies were found in Baghdad, according to the Interior Ministry. In Gabala, near Hilla, Shiite militiamen killed two people at a Sunni mosque and then burned Sunni stores in retaliation for the killing of the brother of a Mahdi Army militia leader. The Iraqi Army intervened to stop the attack on the mosque, said a member of Scorpion Brigade, a commando unit in Babil Province.

The car bombings were in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad; in Hilla; and in the northern town of Tuzkhormato, south of Kirkuk. Also, eight civilians who worked on an Iraqi Army base in the town of Hawija, in northern Iraq, were shot to death, and in Salahiddin Province, eight policemen were killed.

In the Interior Ministry’s first news conference since the bombing, officials underscored the event’s scale and horror. “It is a very painful attack,” General Khalaf said.

If the death toll of 152 in the Tal Afar attack is correct, it was the highest total from a single bomb in the four-year-old war.

A number of causes may have contributed to the large increase in the reported deaths: some of the wounded later died; some victims were taken to hospitals outside Tal Afar and were not immediately counted; and some bodies were retrieved at the scene by family members, preventing the deaths from being recorded.

The Interior Ministry, which has been accused of bias toward Shiites and of having groups within it associated with Shiite militias and death squads, is now under a new minister, Jawad al-Bolani.

General Khalaf, who runs the Interior Ministry’s National Command Center, which tracks attacks across Iraq, said: “The prime minister and the minister of interior ordered an investigative committee to go to Tal Afar and take the proper steps and bring the guilty to justice. The committee did its work and there are 18 guilty who did kill innocent citizens and they were arrested and will be brought to justice.”

The truck bombing destroyed 100 houses and many shops in the neighborhood, which is a poor district with ramshackle construction, officials said. When the huge bomb went off, little could stand up to it. “When it exploded, it left a 23-meter crater in the ground, and that tells us that it had two tons of explosives,” General Khalaf said.

The city has about 200,000 residents, mostly Turkmen, ethnically related to the people of Turkmenistan in Central Asia. In Tal Afar, the population is split between Sunnis and Shiites, with a somewhat higher proportion of Shiites.

It is a poor area, and the suicide bomber took advantage of the city’s deprivation to lure people to his truck, which carried flour as well as explosives, officials said. The bomber also benefited from mistakes by the soldiers responsible for checking all vehicles entering the city for bombs.

“It was a truck loaded with flour,” General Khalaf said. “They had not gotten flour for some time, and when the truck came in, it was searched hurriedly by the army checkpoint, and the TNT was mixed in with the flour and the electrical circuit was sophisticated. The checkpoint troops did not have enough experience to find it.”

Also Saturday, the justice minister, Hashim al-Shibli, resigned. Mr. Shibli, a member of the secular National Democratic Party, had fallen out of favor with the Iraqi List, a party that had supported his appointment and controls the position.

A government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said that the replacement of Mr. Shibli had already been planned as part of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s reorganization of positions in the ministry.

Khalid Hassan and Hosham Hussein contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Baghdad, Hilla and Kirkuk.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would say the news on any given day is not an indicator of anything but the news on that day. Now if Iraq had been free of such incidents for a month?

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 03/31/07 - Fact-finding?

The leader of the US House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in coming days will visit Syria, a country President George W. Bush has shunned as a state sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.

"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high-profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.

"This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Saniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, arrived in Israel on Friday on her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since she took over in January.

Among those in her delegation is Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress. Others traveling with Pelosi include Rep. Tom Lantos, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The group planned to meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.

The speaker plans to address the Israeli Knesset on Sunday in what will be her first address to a foreign government legislature and as the highest ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to Pelosi's office.

She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just curious here, what 'facts' is Pelosi hoping to find - traveling to Syria with "the first Muslim" in congress no less? Yes, congressmen take these 'fact-finding' missions all the time, but is anyone besides me concerned this congress is trying to subvert the President's foreign policy?

paraclete answered on 03/31/07:

surely you know about fact finding that is where you discover the facts that support your position, it is never about finding facts that might change your mind. in any case a nice medeterranian holiday with a side trip to the Holy Land

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 03/31/07 - The John Doe Manifesto

By Michelle Malkin

Note: Earlier this month, six publicity-seeking imams filed a federal lawsuit against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Muslim clerics were removed from their flight last November and questioned for several hours after their suspicious behavior alarmed both passengers and crew members. Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten reported last week that the imams, advised by the grievance-mongers at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also plan to sue "John Does" — innocent bystanders who alerted the authorities about their security concerns. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced legislation to protect John Does who report suspicious behavior from legal liability. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; talk show host Michael Reagan; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; and Minnesota lawyer Gerry Nolting have all stepped forward to offer free representation to the imams' targets.

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."

I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing "scholars."

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderates' clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about "profiling" or "Islamophobia."

I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very timely in light of Tom's EU post I think. I won't back down, and you?

paraclete answered on 03/31/07:

as I have said before, these people belong one place and one place only and we should see they stay there. I am quite content to stay in my country and leave the rest of the world alone, why is it that they cannot?

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/30/07 - EU is the first 2 letters in Eurabia

The EU begins it's 2nd 50 years by celebrating one of the finest traditions of Europe that made the EU possible ........appeasement.

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".


An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.


This while they continue to celebrate their 50 years together by demonstrating a feeble weak lame (fill in the adjective) response to one of their fellow nation's sailors being kidnapped by the pirate regime of Iran. While the EU did nothing for over a week now ;these sailors have been forced to make confessions and other acts of public humiliation broadcast around the world . Where is there rapid response force ? What does this say to their strawman concept of "soft power" ? They talk a good game about unity but when one of their members needs their help they won't commit a dinghy to the effort .

They cowered and capitulated when rioters objected to the publishing of harmless cartoons . Now they may as well cut out their tongues for all the good it does them . These are our allies . We really are alone.

paraclete answered on 03/30/07:

why do we care what a bunch of irrelevant dills do in Europe, It isn't called old Europe for nothing

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/27/07 - Hide the pork

this is a "what a suprise !! "moment

According to John Fund at the Wall Street Journal ;the Congressional Research Service (CRS)...a publicly funded, nonpartisan federal agency has decided that after 12 years it will no longer track earmarks put into Congressional spending bills .This after a 12 year run of doing so.

What event happened 12 years ago? Well ...12 years ago the Republicans became the majority .Now they are no longer the majority so obviously pork spending is no longer a concern.

paraclete answered on 03/27/07:

what a pecular system of government where the purpose of legislation can be subverted for other purposes. What you need is a truth in legislation bill or a true budget

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 03/25/07 - Iraq.

I told you it was a civil war and ye believed me not!

Since al-Qaeda bombed one of the most important Shiite shrines in Iraq 13 months ago, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and whole neighborhoods have undergone sectarian cleansing. The bombing caused the once-relatively quiescent Shiite community to rise up in a campaign of revenge.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq said 34,452 Iraqis died last year alone.

Perhaps the American war of independence was nothing but an insurgency. Mel Gibson fought in it in the patriot and he and his militia wore farm clothes not military uniform.

Being a prophet is a hard calling. Ho hum!

paraclete answered on 03/26/07:

I agreed with you, it is a civil war, somewhat low key but a civil war, different factions fighting against each other and the government, Just because it doesn't look like the american civil war doesn't change the facts, large numbers are dying and being displaced. American troops have solved nothing and even fueled the war. And yes at it's inception the american civil war was an insurgency, the only reason it is an example is that it was successful and the only reason it was successful was that the British lacked the wit and will to win it. From what I have seen of the american history a well armed and led force should have overrun the american forces

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/21/07 - gores words of wisdom

There's only one Earth, Gore said. "We don't have a spare…we don't have an operating manual."

Our planet has a rising fever, Gore said. "If the crib catches fire you don't say: ‘Hmmm, how fast is that crib going to burn? Has it ever burned before? Is my baby flame retardant?'"

paraclete answered on 03/22/07:

let's face it, Gore is right, the Earth is getting hotter, what is at question is; what outcomes will it cause and when? The evidence is clear; glaciers are receding, open water in the Artic.

What to do about it is entirely another question, however, reduction in the deforestation of the Earth and reduction in burning of fossel fuels can only help

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 03/20/07 - Changing tactics?

Children used in Iraqi militant attack-US general

    WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. general on Tuesday said Iraqi insurgents used children in a suicide attack this weekend, raising worries that the insurgency has adopted a new tactic to get through security checkpoints with bombs.

    Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said adults in a vehicle with two children in the backseat were allowed through a Baghdad checkpoint. The adults then abandoned the vehicle and detonated it with the children still inside, he said.

    "Children in the back seat, lower suspicion, we let it move through," he said. "They parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back."

    "The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed," Barbero said.


    The general called that incident a new tactic, but noted U.S. forces had only seen one such occurrence involving children.

    The use of chemical bombings has increased and become a tool of the insurgency, as the three chlorine bombs detonated this past weekend brought the total to six such bombings since January, the general said.

    "High-profile" suicide and car bomb attacks by Sunnis against Shi'ites also have not abated, Barbero said.

    But he said increased force in Iraq's capital had yielded some success, such as a reduction in murders and executions of civilians. He also said hundreds of families have returned to Baghdad and the number of tips from Iraqi civilians about insurgent activity hit its highest mark ever in February.


So these heartless, gutless terrorists would sacrifice children while saving their own sorry selves. They want you and your children next...

paraclete answered on 03/20/07:

and there are people on these boards who wonder why muslims disgust me

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 03/19/07 - Pessimism 'growing among Iraqis'

BBC's take in part on this poll of over 2000 Iraqis:

    A new survey carried out in Iraq suggests people are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future and unhappy about their lives.

    Less than 40% of those polled said things were good in their lives, compared to 71% two years ago.


The Guardian:

    Almost nine in 10 Iraqis fear they or a family member could become a victim of violence, a poll released a day before the fourth anniversary of the US-led attack on the country indicated today.

    The survey of more than 2,200 Iraqis showed 86% were concerned about the prospect of someone in their household being a victim of violence, while only 5% said they worried "hardly at all" about it.

    There was very little trust in US and British troops, with 86% of those polled saying they had no confidence in them.


al-AP:

    The optimism that helped sustain Iraqis during the first few years of the war has dissolved into widespread fear, anger and distress amid unrelenting violence, a survey found.

    The poll -- the third in Iraq since early 2004 by ABC News and media partners -- draws a stark portrait of an increasingly pessimistic population under great emotional stress.


Reuters:

    Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces and about 86 percent are concerned about someone in their household being a victim of violence, according to a survey published by the BBC on Monday.

    The poll of more than 2,000 people indicated Iraqis have become less optimistic about their future compared to a similar survey in 2005 when respondents were generally hopeful, the BBC said.


What they aren't reporting in the poll (pdf):

A majority, 42% believe their children will have a better life.

61% have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the Iraqi army, and 64% for the Iraqi police.

The majority, 38% have no confidence in the local militia, 26% "not very much."

The majority, 43%, still believe democracy is best for Iraq now, 53% believe it best for Iraq 5 years from now, and 53% believe Iraq WILL have a democracy 5 years from now.

In spite of the majority opposing the presence of coalition forces, they also want coalition forces to remain until security is better:

    Remain until security is restored - 38%
    Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger - 14%
    Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently - 11%
    Remain longer but leave eventually - 2%
    Never leave - 1%


94% believe dividing along sectarian lines is a bad thing.

81% are satisfied living in their location in the country, 70% are satisfied living in Iraq.

In addition to 56% believing Iraq is not in a civil war, the majority believe there will NOT be a civil war in Iraq, 46% somehwat unlikely and 11% very unlikely.

In spite of the majority believing the US is the problem in Iraq, 66% believe Syria is "actively engaged in encouraging sectarian violence within Iraq," 71% for Iran and 56% for Saudi Arabia.

What else they didn't report, another poll:

    Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

    DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

    The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

    The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

    Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

    ...the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops...

    ...49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era...A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

    ...64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government...

    ...Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets...

    ...The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”


No need to wonder why the MSM didn't report on that poll instead...

paraclete answered on 03/19/07:

if you had had four years of someone bombing the crap out of you you would be pessimistic too, particularly when it wasn't necessary

Itsdb rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/19/07 - when will we hear the truth about dry runs

I keep hearing stories of dry runs like the other day the latest one I heard is a guy carrying metal bomb making devices in his rectum
and today the Pittsburgh airport found threatening letters

http://warroom.com/ )

ABOUT THOSE IMAMS
By RICHARD MINITER

THE notorious case of U.S. Airways Flight 300 gets stranger by the minute, as more facts emerge about why six traveling Muslim clerics were asked to deplane. A passenger on that flight - I'll call her "Pauline" - has inadvertently publicized some facts via a much-forwarded e-mail; she gave me more details in an interview this week. The airport police report confirms some of her claims and holds more revelations of its own. And U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader also confirmed much of Pauline's account.

One detail that's escaped most reports is that other Muslim passengers were left undisturbed and later joined in a round of applause for the U.S. Airways crew. "It wasn't that they were Muslim," says Pauline. "It was all of the suspicious things they did." Sitting by Minneapolis-St. Paul's Airport Gate C9, she noticed one imam immediately. "He was pacing nervously, talking in Arabic," she said.

As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and an Arabic phone call triggered no alarms. But then a note from a passenger about suspicious movements of the imams got the crew's attention. To Pauline, everything seemed normal. Then the captain - in classic laconic pilot-style - announced there had been a "mix-up in our paperwork" and that the flight would be delayed.

In reality, the crew was waiting for the FBI and local police to arrive.

Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams' removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors.

* An Arabic speaker was seated near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside and, in a whisper, translated what the men were saying: invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.

* An imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extender - the extra strap that obese people use because the standard belt is too short. According to both an on-duty and a deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. A seat-belt extender can easily be used as a weapon - just wrap one end around your fist, and swing the heavy metal buckle.

* All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.

And, Pauline said, they spread out - just like the 9/11 hijackers. Two sat in first class, two in the middle and two back in the economy section, police reports show. Some, according to Rader, took seats not assigned to them.

* Finally, a gate attendant told the captain she was suspicious of the imams, according to police reports.

So the captain made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. He also consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground-security coordinator and the airline's security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.

One more odd thing went unnoticed at the time: The men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Yet observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.

"It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight," Pauline said.

While the imams were soon released, Pauline is fuming: "We are the victims of these people. They need to be more sensitive to us. They were totally insensitive to us and then accused us of being insensitive to them."

The flight was delayed for some 31/2 hours. Bomb-sniffing dogs swept the plane, and every passenger got re-screened.

"I think it was either a foiled attempt to take over the plane or it was a publicity stunt to accuse us of being insensitive," Pauline told me. "It had to be to intimidate U.S. Airways to ease up on security."

So far, U.S. Airways refuses to be intimidated, even though the feds have launched an investigation. "We are absolutely backing this crew," Rader said.

Tucked away in the police report is this little gem: One imam had complained to a passenger that some nations don't follow sharia law and had said his job in Bakersfield, Calif., was a cover for "representing Muslims here in the U.S."

What are the imams really up to? Something more than praying, it seems.

Some argue that these Imans behaved this way in hopes that they would be deplaned. Once deplaned, they could yell discrimination. Others, like contributor to "The Aviation Nation", Annie Jacobsen, would argue that it is distinctly possible that they were practicing a dry run. That they may have wanted to see just how much they could get away with for a jihad attempt further on down the line. Annie makes a good argument for dry runs; the jihadists have been known to make several attempts on one target before they get it right. For example, Annie sites; "The recent dry run or probe on American Airlines flight 63 occurred on a flight that has already been saved once from a terrorist attack by the heroics of flight crew and passengers. If you recall, it was American Airlines flight 63 that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid tried to take down with explosives hidden in his shoes, in December of 2001". Click here to read her article

When it comes right down to it, I think that both arguments are quite right. While the Imans could have been hoping to make a cry of discrimination -- it doesn't negate the idea that, on it's own -- that, too, is a form of a dry run. It really is the perfect plan isn't it? Cry discrimination now on a "dry run" so that later, when they are fully prepared to execute another attack -- they are assured that their plan would go uninterrupted because we have become conditioned to be sensitive. We are learning that a Muslim passenger can do what the rest of us can not -- make those around us uncomfortable. Remember the story of the woman who became "claustrophobic" on the British flight? She had to be overcome by her fellow passengers and escorted off of the plane.

The reason she was escorted off the plane was because she made others on the plane uncomfortable by her behavior. That was o.k. because she was a white female. But, if an Arab-looking, loudly praying, Muslim who's behavior is questionable, should make you uncomfortable, you'd better just shake that feeling off as a discriminating thought.

While shaking it off -- we've once again made ourselves easy targets. Or, as "Pauline" would say; "we are the victims".

paraclete answered on 03/19/07:

do you really think anyone is going to tell you the truth. Mustn't alarm the travelling public, you know.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/18/07 - the republican & the democrat

& the homeless person

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

paraclete answered on 03/18/07:

it's true that socialists and fellow travellers always offer a solution that involves someoneelse paying

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/18/07 - just in time for tax season

Dear Internal Revenue Service:

Enclosed you will find my 2006 tax return, showing that I owe $3,407.00 in taxes.

Please note the article from the "USA Today" newspaper dated 12 November, wherein you will see the Pentagon (Department of Defense) is paying $171.50 per hammer, and NASA has paid $600.00 per toilet seat.

I am enclosing four (4) toilet seats (valued @ $2,400.) and six (6) hammers (valued @ $1,029.), which I secured at Home Depot, bringing my total remittance to $3,429.00. Please apply the overpayment of $22.00 to the "Presidential Election Fund," as noted on my return. You can do this inexpensively by sending them one (1) 1.5" Phillips Head screwdriver, (see aforementioned article from USA Today newspaper detailing how H.U.D. pays $22.00 each for 1.5" Phillips Head screwdrivers). One (1) screw is enclosed for your convenience.

It has been a pleasure to pay my tax bill this year, and I look forward to paying it again next year.

Sincerely,
A Satisfied Taxpayer

paraclete answered on 03/18/07:

Hmmm, now how does Donald or Bill pay taxes by this standard. All the toilet seats on american couldn't pay his bill

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/12/07 - on gun ruling

I heard that the court ruling opposing the second amendment citizens right to bear arms was it is a state right and not an individual right

BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

The ruling may be viewed at: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

SAF has also mirrored the decision on our site at http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

paraclete answered on 03/12/07:

oh good let's hope the citizens of rivercity use their guns wisely and shoot the first bush they see

tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 03/12/07 - Capitalism 3.0?

Long read but worth it...

Gore Funding Plan For "A New World Order"

If your employer began paying you 80 cents on the dollar, but, not to worry, the other 20 cents was going to support "good causes", thereby giving you value instead of capital, would you be pleased?

If not, you won't like what Al Gore has been quietly planning along with his Global Warming initiative. He and others are working to achieve that very thing and to bring it about in a manner which doesn't give you a vote in which values your dollars end up supporting.

Gore is quietly funding an assault on Capitalism as we know it, one that begins but doesn't end with Global Warming. That's only the model for what's coming next.

Sans news conferences and Oscar nods, it's a well-funded, grand design to re-shape, not just America, but the global economy in such a manner so as to inculcate Liberal values into the world's system of finance.

Defeated at the ballot box, it seems Gore has figured out that if he can follow, or perhaps even lead the money, he and other liberals can bring about the social and economic change they want, whether the middle class likes it, or not.

Gone unnoticed in the recent controversy over Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is this blurb below from the European partnership's web site:

    Dedicated to thought leadership on sustainability and capital markets -5% of our profitability is allocated to the Generation Foundation


The Generation Foundation is not your typical foundation involved in giving money to what it views as deserving causes. And the ramifications of its work should be of genuine concern for fiscal and social conservatives, civil libertarians and anyone who supports the free market system and the economics, or laisser-faire capitalism of Milton Friedman.

By their own admission, Gore and his well-heeled, high-minded brand of liberal thinkers believe Capitalism is either dead, or deserves to be. Here's the first quick look at a now Gore supported and funded, self-proclaimed New World Order as ruminated upon back in 2002.

    Above all, the man is wondering whether Americans need to pause for a moment, now that the millennium has turned and the market has crashed and corporate ethics seem like the quaint idea of a bygone era. And then, after this pause, the man wonders if we need to think long and hard about what we want and how money -- and, in particular, value -- figures into the arc of our lives.

    He has come up with an idea that admittedly might not solve any of our financial and social ills, but that he hopes might solve quite a few of them.

    The man's name is Jed Emerson. And his idea is called the "blended value" proposition.


Jed Emerson used to spend his afternoons walking into shooting galleries to dispense clean needles and condoms in San Francisco's Tenderloin district and now lecture(s) to the most powerful business leaders on the planet. (emphasis mine)

Those facts aren't inserted to disparage Emerson's work, but to highlight precisely the brand of social values Gore wants to build into our economic system so that they are realized though a non-democratic system controlled by wealth, as opposed to votes. And conservatism's good friend George Soros is linked to the work, as well.

Gore's foundation has employed the now well-credential-ed Emerson as their first senior research fellow.

    Jed Emerson is the first Generation Foundation Senior Fellow. Learn more about his body of work on Blended Value.

    Additional Link: Jed Emerson Wants To Change The World His goal: a kind of capitalist utopia in which sound business practices are rewarded, shareholders are empowered and our portfolios do more than just make money.


GIM is based in Europe, that's fitting, as Gore's plans for the American economy appear to be based more on socialist European values than America's. Actually, the effort is much larger than Gore and impossible to paint as anything other than the fiscal championing of an extreme Left wing ideology: Capitalism 3.0.

    In Capitalism 3.0, Peter Barnes redefines the debate about the costs and benefits of the operating system known as the free market. Despite clunky features, early versions of capitalism were somewhat successful. The current model, however, is packed with proprietary features that benefit a lucky few while threatening to crash the system for everyone else. Far from being "free," the market is accessible only to huge corporations that reap the benefits while passing the costs on to the consumer. Barnes maps out a better way. Drawn from his own career as a highly successful entrepreneur.


Really? But wait. I thought Capitalism 3.0 was the conceptualization of Gore's minion Emerson?

    Capitalism 3.0 February/March 2006
    by Jed Emerson and Sheila Bonini
    Originally published as part of the Blended Value Map and a chapter in the book series The Accountable Corporation


And who is Peter Barnes?

    Peter Barnes, founder of Working Assets and a board member at the Tomales Bay Institute's On The Commons


You might recall my post on Working Assets, the Leftist publishing company that plucked Glenn Greenwald out of the blogosphere to publish a hastily written book to bash Bush and oppose the Patriot Act. Their financial backing links them to the Phoenix Group, does the name George Soros ring a bell? It isn't me making these connections, it's the New York Times.

    To understand the financial connections that can now be documented, you'll also want to understand the Phoenix Group (PG), as reported on here in The Hill, and in depth through the New York Times, Wiring the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, July 2004. Wealthy associates of the group have been propping up the Netroots movement, enjoying the cachet of a ground up grass roots movement that's actually financed and, I'd argue, controlled from the top down by big money, just as is most all contemporary politics. The Times piece is an absolute must read.

    Some of the key PG players, though far from all, are Howard Dean, George Soros, Simon Rosenberg, Andy Rappaport, and SEIU President Andy Stern.


Take a moment and process that. Some of the very same individuals, now well networked, can almost immediately launch a New York Times best seller written by an all but unreadable blogger, a book intended to attack Bush and defeat the Patriot Act; meanwhile the same individuals are drawing a road map for the US economy based upon a self-labeled Utopian neo-capitalist ideology. Scary? It should be, as the Right has not kept up.

This is not a battle to be won or lost tomorrow, or even next year. It's a battle conservatives and libertarians must understand and engage over the next decade if they wish to prevail.

Now that we understand who would design this new values-based economic system Gore and his Leftist buddies have in mind, it's important to understand the notion behind Blended Value. Building moral or social value into our economic system may sound nice, but whose values? Who gets to decide? Not you. The system only works provided the society marches in lockstep on difficult choices. In Gore's proposed system, decisions don't flow from the bottom up, as with democracy. They flow from the top down with the money.

If Gore has his way, the wealthiest of the world, those who invest and support corporations in the largest measure, get to decide how everyone gets to live, what causes are supported, or dropped. And he has the nerve to call it freedom? It's not even close.

Corporate valuation based upon social and moral judgments means one could devise a better mouse trap, one that every body wants, but if it doesn't measure up within some grand Utopian plan, it's corporate valuation will always be sub par, so it would not attract the type of investment required to launch. What happens to choice? You can't choose to buy, or not buy, that which never gets built.

And what of the cost of building these social and moral values into our system of economics? Given what we have seen from Gore and other elitists preaching Global Warming, while preparing to preach social values, do you think the seven and eight figure salaried elite are going to do the sacrificing? You can call social programs value, they still cost money in the end.

Man2 The result of such a system would be upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on wages as profitability declines. In Gore's developing system, the middle class will pay the price for the implementation of a left wing, liberal-socialist agenda - and they will never even be asked to vote on whether to do it, or not. Gore's efforts regarding Global Warming establish precisely that paradigm. There's no telling where they'll go next.

For maximum valuation, will a corporation need to plant trees? build abortion clinics? pass out hypodermics, as one of its authors once did? Whose to say? Not you or me, that much is clear.

In short, what globally thinking socialists like Soros, and now Gore, have not been able to achieve through America's ballot box, they would seek to impose on our economic system. If you think I'm crazy, take a look at one of Gore's tracts. Both the illustrations and the text remind one more of the Eastern Block than the freedom we've come to know as Americans.

    It’s time for capitalism to mutate again. We’re due. Here’s why: “Release 1.0” — the original model — created not only wealth, but also a blizzard of economic, social, and environmental costs. In succeeding in its mission, it also exploited the world’s resources and peoples as if there were no tomorrow.

    “Release 2.0” — evolving since the late 1960s — has been increasingly regulated and “civilized” as it has attempted to keep pace with increasing awareness of its costly “side effects.” But Release 2.0 has hit a plateau in its efforts to build wealth and at the same time make deposits in the bank of social value.

    Layering regulations over regulations, and social initiatives over more social initiatives, just isn’t going to result in the hoped-for economic, social, and environmental returns. The problem is that even the most forward-thinking corporations are still driven by a mindset that is obsolete.

    What’s needed is the next iteration of capitalism — a new model that stems from an understanding that our common goal should be to maximize our value potential. The model should be based on a common understanding of what value is (to our minds, it should be a blend of economic, environmental, and social factors). And, it should be implemented with the common understanding that maximizing value, regardless of whether one is the “customer of” or the “investor in” the entity, requires taking all three elements into account.

    Capitalism 3.0, as we’re calling it, represents an opportunity to break existing frameworks and create a model of accountability that addresses the realities of the world we’re living in.


Read the other publications if you wish, they make it very clear. And Global Warming is only the beginning, albeit a critically important one. If Gore has his way, if we alter our economics to address his over-heated fear of Global Warming, we will be walking on the very path Gore and Soros and whomever else wants, while putting money in their pockets to fund their agenda. It's a path to the ruination of a free America, not some cure.

As Friedman knew, in capitalism money is freedom. If Gore and his new found European friends succeed in controlling our money while selling us on the concept of greater value through support for social programs of their liking, not necessarily ours - it won't be freedom, or Capitalism 3.0, it'll be a sham akin to Socialism from which America may never recover.

The current Global Warming debate is only the beginning, not the end. Just ask Gore, after all, it's his plan. If you think it isn't critical to push back, or tread carefully around global warming, you may want to think again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We're already seeing significant appearances of this "blended value" concept with the recent corporate alliance, it's no longer just a Ben & Jerry thing. Public schools are pushing the global warming agenda on our kids, not to mention exploiting them. Climate change was the cover story in last week's Sports Illustrated:



With the help of some university professor, SI speculated that if it would have been one degree warmer, Vic Wertz' smash hit in game 1 of the 1954 world series would have glanced off of Willie Mays fingertips (and I wondered if it were 1 degree cooler would it have bounced off his wrist?).

The global warming scam is coming at us from every angle, in education, economics, politics - and golf courses, ski slopes and ballparks. What are you going to do?

paraclete answered on 03/12/07:

what a load of convoluted crap

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/12/07 - HERE ARE A BUNCH OF
VIDEOS ON TERRORISM

HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO WATCH THEM MYSELF

yahoo page )

paraclete answered on 03/12/07:

don't ask us to watch things you haven't watched yourself

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/10/07 - THEY BAGGED BAGHDADI

The Iraqi gvt. says they've arrrested thehead of the 'Islamic State of Iraq'(ISI), Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Who's your BagDadhi?) in a raid of Abu Ghraib.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-09-al-baghdadi_N.htm?POE=NEWISVA

The reported arrest followed rumors this week that al-Baghdadi's brother had been arrested in a raid near Tikrit....

Unlike al-Zarqawi, virtually nothing is known of al-Baghdadi, including his real name. It is widely assumed that the name al-Baghdadi was taken as part of a campaign to make al-Qaeda appear more of a homegrown Iraqi movement rather than an organization dominated by foreigners.

Al-AP is deeply saddened by the news.

The ISI is another of those groups that feed from al -Qaeda and Iran (so much for the Shia and Sunni not cooperating ).Did I happen to mention the capture took place at Abu Ghraib ?

But was it a big headline ? With all the talk lately about pursuing al-Qaida and dropping the ball/taking our eyes off the prize , it seemed strange that the capture of the biggest al-Qaida operative in Iraq would get so little coverage. Too busy telling us about the Dems. bolting from a Fox News debate I guess. Did I happen to mention the capture took place at Abu Ghraib ? I sure hope no one makes him wear panties on his head ,but a Saddam necktie seems to be in order. Just a week ago, the ISI posted videos of the executions of 18 Iraqi security troops.

The understated news of this is that it was an Iraqi Army operation . I have heard as yet no news of US involvment .

paraclete answered on 03/11/07:

see they can do it when they want to, a good reason for american troops to leave

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/02/07 - Gore buys carbon offsets from himself

yes it's true . He buys them from Generation Investment Management LLP of which he is a cofounder and chairman of the board .

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.

I assume he also takes a salary from Generations . So he pays himself to burn all the carbon he wants and keep this phony pretext going that he lives a 'green'“carbon-neutral” life.

The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming. The appeal of becoming “carbon neutral” has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.

So the offsets are meant to be alternatives to changing your carbon hogging life-style BUT “the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.”

Yes ,I'd say Gore is misrepresenting something . By playing the the end of the world clarion he brings up the value of companies like Generation that invests other peoples monety for a fee into other green companies who's values also increase as he touts the end of the world . The NY Slimes actually has an intersting take on carbon offsets .

Still, as demand for greener living grows, the number of companies jumping into the game has multiplied. At least 60 companies sold offsets worth about $110 million to consumers in Europe and North America in 2006, up from only about a dozen selling offsets worth $6 million in 2004, according to Abyd Karmali of ICF International.Yet another perverse effect, say critics, is that some types of carbon-offset initiatives may actually slow the changes aimed at coping with global warming by prolonging consumers’ dependence on oil, coal and gas, and encouraging them to take more short-haul flights and drive bigger cars than they would otherwise have done.
Climate Care, for example, has linked up with Land Rover, a maker of sport utility vehicles, to help the company offset its own emissions. As part of a promotional program, Climate Care also helps purchasers of new Land Rovers offset their first 45,000 miles of driving.
In that way, the program may actually help sell “larger cars with higher emissions” and thus contribute more to global warming, according to Mary Taylor, a campaigner with the energy and climate team at Friends of the Earth.


Me ...I think instead of buying technolgy delaying offsets they should instead be investing their monies into auto engines that maximize the efficiencies of alternative fuels ,or developing the next generation of coal burning emission scrubbers . Since no matter what the wackos say ,no one is going to stop the emerging economies from buring coal.

paraclete answered on 03/03/07:

you are somewhat cynical what Gore is doing is offsetting his carbon imprint, how successful this depends on how this trust actually i. It is far wiser to lower the imprint than rely on such means to offset. If everyone follows the Gore strategy there will not be enough renewable projects to go around and pollution will continue unabated.

The answer to the problem is not in offsets but in removing the polluting industries and fully replacing them with renewables, a long term objective. this can only happen when governments get serious and become willing for their tax intake to be reduced for a while.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JacquelineA2006 asked on 03/01/07 - 2007.. part II


i was trying to post a follow-up question but it wasn't working on here for some reason. anyhow this is an example of one of the many responses i get from men on this topic..
----------
Whats wrong with a girl a having the car and offering to pick the guy the up?

It's a date and a 2 way thing...

If your both interested in each other meet half way... She drives the guy pays?

Next time it can be the other way around.
----------

Now, that is just stupid.

paraclete answered on 03/01/07:

I get the idea you are a very frivilous person. You surely don't believe that true equality is possible between male and female. Look if it's so important to you we can date and you can do it all, spend your money if it makes you happy.

Men are conditioned by their mothers and society to behave in a particular manner towards women, it's strange that a woman should put these notions in the head of a man and yet women don't want men to behave that way?

give me my club

JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
JacquelineA2006 asked on 02/27/07 - 2007..


This is not exactly political but still a good question to put up in my opinion. I would like to say i am 25 before continuing. You know it use to be like this.. the guy would pick the girl up and take her out and then take her back home after the date. Nowadays i run across men and these are all types that want you to drive out and meet them at the club you were planning to go dancing at or drive into the city and meet up somewhere and go from there. If a lady has to drive out and meet them then that is not a date! Why are these men like this..? Why do they not want to treat the opposite sex like a lady? I like your responses to the other topics we talk about and wanted to get your views on this.

paraclete answered on 02/27/07:

women wanted to be independent and so there you have the result

rusty rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
rusty asked on 02/27/07 - Iraq


What are your opinions about the war in Iraq? Do you think that it should be wrapped up and the President should focus on our current problems over here?

paraclete answered on 02/27/07:

There is no doubt there are bigger issues than Iraq. It just looks like a big issue because so much resourse is devoted to it.

Israel/Palistine isn't such a big issue at the moment but a year or two ago it was the big issue, so the lesson here is give it less attention and a solution might emerge

Don't know your local issues but one your President should be focusing on is climate change, he lost the opportunity and six years where he could have shown leadership. Another is border protection, it's hard to take you seriously over there when you don't protect yourselves at the most basic level

JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
rusty rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 02/27/07 - FYI: the facts

Sometimes you just have to report the facts. On the first gun control question Paraclete said to me, "Strange how so many people want out, what are you doing over there?"

Good question, but the rate is not much different in Australia. Total suicides in the US for 2004 were 32,439 - .011% of the population, roughly 11.05 per hundred thousand.

In Australia for 2004, total suicides were 2098 - .0104% of the population, or roughly 10.4 per hundred thousand. Official Australian stats here (pdf) and official US stats here.

The latest statistics compiled by WHO reveal it's much grimmer in the former Eastern Bloc and much of western Europe including Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and France with its 17.6 suicides per hundred thousand people. Japan was 10th with 23.8 per hundred thousand and Lithuania led this tragic statistic with 42.1 per hundred thousand.

Seems the level of distress is pretty equal in Australia and the US, where Americans are apparently 60% happier than the French.

Another thing Paraclete claimed was, "The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American."


Since the UK introduced the supposed "toughest gun control laws in the world," gun crime has doubled according to the Telegraph.

Even more facts for you. In 1994, the year before Texans were given the right to carry concealed weapons, there were 129,838 incidents of violent crime among our population of 18,378,000.

In 2005 that number fell to 121,091 incidents of violent crime among our population of 22,859,968.

Our population grew by 4,481,968 while incidents of violent crime fell by 8,747 since we were allowed to carry concealed weapons. Murders FELL from 2,022 in 1994 to 1,407 in 2005.

It's difficult to compare statistics with Australia as they are categorized differently, but while the level of homicides in Australia has remained fairly level the number of assaults have risen from 114,156 in 1996 to 158,629 in 2003, an increase of almost 30%. Sexual assaults rose from 14,542 in 1996 to 18,237 in 2003, an increase of almost 23%.

Just thought you all should know.

paraclete answered on 02/27/07:

Thanks for that synopsis, but you have to look at underlying factors suicide in Australia is related to the way our country is changing, drought, loss of employment, Influx of migrants and refugees who bring their problems with them, on sett of poverty, and so on, what are the reasons in the US and other places? You cannot take absolute numbers and say the incidence is risen any more than you can take the rate per 100,000 and say the incidence is fallen. What we can say is in Australia the incidence of reporting violence has increased. What I do know is the incidence of these things in among " white Australians" is very low, the incidence among "indigenous Australians" is very high and the incidence among "recent migrant populations" is very high.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JacquelineA2006 asked on 02/26/07 - gun control


I could point you to another country that has a very low crime rate and 100 percent gun ownership: Switzerland, where gun ownership is required by law and everybody has a military grade weapon in their house.

In Rwanda, the 1994 genocide was carried out largely by way of machete, not guns.

It's worth noting that in the USA, crime rates are trending down over the past 15 years, even while it becomes increasingly easier to not only obtain guns, but to get concealed carry permits, in most states over that same time period.

There's evidence to support both sides, which must force us to the conclusion that the fundamental character of the society is more important than the ease of obtaining guns. Not that that should come as any big surprise, though I'm sure to some people it will anyways. :-p

paraclete answered on 02/26/07:

Switzerland is hardly an example, the swiss have a very different ethos and compulsory military service, those guns are in fact weapons allocated to members of the swiss armed forces. You might notice that the swiss don't have gangs roaming the streets and general lawlessness among the population. This is because of discipline, the opposite of what is permitted in the US

So if you want to be like Switzerland, first educate your people to a minimum level then induct them into the army. next surround yourself with potential enemies and declare your neutrality

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
_JacquelineA asked on 02/23/07 - gun control


I recently came across some information that really seems to be more anti-american propaganda than actual fact.

I really find it amusing that people in other countries immediatly decide they can pass judgement on the United States concerning gun control while ignoring facts.

The Death Rate in the US is 167,184 for all forms of death.

Gun related deaths in 2004, latest numbers available: 29,569
Stabbings: 2,799
poisoning: 30,308
suffocation: 14,043
Total: 47,150

Now these are the INTENTIONAL deaths, or to put it acurately, people wanted to kill someone.

Unintended Firearm Deaths: 649

So, if you non-americans really want to criticise the US for allowing its citizens to purchase guns, at least use the right information.

One more thing, in the cities that have made it illegal to own handguns have seen a rise in gun related crimes.... so gee, you tell me, is gun control the way to stop violent crimes?

By the way, strangely enough, world wide, for every 10,000 people in a population, the rate of violence increases, until it hits around a half million people, then it goes up expotentially.

One last thing, at least in the United States, we are NOT under the constant video surveilence by dozens of cameras per block as in some cities!

paraclete answered on 02/24/07:

and who compiled these statistics the NRA?

the only way you can objectively determine where gun ownership is an issue in crime is to compare teh situation between the US and a non gun owning society.

This therefore makes interesting reading.
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

February, 2000

Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.

Homicide by Any Method

The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.

The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6

Assault and Robbery

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999

Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania

"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania."

-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.

Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia

In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.

By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.

In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.

Other Countries

Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer
JacquelineA2006 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 02/22/07 - What is an attack?

White House Stands Behind Cheney’s Attacks On Murtha And Pelosi

Yesterday, Vice President Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for supporting Iraq redeployment:

    CHENEY: I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we’ll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. … I think that’s exactly the wrong course to go on. I think that’s the course of action that Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha support. I think it would be a huge mistake for the country.

    Q Is that policy that we hear from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi — from other Democrats, is that a policy of defeat?

    CHENEY: Yes.


CBS reports Pelosi's response thusly:

    Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al Qaeda strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.

    "I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said.


Pelosi went further, "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country."

Try as I might I can't quite figure out the left. Either that or I know them better than they know themselves. In this case I'd have to say they're way too sensitive (which would explain all their sensitivity issues), yet they're so hypocritical and condescending at the same time. They've demanded the "Bush regime" come clean for years and yet they have a serious aversion to the truth.

Seeing as how Pelosi and Murtha have made their intentions 'vaguely clear' as we've already demonstrated on this board, Cheney was simply telling the truth. So, naturally that offends Madame Armani Speaker.

Contrast Cheney's 'attack' with Bill Maher on Leno Tuesday:

    “Joe Scarborough did a whole week of panel discussions on whether he was an idiot. The people who were defending him were saying, 'well, he's just inarticulate.' But inarticulate doesn't explain foreign policy. I mean, it's not that complicated. The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage. He is a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain half-wit who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence.


Now THAT's an attack.

Steve

paraclete answered on 02/22/07:

I think Cheney is right, Pelosi is acting against the interests of the country, she is trying to dictate to the President

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/22/07 - IRAN:



I just heard that Iran is going to expand its nuclear interests. Today is the deadline for them to end the testing et al. They didn't. Look out now!

HANK

paraclete answered on 02/22/07:

Iran is all bull and bluster Hank, a little like some others we know. They are years away from atomic weapons and only want to exploit nuclear energy for commercial reasons. You forget that they have nuclear neighbours. Pakistan, Russia which makes their nuclear program of more importance to them than it might otherwise be. It's not about america.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 02/21/07 - Are Americans finally waking up?

From today's NY Post.

AMERICA SAYS LET'S WIN WAR
By ANDY SOLTIS


February 21, 2007 -- In a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq - and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over.

Strong majorities also say victory is vital to the War on Terror and that Americans should support President Bush even if they have concerns about the way the war is being handled, according to the survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies.

The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.

By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible.

Despite last November's electoral victories by anti-war Democrats, the survey found little support among voters for a quick pullout of U.S. forces.

Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.

The survey was conducted before last week's House of Representatives resolution repudiating Bush's war policies.

But by 53 percent to 46 percent, Americans said Democrats are going too far, too fast in demanding troop withdrawals.

But the poll of 800 registered voters found Americans pessimistic about Iraq's fledgling democracy.

Only 34 percent felt it would become a stable democracy, compared with 60 percent who said it would not.

Among other key findings of the poll conducted Feb. 5-7:

* When given a choice of four policies, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops was the least popular (17 percent).

* The most popular option (32 percent) was a withdrawal timetable.

* The next most popular policy, favored by 27 percent, was expressed by the statement: "The Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to the country."

The fourth option, favored by 23 percent, was the statement: "While I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and restore security to their country."

With Post Wire Services

andy.soltis@nypost.com


-----------------------

Interesting, no? Americans are a lot smarter about our options in Iraq than the Dems give them credit for. 50% of Americans expect and WANT the troops to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done and support strategies that include a long-term deployment in Iraq.. Fully 82% of Americans are against an immediate pullout option, and 50% are against ANY option that includes a pullout until the job is over. And 57% of Americans say that we should support Bush on Iraq even if we don't agree with every aspect of how the war is run. These are SOLID numbers that favor Bush's policies.

It would seem that Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry's strategy of demanding immediate withdrawal at all costs is a losing stance for the Dems. I expect Clinton to gravitate towards the idea of a "timetable" as time goes along. Obama is in a bad spot... the darling of the far left, he can't easily shift to the right without losing some of his constituency.

I expect an all-out scramble within the Dem hierarchy to reposition themselves in lieu of this poll.

Are any other news outlets reporting this poll?

What is your opinion of the poll?

Elliot

paraclete answered on 02/21/07:

Are Americans waking up, I doubt it. Afterall if they didn't wake up when GWB stole the election way back when, why would they wake up today

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/19/07 - I just found out

my neighbors, son Matt Bowe, just got killed in Iraq.
He was a medic. I think he was in a police station or something.
HOW are they ever going to stop this nightmare?
They don't even want to admit that the terrorists have more sophisticated weapons to shoot down our planes now. If all our planes are being shot down how will we ever get enough troops over there to win a war?

I haven't even heard it on the news yet, they keep talking about Britney's shave and the fools on the hill. Why do people go hiking in the nasty weather?

paraclete answered on 02/19/07:

Try to keep your perspective, those who have been killed are a small percentage of those who serve. Yes, the enemy has sophisticatd weapons, but if they were so good they would have over run the forces in Iraq by now. The enemy operates out of fear and is opportunistic, seeking to disrupt everything that is done.

If The US leaves Iraq, there will be a civil war, all the atrocities will be avenged and there will be peace. If the US stays it will just go on and on, becuase they have a target

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/18/07 - Iraqui Civilians:



Are ALL the Iraqui CIVILIANS armed? It seems to me that they should be killing some of the insurgents themselves.

HANK

paraclete answered on 02/18/07:

like you would do it yourself? let's go hunting an insurgent today, great sport. Like your leader hank you don't get it, these people support what the insurgents are doing

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 02/16/07 - A whiz too far?

Talking urinals: New Mexico offers different approach to fight drunken driving

    RIO RANCHO, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico is hoping to keep drunks off the road by lecturing them at the last place they usually stop before getting behind the wheel: the urinal.

    The state recently paid $21 each for about 500 talking urinal-deodorizer cakes and has put them in men’s rooms in bars and restaurants across the state.

    When a man steps up, the motion-sensitive plastic device says, in a woman’s voice that is flirty, then stern: “Hey, big guy. Having a few drinks? Think you had one too many? Then it’s time to call a cab or call a sober friend for a ride home.”

    (Note: I am not making this up...)

    The recorded message ends: “Remember, your future is in your hand.”

    The talking urinal represents just the latest effort to fight drunken driving in New Mexico, which has long had one of the highest rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths in the nation. (The new tactic is aimed only at men, since they account for 78 percent of all driving-under-the-influence-related convictions in New Mexico.)

    “It startled me the first time I heard it, but it sure got my attention,” said Ben Miller, a patron at the Turtle Mountain Brewing Co. bar and restaurant. “It’s a fantastic idea.”

    Jim Swatek, who was drinking a beer nearby, said: “You think, ‘Maybe I should call the wife to come get me.“’

    Turtle Mountain Brewing owner Niko Ortiz commended the New Mexico Transportation Department for “thinking way outside the box.”

    Department spokesman S.U. Mahesh said the bathroom is a perfect place to get the message across. In the restroom, “guys don’t chitchat with other guys,” he said. “It’s all business. We’ve got their total attention for 10 to 15 seconds”

    Similar urinal cakes have been used for anti-drug campaigns in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Australia, and for anti-DWI efforts on New York’s Long Island, said Richard Deutsch of New York-based Healthquest Technologies Inc., which manufactures the devices.

    But Deutsch said he believes New Mexico is the only state to buy the devices.

    New Mexico had 143 alcohol-related deaths in 2005, for the nation’s eighth-highest rate per miles driven. The problem is blamed in part on the wide-open spaces that make it necessary to drive to get anywhere, and the poverty and isolation that can lead people to drink to relieve their boredom or misery.

    Also, some have complained that the state has only recently begun to emerge from years of lax enforcement.

    Gov. Bill Richardson led a successful push two years ago to require ignition locking devices for anyone convicted of DWI — a first in the nation — and each year the Legislature has agreed on tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

    New Mexico also has started a toll-free “drunk buster” hot line, boosted DWI enforcement in problem areas and increased police checkpoints. The state also has a DWI czar.

    In November, a wrong-way drunken driver slammed into a car near Santa Fe, killing five family members, authorities said. The governor has since directed state regulators to issue cease-and-desist orders against three airlines to stop serving alcohol on flights to and from New Mexico. The culprit in the fatal wreck had been seen drinking on a flight into Albuquerque hours before the accident.

    At the Turtle Mountain, the urinal cakes have proved so intriguing that three have been swiped already.

    “I’m mystified why someone would stick their hand into one of our urinals,” Ortiz said. “But I’m sure we’ll see them on eBay. Hopefully, the seller will advertise it as, ‘Stolen from Turtle Mountain.“’


A urinal cake telling us "your future is in your hand?" Bwaaahaaahaaa!!! Can we sink any lower? And why just men's rooms, does it have something to do with that women going to the restroom in groups thing (no offense), so they wouldn't listen anyway? If people are stupid enough to steal them out of the urinals doesn't New Mexico have a more disgusting problem?

paraclete answered on 02/17/07:

is nothing sacred

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/17/07 - The end of the electoral college ?

Wednesday I posted about attempts to undermine the primary process. Today I post about the possibilty of the end of the electoral college. Yes it is a possibility and sooner than you think.

A movement is afoot to undermine the Electoral College. The key player in this effort is a group called National Popular Vote , a 501(c)(4) non-profit group that advocates having the popular vote dictate presidential selection.

Because the Constitution states that “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,”[Art.2 Sec.1] their effort is concentrated on getting as many states as possible to enact a bill that would, “guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will win the Presidency.”

23 states currently have bills in their legislatures awarding the state’s electors to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the votes in their state.
To illustrate the absurdity of this let's suppose Kansas and Conn. enact the law and 90 % of Kansans votes Republican and 90% Conn.'s popular vote is a Democrat .As it stands now all Kansas goes Republican and all Conn. goes Democrat. With this law it could be that both go either Republican or Democrat depending on the national outcome. The way I see it ,one of these states gets disenfranchised.

As with the movement of the primary dates ,the aim of this is to minimize the influence of the smaller states in the electoral process. Why would a candidate care about the vote in Wyoming when they can concentrate their efforts into a few urban centers and come away with a majority ? The winner would be the candidate willing to pander to the big cities. Small state issues would be ignored. Rural America would be further marginalized. Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago would elect the president. The Electoral College was designed to prevent large states (then Virginia and New York) from having the only say in electing the president, to keep radical swings in public opinion from causing radical swings in government, and to keep the small states in on the action.

I view these as nothing less than the abolishment of federalism. Why not abolish the Senate while they are at it ? or make it's membership based on population of the state ?

How can this possibly be fair when each State has it's own election laws . Do they now propose to make national standards for all voting also ?

I do not understand this . In 2 centuries there have been 2 elections where the President did not get the majority of the popular vote.Oh wait...yeah I do get it.... One of them was President Bush in 2000.

paraclete answered on 02/17/07:

it is appearentally a flawed electoral process which could deliver a government to a president who was not elected by the majority of people, but by the majority of states obviously eighteenth century thinking in a small nation has no place in the twentieth century in a large one

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/17/07 - IRAQ:

I have no doubts that the United States will win the war in Iraq by November, 2008. Since the Democrats have been pessimists and quite irritabale, will a Republican victory in Iraq quench any thoughts of them having a majority in the House and Senate in 2008? I think the Democratic Party will become somewhat obsolete in the minds of most Americans and be termed losers

HANK.


paraclete answered on 02/17/07:

I had doubts the US could win the war in Iraq the day they started it Hank, it's one thing to defeat an army, it's another to defeat a people in their own land and the US forces never actually fought an Iraqi army and defeated it in close battle so the people never actually knew they could be defeated. All you defeated was one man, Saddam Hussein.

Your political parties will continue to exist no matter what the outcome. because you put your leaders on a high pedestal, you suffer from the same blindness as the Iraqi people, it is your president who has failed not your political party, George Bush (2) will go into history as the president who failed

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/15/07 - LAW OF THE LAND

Diss a 'gay'? Go to jail!
Activists warn Christians targeted under new 'hate crimes' proposal
Posted: February 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.

All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.

"All that matters are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups," said Michael Marcavage, director of RepentAmerica.com "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"

All this, he noted, to attack incidents that according to the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report make up on one-fifteenth of 1 percent of all crimes.
The language is in a new proposal pending in Congress, H.R. 254, or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That, according to Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, starts out with a federal police state enforcement of "anti-hate" laws but would, as it has in other parts of the world, "lead inexorably to the end of free speech."

paraclete answered on 02/16/07:

let's see now, Muslims are homophobic and Islam don't allow homsexuality of any kind so does this mean that when this legislation is enacted Islam is banned along with Christianity. So then you will have freedom of religion without being able to belong to the major religions of the world this is perhaps 5% of the population dictating what the majority can think and say. I say it's time to get out your gun and go hunting.

I want to say I am very offended by the attitude of these homo freaks, who after all are an abomination, The Bible says so.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/14/07 - Chicken Shiite :al-Sadr gettin'while the gettin' is good


The "coward"(see hudna ) Moqtada al-Sadr made a bee-line express to Iran in the weeks after President Bush announced the surge .

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb or as I like to call it ;"the Zarqawi treatment"] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.


According to ABC Sadr is staying with family but The Fourth Rail blog claims to have sources that know Sadr is under the protection of the Iranian Qods Force.

How long will he stay there ? He may try to wait us out .He may come back and try to force us out of Iraq (lol) . He may try to reconcile with us ;another unlikely scenario since by all appearances Iran is calling the shots for him. What should be apparent to forces inside Iraq is that he has no wheres near the control of the situation there as he thinks .

I also think he has played his political hand badly . He has alternated between being an active member of the gvt. to trying to undermine it when he hasn't gotten his way. Despite all of that Maliki has survived and the gvt. is still functioning . If he chooses to go into extended exile I think whatever thin support he has will be further shredded .Who will the Shia's rely on ? ....The mahdi militia who's leader is clearly an Iranian stooge ,and who cuts and runs when things get hot ???..... or a permanent National Iraqi Army .

Meanwhile ;Nancy Pelosi will continue holding a debate this week to disapprove of a strategy that has already demonstrated success.

paraclete answered on 02/14/07:

showing his true colours, but then he is a moslem

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/14/07 - The 2008 election season

It came upon us faster than I can remember and it appears to be already in full swing. Much of the rush to announce and organize appears due to many States changing their primary dates in an attempt to have greater influence in the outcome.

The latest example came out of Kalifornia.Their Senate passed a measure that would enable Democrats and Republicans to choose nominees Feb. 5 instead of June 3. The bill is expected to be heard in the Assembly next week and to pass easily. The Governator has said he will sign it.

Simular legislation is pending in Illinois, Texas, Florida and New Jersey. NY politicians and other states are also considering it .Pennsylvania and Indiana have legislation that would move their primaries to the first week of March.

This will force candidates to get organized quicker and to get their funding ducks in a row earlier . It clearly gives front-runners the advantage for 3 obvious reasons .

1. Well funded front runners will be in a better position to take their campaigns to a national-wholesale level.It will be over after Feb. 5.and expensive media markets will be in the deciding mix. The candidates with the most money on hand are the prohibitive favorites. Besides the above mentioned states the following will also hold primaries on Super Tues. Feb. 5 :Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia

2. Dark horses will not have a change to gain momentum before the bulk of the delegates are already selected .

3. With the primaries spread out the way they were there was more room for debate amongst the candidates with the possibility of a glaring slip up changing the dynamics of the campaign . With all the primaries grouped together like this it will be possible for a front-runner to skip debates without consequences (as Hillary is already threatening )

Do you think that there is any advantage to just going to a national primary day ? I don't but that is where I see this heading to.



paraclete answered on 02/14/07:

I pity you that you should have to put up with two years of presidential politicing

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 02/13/07 - Where's the outrage?

Something that's puzzled troubled me for some time is the inconsistency from the left on what constitutes an outrage.

For instance, tom noted how Diane Sawyer caved to Ahmadinejad by wearing a hijab and his refusal to shake her hand, thereby allowing the Mahdi Hatter to perpetuate the stereotype that women are inferior. Where's the outrage? Instead, ABC's headline is trumpeted on the Huffington Post, EXCLUSIVE: Iranian President Says He's Ready to Cooperate on Nukes...

Imagine if Bush had requested Sawyer wear a dress for an interview...

In much of the Islamic world women are second class citizens (see above), the "insurgents" in Iraq, the Janjaweed in Sudan, the Taliban and Islamic factions all over are fighting to establish Sharia law that would spread this oppression of women. Where is the outrage?

Almost daily for the past 3 years or so our paper prints a letter to the editor referring to Bush's "lies." In Sawyer's interview the Mahdi Hatter denied any involvement in Iraq, claimed he was against any conflict and bloodshed, and we are the only country whose activities are completely transparent. The man is lying through his teeth for the entire interview, where is the outrage?

Moonbat conspiracists have long warned of Bush's impending theocratic rule, yet radical Islam seeks to establish a worldwide Caliphate by force. Where is the outrage?

Radical Islam cites two other reasons for their jihad against the west, support for Israel and the immoral, materialistic western lifestyle. Radical Islam seeks to eliminate Israel and kill or subjugate every Jew. The very issues the left holds dear; abortion, gay marriage, feminism, tolerance, multiculturalism, legalized drugs, needle exchanges, 'comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners,' and on and on, are a primary reason given by virtually every Jihadist for their desire to kill us. Radical Islam would put an end to virtually every value the left holds dear if given the chance.

Where is the outrage?

paraclete answered on 02/13/07:

what is it we are supposed to be outraged about here, that a woman was forced to dress modestly, or that Islam is allowed to exist at all. At least the Muslims are straight up about it, dress modesly or get out.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/13/07 - 'nother media cover up

Utah shooter was Bosnian Muslim

paraclete answered on 02/13/07:

They just didn't want to alarm you

tropicalstorm rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/11/07 - Really great site

Has tons of links on about any political issues you can imagine.


http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/freedom.htm



http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/websites.htm

paraclete answered on 02/12/07:

what a load of rally round the flag boys crap

tropicalstorm rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/12/07 - MORE STRAEGY:



A couple of weeks ago I proposed an old wild west strategy for our troops to use in Iraq. That's what they're doing now!

How about this if what they're doing now doesn't work: Drop leaflets on Baghdad and the surrounding area telling all of the civilians to vacate the city. Our troops would help them, of course. Give them two weeks. Then level the place. This would make it possible to free up our troops in Iraq so they can take on Iran after a hiatus of sorts. This would allow our planes, ships and the Israeli air force to join our cause.

Your comments, please!

HANK

paraclete answered on 02/12/07:

ah yes the scorched earth policy. Only a dill would propose it and only a bigger dill would execute it. What are the Iraqi made homeless by this moved supposed to do. In proposing this solution you are no better than that communist idiot in Zimbabwe, Mugabe, who bulldosed the houses of the poor. You are supposed to be on the side of compassion Hank. You tell us on here Christianity Board what a great Christian you are and yet come here and propose genicide. Do you think you will not be held to account. Ask yourself why is this war happening in Iraq, because another dill who though he owned the world decided to fix Iraq. Hank he doesn't and nor do you

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/12/07 - Obama v. John Howard

US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has blasted as "empty rhetoric" Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attack on Senator Obama's plan to bring US troops home from Iraq .

The 45-year-old senator waded into a major foreign policy row just one day after formally announcing his candidacy, telling Mr Howard he should dispatch 20,000 Australians to Iraq if he wanted to back up his comments.

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Mr Howard earlier attacked Senator Obama's plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

The conservative leader said on commercial television that Senator Obama's pledges on Iraq were good news only for insurgents operating in the war-ravaged country.

"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."





Time for some math (I will round it out to make it simple for the Senator ):

Aussies population is around 20 million

The US has a population around 300 million .

That is 15 x more people.

Now Australia has 1,400 troops currently in Iraq which would be the equivalent if the US has 21,000 troops there . Obama's call for an additional 20 ,000 Aussie troops would equate to America adding 300,000 troops. The correct matching per capita contribution for the surge would be about another 1,400 additional troops for Australia .

Maybe Obama ,being a person who thinks he's ready for prime time should at least do his homework . If he did he would find that Australia has been in the front-lines in the war against jihadistan ,with commitments in Afghanistan, Fiji, East Timor, Indonesia and the Philippines.

I would also point out that since WWII Australia has sent troops in every major conflict we have been involved in the only ally who has done so. But then again ,because they have been our most consistent ally makes them a prime target for the Dhimmicrats .

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer reacted to Obama's rant by saying :

"That would be half of our army. Australia is a much smaller country than the United States and so he might like to weigh that up..."
"It's entirely appropriate the Australian Government expresses its view in a free world. You won't get anywhere trying to close down debate." ...
"A precipitous withdrawal by the United States from Iraq would be a catastrophe."


The linked article above also has some bizzare comments by other Democrats who felt compelled to weigh in on the issue . You can read them and judge them for yourself . I think Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter summed it up best :

"I think the Aussies have earned a right to comment on the world stage about their partner in this endeavour because they've been fighting side-by-side with us in Iraq"

Indeed . I did not hear the clamor of Democrats running o the microphones to comment on Vladimir Putin's comments this weekend . Nor did they oppose John Kerry sending his sister down under to try to influence their elections .Besides , President Bush has not been shy in offering his opinion of Australian internal politics just as I'm sure their labor party has no hesitation in attacking President Bush .

Obama's statements may best represent the Democrats vision of a "diplomatic solution" to Iraq. Insult our allies and inspire our enemies is one way to end the war....end it badly ....but end it nonetheless .The bottom line is that Australia has been with us from the beginning. They are entitled to their opinion.








paraclete answered on 02/12/07:

You need to put this in context, Obama is only beginning his run, Howard is nearing the end of his, this is an election year and polarising the electorate is a successful tactic for Howard. Now little John is always taking on the Robin Hood's of politics internal and external and winning, he has afterall seen off more political opponents than Obama has had hot breakfasts. From what I has observed, Obama has a big mouth and John Howard just told him so, so I hope he considers himself told.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/10/07 - without too much trouble

can someone find a website for the stryker brigade with a picture of a Romeo 4.

I want to know how they are compared to the Abrams

My Lee J broke his wrist right before graduation. Now they are changing him to Fort Riley, Kansas and to a Romeo 4 and now he is not going to be going overseas in March.


Thanks much
worried mom


paraclete answered on 02/10/07:

sure you have heard of google there are many references to the stryker brigade provided so take your pick

tropicalstorm rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart asked on 02/08/07 - FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES...ENJOY

Somebody from California apparently wrote the top part, but somebody from Texas came back and put them on their butt's at the bottom.

CALIFORNIA:

I can wear sandals all year long.

I go to the Beach - not "down to the shore."


Our chicks are WAYYYY hotter than yours. Well... Miami can hang.


I say "like" and "for sure" and "right on" and "dude" and "totally" and "peace out" and "chill" and "tight" and "bro" and I say them often.


I know what real cheese & avocados taste like.

Everyone smokes weed and its no big deal.

We'll roll up 40 deep when something goes down.

I live next door to Mexicans, but we call them American's!

All the porn you watch is made here, cause we're better and that's how it is.

I don't get snow days off because there's only snow in Mammoth, Tahoe, Shasta, and Big Bear.

I know 65 mph really means 100.

When someone cuts me off, they get the horn and the finger and high speed chase cuz we don't fuck around on the road.

The drinking age is 21 but everyone starts at 14 (legally 18 if you live close enough to the border).

My governor can kick your governors ass.

I can go out at midnight.


You judge people based on what area code they live in, and when asked where you're from, you give your area code.

I might get looked at funny by locals when I'm on vacation in their state, but when they find out I'm from California I turn into a Greek GOD.

We don't stop at stop signs... we do a " California roll" No cop no stop baby!

I can get fresh and REAL Mexican food 24 hours a day.

All the TV shows you "other" states watch get filmed here.

We're the Golden State. Not the Cheese State. Not the Garden State ...GOLDEN!!!

We have In-N-Out (Arizona and Vegas are lucky we share that with them).


I have the most representation in the House of Representatives, which means MY opinion means more than yours, which means I'm better than you [geez.... hahaha].

The best athletes come from here.

*******IF YOU'RE FROM CALIFORNIA, REPOST THIS*******
******IF YOU'RE NOT, GO SIT IN A CORNER AND CRY******

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TEXAS :

Ahem... So.. Um.. yeah... I read this, and thought I would reply...

Hey... California, listen up... Texas is where its at!

I too can wear sandals all year long... plus I can put on boots to stomp your toes and I won't even stick out.

You may be able to go to the "beach" instead of the "shore"... but can you go to the drive thru "Beer Barn?" What now surfer boy?

Your chicks aren't way hotter than ours... they are almost equal... and that's only due to silicone, saline, Botox, lasers and hair dye... We have the real ones and they can beat yours up.

We're taught to say "Yes Sir" and "Yes Ma'am" and respect our elders because of it. We also say "Howdy" and "fixin" and "Y'all" which are pretty much recognized right away anywhere in the world :) We're famous.

You may know what real cheese and avocados taste like... but I know what 100% Grade A Angus Beef tastes like. Who wants avocados and cheese when you can have steak and potatoes?

Ha Ha ... who do you think grows the weed and sells it to you?

Why roll 40 deep when something goes down if 5 corn fed country boys can get the job done...

I live next door to Americans, but we call them Mexicans.

About your Porn.... 3 words... "Debbie Does Dallas "... You can brag about it now, but we started it.

Why would you brag about not getting snow days off?

We're smart enough to know 65mph means 65, but our speed limit is 70.

When someone cuts me off, they get run over by my big ass truck, then I give them the finger and tell them to go back to California.

The drinking age is 21, but if you aren't chasin' the beer by 1 yr. old... you're behind.


Yeah, Well my governor became the President of the United States … yours isn't even eligible.

You can go out at midnight? That's nice, I haven't even come home by then.

Ok... you said, "You judge people based on what area code they live in, and when asked where you're from, you give your area code" and as hard as I try I have no idea what you're talking about... I think you're watching too much TV.

Yeah, you'll definitely get looked at funny when you come to visit but we have another name for you pretty boys, and its not Greek, its French.

Of course you don't stop at stop signs... none of you can drive.

You can pick up Real Mexican food 24 hours a day huh... well I can swing by home depot and pick up 24 Real Mexicans anytime of day. Can you say catering?

All the TV shows get filmed there... but where does your favorite poker game from? Texas Hold'em anyone? Besides, we've got Walker Texas Ranger. Chuck Norris knows where it's at! LOL. (I had to add something 'bout that! LMAO)

You can keep your golden state... We're the Lone Star State ...the one and only!! Not to mention we are the ONLY flag that can fly at the same level as the United States flag. Everyone else is beneath it.

Do I have to remind you about the drive thru Beer Barn again? Does In-N-Out serve alcohol? (Oh and did I mention Dr. Pepper was created in Texas?)

You guys have the best athletes huh?... Nine words... Lance Armstrong and The University of Texas at Austin.

Though I could mention MICHAEL JOHNSON - Olympic Sprinter, World record holder in 200m and 400m, 5 Olympic Gold metals, 9 time World Champion (born Dallas, Tx ).

Oh and remind me again who won the Rose Bowl between USC and Texas ????? I believe it was the LONGHORNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Football is a religion, not a sport.

90% of football "movies" you guys are making are about Texas Football.

Texas is the only state that can still separate to become its own country. The only way California's gonna accomplish that is if another earthquake comes along and you guys sink into the ocean. Can you say Atlantis... HaHaHa.

Come on Texans Show Your Colors! Repost!

And as the Great Sam Houston once said " Texas could survive without the United States , but the United States could not survive without Texas !!"

paraclete answered on 02/08/07:

Texas, isn't that a p.... little town in the great state of Queensland, which has everything both Texas and California have, but it's bigger than both of them put together and no snow, not ever. Where is this paradise? why south of the equator, of course

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 02/06/07 - Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?

GEORGE F. WILL
Newsweek

    Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

    Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

    Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

    Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?

    We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

    It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.

    In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

    The Senate's resolution expressed opposition to any agreement that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States," which the Senate correctly thought Kyoto would do. The Senate said any agreement should be accompanied by "a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement" it, and an analysis of the agreement's "detailed financial costs and other impacts" on the U.S. economy.

    The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to "confront" the challenge of climate change. The confronting is one reason for his fascination with new fuels. (Another reason, he says, is U.S. imports of oil from unstable nations. Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is ... well, read on.)

    Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.

    President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.


Comments?

paraclete answered on 02/06/07:

There is nothing like leading with your chin, is there?

undoubtedly life was better when a mile high sheet of ice covered Chicago, well simplier anyway.

I think you need to consider why a mile high sheet of ice covered Chicago and whether it might happen again. It's no skin off my nose, after all, I don't live there.

You will immediately say, it was an ice age, yes, but there appear to be some trigger points and one of those is the shut down of the mid atlantic current. This can be triggered by an excess of freezing water as a result of melting the Greenland ice cap, an event for which there is evidence to suggest it might be underway.

What has to be recognised is that all the world's weather systems are interlinked and a major change in atmospheric conditions in North America or Asia has global implications. America is a major source of carbon dioxide today, 25%, and China will be tomorrow. There will be no North American prosperity to protect if the ice comes again to North America this point appears entirely lost on the people of that benighted place.

So we must find a way to stop this from happening or at least prevent us from being the cause of it and if doing away with the SUV is part of the answer, then goodbye SUV

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart asked on 02/05/07 - What a difference in 50 years!




Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1956 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.

2006 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1956 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.

2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1956 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.

2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.

1956 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to College, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.

1956 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1956 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1956: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1956 - Ants die.

2006 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to comfort him.

1956 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

paraclete answered on 02/05/07:

and what have you proven, how rediculous life in your country has become?, how stupid the population has become by allowing themselves to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Now ask yourself what else has changed in your nation in that time.

I won't even offer you a set of multiple choice questions

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 02/05/07 - Calling any and all Constitutional scholars!!!

First, read this oath of enlistment for the U.S. military:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Now, notice that defending the Constitution is placed before obey orders, etc. It seems to me that it is that way for a distinct purpose, but maybe not.

In any event, what is the obligation of our armed forces when the Constitution is under attack FROM WITHIN, when it's attacked by the CINC, or Congress, or the SC?

Does the soldier defend the Constitution, or does he obey the orders given by CINC (or whoever), even if those orders are AGAINST the Constitution?

Question 2: I saw no expiration date on that oath; nor did I see one on any separation paperwork when I left. While I know I'm not subject to recall (even if others are), it almost sounds like a "moral obligation" to do my part to ensure American safety. Of course, that's how I treat it ANYWAY, as do thousands of people who have sworn no such oath, but it did kinda get my brain to turning.

This is just a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. I'm not suggesting that we revolt against our government or anything. Just wondering at what point--if any--the soldier's duty to the Constitution outweighs his duty to superior officers, up to and including CINC.

D

paraclete answered on 02/05/07:

this is this age old question for a soldier, how does he resolve the ethical dilemma of failing to carry out an illegal order. That oath allows no wriggle room, one can only hope the regulations give some guidance.

What constitutes an attack on the constitution, is an attempt to change it an attack? is a bad ruling by a judge an attack? is unconstitutional behaviour an attack?. No it doesn't say he will defend the US against enemies but the constitution a pecularily worded oath

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/01/07 - "SHIP OF FOOLS"



"The ship of fools is an old allegory, which has long been used in Western culture in literature and paintings. With a sense of self-criticism, it describes the world and its human inhabitants as a vessel whose deranged passengers neither know nor care where they are going." - Wikipedia

Well, guys and gals, perhaps it's time for HANK to take a hard line re: what's going on in our culture and elsewhere. How about an analogy? Let's call our White House a SHIP and call the politicians who haunt it EARTHLINGS who neither know nor care where WE, the citizens, are going. They're out for themselves. So, maybe our balance of power should be shifted from Washington to ALL State capitols. The United States exemplifies a FEDERAL republic whose central government is suppose to be restricted in power. Sorry! It's not! If each State became a REPUBLIC, a common sense REPUBLIC, said States would be ruled by very inclusive electorates. Reasoning: It's much easier for me to keep my eyes on the head of a pin instead of on a requiem. Smaller the better!

Would it be feasible to have 50 common sense REPUBLICS than what we have now? (Disclaimer: This is nothing but a hypothetical question)

HANK

paraclete answered on 02/01/07:

hank I regard the hole of the US as a SHIP OF FOOLS. the leadership are fools to think they can lie to the people about important issues and the people are fools for electing them in the first place

knowing your political allegience I can only say hello fool!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 02/01/07 - John Edwards other America

He delights to recount on the campaign trail of the 'two Americas' and that he is a champion of the "other America" .

Well .... here is a brief glance at the other America that John Edwards resides in :



102-acre spread is likely the largest home in Orange County, N.C., and tax officials say it's likely to be the most valuable. The 28,200 square-foot estate, expected to be valued at more than $6 million, includes:

The recreation building (15,600 square feet) contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”......

The heavily wooded site and winding driveway ensure that the home is not visible from the road. “No Trespassing” signs discourage passersby from venturing past the gate.
Sure to keep the other America out .

paraclete answered on 02/01/07:

I note he is environmentally conscious

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/31/07 - Name that country.

For more than sixty years it has been the recipient of aid from the United Nations, Europe and the United States. In fact, "the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere." Statesmen all over the world have paid homage to it. It's leadership has been praised and defended by former American Presidents and world leaders . Charities have been established to support it. Fund raising in its name takes place every day. It has been provided with security training and weaponry by the International Community. If any country deserves to be called the proud creation of enlightened diplomacy and peacemaking, this is is it.

paraclete answered on 01/31/07:

this is the mythical kingdom of Palistine, land of the suicide bomber and the roof top dancer. No place on Earth has so singually distinguished itself as a potential A-BOMB test site

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/31/07 - ban light bulbs

what a bright idea!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc

while America is on a ban kick what are some things you think NEED banned and why?

Can we ban idiots?
how about dirty dishes?
or haunted cemetaries?

paraclete answered on 01/31/07:

I can't wait for the revolution

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/31/07 - Name that country part II

Yup it's "Palestine" . That wonderful creation of enlightened diplomacy and peacemaking that sucks more direct aid out of the world then any other nation .

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=238542004

And what returns we get for the investment !!!
Caroline Glick reports it this way :

In the State of Palestine 88 percent of the public feels insecure. Perhaps the other 12 percent are members of the multitude of regular and irregular militias. For in the State of Palestine the ratio of police/militiamen/men-under-arms to civilians is higher than in any other country on earth.

In the State of Palestine, two-year-olds are killed and no one cares. Children are woken up in the middle of the night and murdered in front of their parents. Worshipers in mosques are gunned down by terrorists who attend competing mosques. And no one cares. No international human rights groups publish reports calling for an end to the slaughter. No UN body condemns anyone or sends a fact-finding mission to investigate the murders.

In the State of Palestine, women are stripped naked and forced to march in the streets to humiliate their husbands. Ambulances are stopped on the way to hospitals and wounded are shot in cold blood. Terrorists enter operating rooms in hospitals and unplug patients from life-support machines.

In the State of Palestine, people are kidnapped from their homes in broad daylight and in front of the television cameras. This is the case because the kidnappers themselves are cameramen. Indeed, their commanders often run television stations. And because terror commanders run television stations in the State of Palestine, it should not be surprising that they bomb the competition's television stations.

So it was that last week, terrorists from this group or that group bombed Al Arabiya television station in Gaza. And so it is that Hamas attacks Fatah radio announcers and closes down their radio station claiming that they use their microphones to incite murder. Because indeed, they are inciting murder. What would one expect for terrorists to do when placed in charge of a radio station?

And so it is that in the State of Palestine, journalists - whether members of terror groups or not - are part of the 88 percent of their public who are afraid. Sunday they protested outside the offices of one terror faction or another that controls the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, reporter Ala Masharawi explained, "No one goes outside, no one moves without thinking twice. Gaza's streets have become terrible streets, especially at night. Gaza is a ghost town."

As the Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported last week, in the State of Palestine, Christians are persecuted, robbed and beaten in what can only be viewed as a systematic campaign to end the Christian presence in places like Bethlehem. As Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station lamented, "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here."


Wrechard at Belmont Club sums it up this way in a stinging rebuke:

The collateral damage inflicted upon the people of the Third World by the Left in pursuit of their fantasies will someday rank with the Slave Trade and the Holocaust in the annals of historical outrage. It is the last form of imperialism. And the worst.

Don't mince words Wrechard .....tell us how you really feel !!




paraclete answered on 01/31/07:

I don't feel much, I think these events are sad, but there is nothing I can do. I know these events are the result of wrong mindedness, the sort of wrong mindedness which comes from reading over and over the mindnumbing writings of the Mad Mahdi from Mecca, Mudhutmad, who tolerated noone for very long.

What I know is that people like these are on a path to self destruction and we should not help them, just leave them to it. When there has been enough blood they will come to their senses, perhaps because all the idiots are killed.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/31/07 - A Biden Problem: Foot in Mouth

By JAKE TAPPER

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007 — Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., the loquacious chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who launched his presidential campaign today, may be experiencing an ailment not entirely unknown to him: foot in mouth disease.

Biden is taking some heat for comments he made to the New York Observer, in which he said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a rival for the nomination: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Immediately the conservative media establishment — Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, bloggers — publicly pounced. At Townhall.com, Mary Katherine Ham wrote: "A clean black man? The first black guy on the American political scene who can both shower regularly and speak properly? Is that really what Biden thinks? If a Republican had said this, we'd have a national outpouring of grief over the residual ignorance and racial insensitivity in our country, and the guy would be in sensitivity training until around about the time John Kerry is elected president."

Obama Responds

And notably, Obama himself didn't do much to knock the story down.

Asked about the comments at a press conference this afternoon, Obama said, "you'd have to ask Senator Clinton, uh, Senator Biden what he was thinking," initially stumbling by mentioning the name of the Democratic front-runner for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "I don't spend too much time worrying about what folks are talking about during a campaign season."

Asked if Biden meant to be complimentary, Obama said, "I'm not going to parse his words that carefully."

In a conference call with reporters about his presidential campaign, Biden acknowledged that he "was quoted accurately" in the New York Observer, but insists his comments are being misunderstood.

"Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that either the Democratic or Republican party has produced at least since I've been around," Biden said. "He's fresh, he's new, he's insightful."

Biden said he regretted that "some have taken totally out of context my use of the word 'clean.'"

"My mother has an expression 'clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack,'" Biden said. "Look, the idea is, this guy is something brand new no one has seen before..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a good thing I was pulling into the parking lot when I heard this or I would have had to pull over laughing. I really want to give Biden a pass on this - ok, so I really don't - come on, "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy?"

What would Denzel say? Sidney Poitier? Bryant Gumbel? Lynn Swann? Colin Powell? Rod Paige? Alphonso Jackson? JC Watts? Michael Steele? Clarence Thomas? Alan Keyes, Emmitt Smith...

paraclete answered on 01/31/07:

and where did he learn his hygine, in the highlands of Kenya or an Indonesian madrassa

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 01/30/07 - The way things ARE....

...NOT the way some WISH they were.

Been awhile since I've seen this level of absolute, raw truth. Agree or disagree, this is the reality of the matter.

There's the way things oughta be, and there's the way things ARE. And the two rarely, if ever, meet. Read on....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this. Then file under Takin Care of Business




In response to the news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine:

It's a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org.

Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a b attle dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.

Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.

Here is your situation Marine: You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You ar e speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!!!

What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" becau se there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same .. Marines end up getting hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Si x Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes".

paraclete answered on 01/30/07:

war is hell they say, don't shoot until you are shot at but after that anything that moves or might have moved is a target. This is an understandiable philosopy but uses the same logic the enemy uses, no mercy, so do these marines run up the death's head flag or like the SS wear it proudly on their uniform as a warning to Muslims

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/30/07 - United States stands resolute

President George W. Bush is going to persevere and prevail in beating world terrorism and bringing stable democracies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

There will be no wavering and no withdrawal.


These were the heartening words given me by U.S. Ambassador to Canada, David H. Wilkins.

So the mischief-makers, the defeatists, the fellow travellers and the Liberal-Left cabal better get out their handkerchiefs and start sobbing.

Their ignoble cause will fail.

The course of decency and democracy will win.


Now Wilkins, who visited the Sun for an editorial board meeting this past week, is a very astute and articulate fellow.

He spent 25 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 11 of them as Speaker of the House.

During those 25 years he was on the cutting edge of most major reform initiatives from welfare reform to property tax relief, and from educational accountability to truth-in-sentencing laws.

Wilkins is an affable, engaging man, but also one with a steel-trap mind.

In that, he's very much like his boss back in the White House.

As noted by Sun columnist Salim Mansur -- the best commentator by far in Canada on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism -- Michael Novak, the noted Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher, recently described Bush as "the bravest president" for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians despite the venom of his peers.

The U.S ambassador echoed those sentiments, pointing out Bush will determinedly do what is right rather that what the polls may say is unpopular.

America's salvation matters more than what the temporarily up-and-down swings in the polls say.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon when Bush had been in the White House little more than one year changed the entire direction of the presidency.

Some 3,000 Americans died in those attacks -- more than in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, itself described by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as a "day of infamy."

Yet, despite repeated threats by Osama bin Laden and his associated adherents throughout the world, there have been no further Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

I note that in the 1930s, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and his associated henchmen in other dictatorships believed the western democracies too weak to fight back.

He was wrong. We did.

We won.

After the end of the Second World War, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and the Communist henchmen who followed him had the same attitude as the 1930s bunch of dictators towards the western democracies.

But they, too, were wrong, and we won the Cold War.

Is the radical Islamic terrorist movement as mistaken in its view of the western democracies being weak as were Hitler, Stalin as their fellow compatriots, I asked Wilkins.

He replied it would be a mistake for the world terrorist movement to underestimate the resolve of the U.S. and its allies.

Instead of the Taliban running Afghanistan, we now have a democratic government there.

And instead of Saddam Hussein running Iraq, and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, we have a democratic government there, too.

True, these as yet may be fragile governments, and not exactly the kind of democracies with which we are familiar, but they are on their way to succeeding.

Wilkins noted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when asked about stability in the Middle East, declared the only way to achieve stability in the region is through democracy.

My friends, we are going to win this fight for civilization, and freedom for millions of men, women and children who never had it before, and George W. Bush will eventually be acclaimed as a great historic leader.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rush Limbaugh? Michael Medved? National Review? Freepers? Nope. Canadian columnist Paul Jackson in the Calgary Sun. It's a shame we can't get more Americans to recognize that Bush's resolve to do what's right in defeating the Islamic jihad is not 'arrogance.' It's a shame more Americans - our own media and congress included - can't applaud the president for pressing on in this noble and necessary cause in spite of the polls. It took a Canadian.

paraclete answered on 01/30/07:

resolute, sounds like a good name for the ship of state, but how does this differ from stay the course. One day you will have a new thought over there and then you can call that ship: revelation.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/29/07 - one more post on waste contributing to pollution

over the past half century many mechanics and so forth have invented cars that last forever (Tucker). Carboraters that will triple your gas mileage (the ones they have at Advanced Auto and so forth are inferior compared to the ones they don't want us to know about).
And back in the fifties and sixties (even since) several people have invented alternative fuels. My ex's grandfather invented a clean clear corn fuel in the fifties. But what happens to these inventions? NOBODY hears about them because the government pays them off to NOT market them. WHY? Because big business would suffer since people would not have to buy cars and gas as often.
This really applies to everything. If you notice the insulation in stoves and refridgeraters nowadays it is nothing compared to the old. I use to be able to buy brooms that lasted years, now the bristles start falling out within months or the handle swivels off and
taping or gluing it doesn't work.

paraclete answered on 01/29/07:

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A THING ABOUT A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT INNOVATION AND SUBJECT THE POPULATION. Let me say that I doubt it very much, but as to whether there might be a conspiracy by oil companies and other vested interests to prevent marketting of innovative technology that would radically change their market, yes, I don't doubt it, Hydrolosis, the conversion of water to fuel is one such technology. The Wankel engine is another. You are noting the result of cheap production in places like China, if it is a conspiracy, it is a communist conspiracy. After all Marx said we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself. the communists are now in possession of the production of many essential items with the west foregoing their own production, wait and see what happens when Chinese cars hit your market. You might have thought Lada or Skoda was a joke, well no one will be laughting.

If your government, and mine, is responsible for anything, it is failure to see the big picture.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/28/07 - End War in Iraq by Jan 2009

AP Iowa -
"Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that
President Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from
Iraq before he leaves office, asserting it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

It was Bush's blundering that caused this mess in the MiddleEast...time for him to wind up the war

paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

if they keep killing 250 gunmen a day the war will be over soon

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/28/07 - American vehicles SUV vs the death traps

Why do you think we Americans drive SUV's as opposed to the alternative little bread box size cars we have as an alternative?
From the way I see, our government did away with the medium size cars of the sixties because they said they were polluting our environment. I could never understand why they didn't just modify the cars to the standards they wanted instead of coming out with the little cars with no style. The main standards people tell me are emissions, lighter material than the steel and better gas mileage.
Anyway, they put us in these little cars where you can barely fit two adults and three kids. Then they say the kids up to seven years old or sixty pounds have to have car seats making even less room in the car. So solution, the SUV now a family of 5 or more can comfortable go out together without having to take two vehicles. Soccer moms can take more than three kids to soccer without a problem.


paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

How little you know, the SUV are in fact death traps, having been proven to be unstable in a number of situations. put you in little cars? hardly, where I come from the size of the family car has grown since the introduction of the world car, a long time ago now. they are not the size of yank tanks but carry five people comfortably with good mileage. What do you consider style, something you can tower over others in? why don't soccer mums let others carry their own kids? and give the planet a break

tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/28/07 - National Geographic Find

An archeological team, digging in Washington DC, has uncovered 10,000-year-old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Politician .




Although the team is not 100% certain, based on the the few clues that have been uncovered thus far combined with the physical positioning of the skeletal remains, all indications point to the fact that this assumption is valid.

paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

yes very apt

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/28/07 - Were Iranians responsible for the recent Karbala attack ?

On January 20th, a team of twelve men disguised as U.S. soldiers entered the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, where U.S. soldiers conducted a meeting with local officials, and attacked and killed five soldiers, and wounded another three. The initial reports indicated the five were killed in the Karbala JCC, however the U.S. military has reported that four of those killed were actually removed from the center, handcuffed, and murdered.

Based on the sophisticated nature of the raid it appears to have been directed and executed by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps.It was too complex for the likes of the Mahdi Army ,and al Qaeda does not operate so far South in Shia strongholds.

This raid required in depth intelligence, training for the agents to pass as American troops, American weapons, vehicles, uniforms, identification,and radios . Hezbollah as you'll recall executed a similar attack against Israeli forces on the Lebanese border, which started the Hezbollah-Israeli war last summer.

"The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

"The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound," he said. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault."


Was this raid conducted in response to the US raids on Iranian missions in Baghdad and Irbil .. where Iranian Qods Force agents were captured, along with documentation that divulged Iran's involvement with and support of Shia death squads, as well as the Sunni insurgent, and al-Qaeda in Iraq ? Five Iranians from the Irbil raid are still in U.S. custody, and captured U.S. soldiers would provide for excellent bargaining chips.

If this is true it certainly explains the new US policy regarding captured Iranian agents. Finally ;The gloves are coming off but is there a constituency for any kind of meaningful response in the US ?


and as a side note : John Kerry in Davos with his typically impeccable sense of timing decided that now would be a good time to question why the US is not buddying up to Iran. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit wrote : "Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies."



Former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami,
left, and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.),
take the stage for a discussion on
"The Future of the Middle East"
at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007.
(AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)



Kerry criticized what he called the
"unfortunate habit" of Americans
to see the world "exclusively
through an American lens."




paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

it seems some people have the ability to talk to the muslim world and some do not

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/28/07 - ironic, hypocrites or what?

Hollywood Among World's Biggest Polluters

Ironically, the climate-change disaster warning film The Day After Tomorrow was a big contributor to actual climate-change disaster.

Special effects explosions, idling vehicles, teams of workers building monumental sets -- all of it contributes to Hollywood's newly discovered role as an air polluter, a university study has found.

The film and television industry and associated activities make a larger contribution to air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than almost all five other sectors researched, according to a two-year study released Tuesday by the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although Hollywood seems environmentally conscious thanks to celebrities who lend their names to various causes, the industry created more pollution than individually produced by aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels and semiconductor manufacturing, the study found.

Only petroleum manufacturing belched more emissions.

Movie production tops hotels, aerospace, and apparel and semiconductor manufacturing in traditional air pollutant emissions in Southern California, according to the UCLA study, initially prepared for the Integrated Waste Management Board. The industry is probably second only to petroleum refineries, for which comparable data were not available.

In greenhouse gas emissions, the entertainment industry ranks third, The Times reported.

paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

it's wonderful that a new scapegoat can be found, but we are all guilty, we consume the products that polluting industries produce. No doubt that industry could be more environmentally conscious but then why should they when government will not act on polluting automobiles, trucks belching carbon laden smoke, utilities pouring pollution into the atmosphere. The only thing that will change anything is a change in culture. no more fast food, no more consumerism, no more multinationals moving pollution to other communities.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/28/07 - Is saying don't touch the hot stove enough at 2?

Sparing the rod may spoil the child, but in California it may keep you from being charged with a misdemeanor. The California State Assembly has provided another horrendous example of legislators abusing the use of criminal penalties to implement policy goals - this time in the arena of parenting. A proposal being considered today would make spanking a child under three years old a misdemeanor. If child abuse is the concern, current laws protecting children from physical abuse should be the remedy. If those laws are insufficient, perhaps legislators should consider revising them in order to prevent real abuse. As it relates to spanking, to prevent a parent from being able to discipline their child in the way that they choose implicates fundamental constitutional rights. The addition of criminal penalties to parenting decisions is clearly beyond the appropriate use of the law.

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting`any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

this idiocy has been loose in the world for a while now. There are circumstances where a child has to be punished to stop undesirable behaviour. This not that the child should be beaten but a sharp smack to indicate the behaviour will not be tolerated.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/28/07 - Common denominator?

I received a free subscription to Newsweek (I would never pay for one) and an article by Fareed Zakaria, The Limits of Democracy caught my eye. In the article he speaks of "freedom's retreat" while stating about Bush "no president has attached his name more completely to the promotion of democracy."

Zakaria speaks of what Freedom House director of research Arch Puddington calls "pushback" against democracy. He quotes Larry Diamond of the Journal of Democracy as saying "Bush's arrogance has turned people off the idea of democracy" (as if we didn't already know everything is Bush's fault). Though the real issue according to Zakaria is "the basic problem confronting the developing world today is not an absence of democracy but an absence of governance."

I can't say that I'd disagree with that assessment, but is there another common denominator in many if not most world conflicts?

For example, the conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Phillipines, India (Assam and Kashmir). What is this common denominator, and it ain't Bush.

paraclete answered on 01/28/07:

well I'm going to say what you have avoided, It's Islam, the religion of "peace" which spreads it's by bloody conflict and respects noone who is not islamic

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 01/27/07 - Is it true that a penny saved is a penny earned?

My personal opinion is that it is not true literally, or figuratively. In fact I think the idiom is foolish in the context of economics, and goes to the heart of the difference between right thinking and wrong thinking because it excludes the concept of creating wealth and new sources of growth; that is, the difference between Nation Building i.e. development to foster social harmony and economic growth- and stagnation- the result of cutting and running in Iraq.

Comments?

paraclete answered on 01/27/07:

economists know that saving is an important factor in economic growth, so yes.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/24/07 - why do people dread jury duty?

Replies for IF people dread jury duty and really don't want to do it.

A. I stick to my own race, I wouldn't know
B. I am all for profiling
C. I am for the little guy, companies have their racket.
D. Let the criminal rot in jail; at least send them all to their own island.
E. No I am not KKK, but I can't relate to anything outside my own problems

paraclete answered on 01/24/07:

from my own point of view, the system is disruptive and time wasting

1. You are notified weeks in advance and therefore have to make many arrangements in case you are selected and you have no idea of the duration of the matter you will be empanelled for.

2. The likelyhood you will be selected is low, meaning at the very least you will waste a morning

3. even if you are selected the likelihood you will be challenged is high

4. It's time a better system was divised


MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/22/07 - Has Global Warming/Climate Change been oversold ?

Jan. 22, 2007, 9:45AM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.


Models aren't infallible

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.


Young and old tension

Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

paraclete answered on 01/23/07:

Given the events of recent hours, it may be that overkill was necessary for Bush to move on the car makers, and of course, the car drivers. He softened them up last year, and signalled a change this year, next year it might become mandatory. The technology for 90% ethanol exists now, why wait.

What on earth do you want with an SUV or pickup anyway, it's only because others have them, Bush could wipe the whole lot out by mandating a benchmark fuel consumption of say 25mpg, my Camry does 10ltr/100km which isn't good but it would qualify

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/23/07 - figured I'd put this here

rather than get flack posting it you know where---ENJOY

The following are all replies that Detroit women have written on Child Support Agency forms in the section for listing "father's details;" or putting it another way...Who's yo Daddy? These are genuine excerpts from the forms. Be sure to check out #11. It takes 1st prize and #3 is runner up. Five surely gets "most creative."

1. Regarding the identity of the father of my twins, child A was fathered by Jim Munson. I am unsure as to the identity of the father of child B, but I believe that he was conceived on the same night.

2. I am unsure, as to the identity of the father of my child as I was being sick out of a window when taken unexpectedly from behind. I can provide you with a list of names of men that I think were at the party if this helps.

3. I do not know the name of the father of my little girl. She was conceived at a party at 3600 East Grand Boulevard where I had unprotected sex with a man I met that night. I do remember that the sex was so good that I fainted. If you do manage to track down the father, can you send me his phone number? Thanks.

4. I don't know the identity of the father of my daughter. He drives a BMW that now has a hole made by my stiletto in one of the door panels. Perhaps you can contact BMW service stations in this area and see if he's had it replaced.

5. I have never had sex with a man. I am still a Virginian. I am awaiting a letter from the Pope confirming that my son's conception was ejaculate and that he is the Saver risen again.

6. I cannot tell you the name of child A's dad as he informs me that to do so would blow his cover and that would have cataclysmic implications for the economy. I am torn between doing right by you and right by the country. Please advise.

7. I do not know who the father of my child was as all look the same to me.

8. Peter Smith Is the father of child A. If you do catch up with him, can you ask him what he did with my AC/DC CDs? Child B who was also borned at the same time...well, I don't have clue.

9. From the dates it seems that my daughter was conceived at Disney World; maybe it really is the Magic Kingdom .

10. So much about that night is a blur. The only thing that I remember for sure is Delia Smith did a program about eggs earlier in the evening. If I had stayed in and watched more TV rather than going to the party at 8956 Miller Ave , mine might have remained unfertilized.

11. I am unsure as to the identity of the father of my baby, after all, like when you eat a can of beans you can't be sure which one made you fart.


Yep, you guessed it right - you are all paying taxes to support these people!!!

paraclete answered on 01/23/07:

makes me glad I'm not paying taxes to support those people, of course, we have our own crop of nare=do=wells, but I've reached the stage where I'm going to ask for a refund

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/23/07 - Hezbollah supporters paralyze Lebanon

By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer
9:15 AM PST, January 23, 2007

BEIRUT -- Hezbollah and its allies paralyzed Lebanon today, sending out thousands of demonstrators who seized control of major roads, brawled with government supporters and smothered the capital in the acrid smoke of burning tires.

Scores of people were wounded in clashes that erupted among feuding Christian groups and between Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the country.

The Hezbollah-led opposition had called for a general strike, and the roadblocks gave people little choice but to stay home. The only road to Beirut's airport, symbolically important as the sole vein between this restive nation and the outside world, was impassable — clogged with heaps of sand, garbage and roaring fires. Many flights were canceled, and passengers were stranded at the airport.

By nightfall, the capital was still locked down by opposition checkpoints. Hezbollah leaders have said that today would mark the beginning of a steady escalation; it was unclear whether they planned to lift the roadblocks overnight or whether the paralysis would continue.

The tense seizure of the country's roads took many Lebanese by surprise, and marked an escalation in Hezbollah's campaign to overthrow the U.S.-backed government...

"They are on our side," crowed Kamal Yehiya, a 20-year-old Hezbollah supporter.

****************************************************

It's good to see that terrorists that like to use their own as human shields still have people convinced they are on their side. Shall we send Bill Richardson to negotiate with Syria and Iran, or how about the Iraq Surrender Group?

paraclete answered on 01/23/07:

it's what you call an overdue coup

Having destabilised the country, Hezbollah will step in as the saviours and restore order. What Syria will say about a Shiite group taking over their former dependency will be interesting.

This might enthuse a few lebanese to go home and fight for the homeland which of course would mean less trouble makers here

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/22/07 - I think I just found the dumbest person in the world.

Some idiot brought the domain name "ImpeachBush.com" or $25,200 on EBay . Think they will get a return on their investment in the 2 years remaining of the Bush Presidency ?

paraclete answered on 01/22/07:

yes very dumb, he would have done better to give the money to the elect Hilliary Campaign

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/22/07 - What went wrong?

Back in the sixties I was all for the within the next century there will be a woman President. Women will straighten out the mess men made through the century.
Yeah, go for it the world will be in a much better shape...A Leave it to Beaver mom as President!
Now the thoughts of a woman President is scary-oooh!
With woman like Hill-ar-i-ous, Nancy P, Nancy F, Barbra Boxer and Cindy Shehan it scares me to even be of the female race.
Excuse me while I go have a nervous breakdown at the mere thought!
It's soooo scary--oooh that.....I forgot the ?

paraclete answered on 01/22/07:

it's called unisex, women wanted to be like men, but they are not

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/22/07 - President Bush deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

ot at least some recognition for accomplishing what the UN and others have attempted by bribes and soft champagne diplomacy . First it was Libya ,and now it is North Korea who has decided that ...in the words of General Omar Bradley ;“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.”

According to the report :North Korea has reportedly agreed to halt nuclear activities including operations at a reactor in Yongbyon, and allow on-site monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency as the first steps to abandoning its nuclear program. The agreement came during a meeting of the chief nuclear negotiators of the U.S. and North Korea that ended Friday in Berlin, sources said.

All this of course remains to be seen and we would need to be constantly vigilant lest he think he is dealing with a President who would grant incentives without insisting that the NORKs keep their end of the bargain . Still ,President Bush insisted on the format for negotiations and despite all the critics harping ;it looks like something significant has been achieved .



paraclete answered on 01/22/07:

Bush will only deserve the peace prize when he stops using threat of war as a tool.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/22/07 - Has Global Warming/Climate Change been oversold ?

Jan. 22, 2007, 9:45AM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.


Models aren't infallible

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.


Young and old tension

Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

paraclete answered on 01/22/07:

Some aspects might have been oversold, such as our ability to reverse the effect. It's not possible to connect some events with the climate change effect, but variability doesn't account for the continually upward trend in average global temperature and the result of this.

What cannot be oversold is the need to prepare for and cope with change. If we expect melting ice caps and inundation of coastal areas, it is only reasonable to begin to prevent habitation of low lying areas such as New Orleans. To rebuild that city is idiocy. Having been warned, we should take the warning. As an example, a city has a 1 in 100 year flood and the low lying parts of the city are flooded. What do you do? Allow high rise on the flood plain, or prevent building in the flood plain and turn it into gardens or sporting fields. The same is true of what needs to be done to cope with climate change.

I live in a place were we are enduring a severe drought, a longer drought that any in living memory or recorded history. If we fail to recognise that sustainability is now an issue and go back to the same old when rain eventually comes we are foolish. Our ability to sustain water supplies is now in serious question.Water hungry crops like rice and cotton have to go. There was a reason why this continent was sparcely populated and we are now finding out why. I suspect that many parts of the world are about have the same lesson. In places bound by tradition like China where there is no regulation the impacts of polluting industries is severe. Eventually they must act, if only to protect their own population

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/20/07 - The Democrats and Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.

This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf _ the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

The U.S. has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.

Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With all due respect to the co-chair of the Iraq Surrender Group ;He doesn't have a clue . If we can't credibly threaten military action, then retarding the Iranians' nuclear progress through diplomacy, which is what the Democrats claim to want, becomes absolutely impossible. I'm not saying that the Democrats should pass a resolution giving Bush a blank check to take action against Iran .But I am saying that the idiots Harry Reid and Joe Biden should keep their mouths shut and stop undermining the President's options .Were we to go into serious negotiations right now the Mahdi-hatter knows he is dealing with a divided American government.

One can only conclude that in the Democrat's view ,the consequences of attacking Iran are worse than the consequences of Ahmamadjihad with his hands on nukes.



paraclete answered on 01/21/07:

You are all too worried about nukes in the hands of irresponsibles, cold war paranoia all over again, but Imamadjihad suffers from the same paranoia the Russians did, he's afraid that big dog barking at him will bite.

The only concern about Imamadjihad is that he has an irrational fear and hatred of Israel and this might prompt him to do something silly. Like Saddam he doesn't represent a military threat to the US but he might represent an economic one through the manipulation of the oil price or the closure of the Straits of Homuz. It's bargaining chip which he is playing to develop his nuclear program though why he needs nuclear energy when he has plenty of oil is difficult to see, just a good environmental citizen I guess

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/20/07 - 2009-12

And Democrats are in control of EVERYTHING
A. Cut and run
B. Stay and do what bush woulda done if they hadn't tied his hands. Then act like it was THEIR plan.
C. Try to reason with the snakes to not bite.
D. Keep on doing the Kerry I am for the war/against the war.
E. Other and what?

paraclete answered on 01/21/07:

Don't panic yet, two years is a long time in politics, right now you have the tail wagging the dog, but dogs are known to both chase their tails, and bit their tails.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/21/07 - THE UNITED NATIONS:



What's this group of idiots doing these days?

HANK

paraclete answered on 01/21/07:

I HAVE NO IDEA and I suspect no one else does either

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 01/20/07 - And when he looses, he can say he was misquoted?

Mufti v Iemma: shock showdown for Premier's seat

Shock showdown ... Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly is planning a challenge on three Labor seats, including that held by Premier Morris Iemma.

Taghred Chandab
January 21, 2007

CONTROVERSIAL Muslim leader Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly is planning an assault on three Labor seats in the state election - including that held by Premier Morris Iemma.

Sheik Hilaly is considering running against Mr Iemma in Lakemba, a safe Labor seat and the heart of Sydney's Islamic community, in the March 24 election.

He will also endorse Muslim candidates for the seats of Bankstown and Auburn, held by Labor's Tony Stewart and Barbara Perry. Speaking from Egypt last week, Sheik Hilaly gave the strongest indication yet that he may stand down as mufti.

"There must be a shake-up with new blood to be rid of the old guard and bring new blood, including the position of mufti," he told SBS Arabic radio.

"The position of mufti is a spiritual position that requires understanding of the faith, and an Australian heart that understands the issues - even if we create an Iftaa council until we find the appropriately qualified person."

Sheik Hilaly would not name candidates or reveal if he would stand for the seat. However, a close friend, Keysar Trad, said the Mufti was considering it.

"If the community intimates its desire to run him, we would expect him to accede to the community's wishes," he said, adding it was time the Muslim community took the election seriously.

"It is time that politics in NSW received a good shake-up and Iemma's dilemma will be in the Lakemba voters who are dissatisfied with the shortage of facilities and services and will vote accordingly," he said.

"Lakemba is the one of the most neglected electorates in NSW. These major political parties need a really good shake-up and there is no-one like the mufti to give them that shake-up."

The mufti told the Arabic program: "I am consulting with some of the brothers and, on my return, we will agree to nominate a sincere, honest Australian personality whose loyalty is totally to Australia and who is able to make contributions to the Lakemba electorate and NSW in general."

Mr Iemma said he was looking forward to going head to head with Sheik Hilaly. "I'm confident the majority of my electorate, including the majority of Muslim constituents, would back my views every day," he said.

In Lakemba, the Muslim community makes up nearly 13 per cent (8264) of the electorate. Mr Iemma won 64.21 per cent (24,060) of the 39,093 votes cast in the 2003 election.
Source: The Sun-Herald

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God helps us if he gets into parliament, we will all be more confused that we already are

paraclete answered on 01/20/07:

Now he has decided he just wants to select the candidates. What we say is bring it on, you dill, it will demonstrate just how much support you don't have, I expect he will try to get Football Great El Masri to run, but if he has as much sense as he has displayed thus far he will say no. You can't unseat a sitting candidate with ill placed religious fervour, not in Australia

When the minorities start to run this place I'm moving to New Zealand

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/20/07 - Bush bashing

Like I've said before I am not a Bush-bot, but I just don't get the democrats they tie Bush's hands on the war then they say send more troops, then they say cut the funds, cut and run, then they 'say reason with them'. I swear they just say the opposite of whatever Bush wants just to make him look bad.

paraclete answered on 01/20/07:

you know the left, they are a schitzo lot. Obviously, they are in two minds, not wanting to support the war, yet needing to support the troops, not wanting Bush to be successful, but wanting America to win

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/19/07 - WE could use some star wars technology about now.

The NY Slimes is reporting today that China successfully carried out its first test of an antisatellite weapon last week .

Accordng to the Slimes ,Arms control experts called the test, in which the weapon destroyed an aging Chinese weather satellite, a troubling development that could foreshadow an antisatellite arms race.

Back in the 1980s ,Ted Kennedy and the rest of the appeasorcrats mocked Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative as "Star Wars" . Due to that ,the technology was not advanced at the pace Reagan desired ;Nor did Bush I or Clinton emphasis it. A 20 year advantage was squandered .

The world thus is less safe not because the US vigorously persued the technology but instead because we did not .

The Times notes that President Bush has picked up the mantle that was dropped by the 2 previous administrations .

The Bush administration has conducted research that critics say could produce a powerful ground-based laser weapon that would be used against enemy satellites.

The largely secret project, parts of which were made public through Air Force budget documents submitted to Congress last year, appears to be part of a wide-ranging administration effort to develop space weapons, both defensive and offensive.

The administration’s laser research is far more ambitious than a previous effort by the Clinton administration to develop an antisatellite laser, though the administration denies that it is an attempt to build a laser weapon.

The current research takes advantage of an optical technique that uses sensors, computers and flexible mirrors to counteract the atmospheric turbulence that seems to make stars twinkle. The weapon would essentially reverse that process, shooting focused beams of light upward with great clarity and force.


The Aussies are understandably upset about the Chinese test ;you know ..... falling debris and all that .



paraclete answered on 01/19/07:

Undoubtedly someone's sky is falling because of this. One report suggested that in a conflict China could poke the US eye out, However, it seems far more practical than a laser

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/18/07 - Hillary attacks Obama's backround.


Taken from Insight Magazine :


Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama’s press secretary said he would consult with “his boss” and call back. He did not.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."

In two best-selling autobiographies—"The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"—Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."

The sources said the young Obama was given the name Hussein by his Muslim father, which the Illinois Democrat rarely uses in public.

His father was black and came from Kenya. Mr. Obama’s mother, the daughter of a farmer, came from Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Obama's parents divorced when he was two years old. His father returned to Kenya.

Later, Mr. Obama's mother married an Indonesian student and the family moved to Jakarta. Mr. Obama returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents.

The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama's years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.

Mr. Obama attends services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago’s South Side. However, he is not known to be a regular parishioner.

"Obama's education began a life-long relationship with Islam as a faith and Muslims as a community," the source said. "This has been a relationship that contains numerous question marks."

The sources said Mr. Obama spent at least four years in a Muslim school in Indonesia. They said when Mr. Obama was 10, his mother and her second husband separated. She and her son returned to Hawaii.

"Then the official biography begins," the source said. "Obama never returned to Kenya to see relatives or family until it became politically expedient."

In both of his autobiographies, Mr. Obama characterizes himself as a Christian—although he describes his upbringing as mostly secular.

In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama says, "I was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother as secular, but says she had copies of the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in their home.

Mr. Obama says his father was "raised a Muslim, but by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist...." Mr. Obama also describes his father as largely absent from his life. He says his Indonesian stepfather was "skeptical" about religion and "saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world ...."

In the book, Mr. Obama briefly addresses his education in Indonesia. "During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables."


Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School; he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He later settled in Chicago, joined a law firm and began attending and helping local churches.

Mr. Obama is married to Michelle Robinson and they have two daughters, Malia and Sasha. In 1996, he was elected to the Illinois state Senate. Eight years later, he became a U.S. senator from Illinois.

The sources said Ms. Clinton regards Mr. Obama as her most formidable opponent and the biggest obstacle to the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. They said Ms. Clinton has been angered by Mr. Obama's efforts to tap her supporters for donations.

In late 2006, when the Illinois senator demonstrated his intention to run for president, the Clinton campaign ordered a background check on Mr. Obama, the sources said. Earlier this week, Mr. Obama established an exploratory committee, the first step toward a formal race.


..............................

I love it when they feat on their own !

paraclete answered on 01/18/07:

Isn't it wonderful a two year campaign, what a pain. I think I said the other day that is fellow had other disabilities

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 01/17/07 - Define "Lost"

For months now, liberals have been demanding that the Bush Administration define what they mean by "winning the war in Iraq". On any number of occaisions, conservatives have define "winning" as developing a strong, capable, democratic government in Iraq that is able to handle its own internal and external security issues, and which safeguards the liberties of all its citizens. There have been some inroads made on these goals, as well as some setbacks. And by that definition we have not won the war yet, but we have most definitely not lost yet either.

Yet there are a number of Democrats and a few Republicans who continue to claim that we have "lost the war in Iraq". Nancy Pelosi has said it. Dodd has said it. Harry Reid has said it. Others say it as well. On this board, we have seen Chou say it over and over again. Clearly the conservatives among us are using a different definition of "win" and "lose" than the liberals among us.

So could those among us who say that we have lost the war in Iraq please explain what they mean by "lost"? We are clearly defining things differently, so a clarification of what "win" and "lose" mean in the context of the war in Iraq would be helpful in clearing up the misunderstanding. How do you define "lose"?

Elliot

paraclete answered on 01/17/07:

Lost in context

Failure to establish a satisfactory system of national and internal security

Failure to gain the hearts and minds of the people

Failure to find evidence of WMD

Failure to establish a constitution which shares the national wealth among all citizens irrespective of race, religion, political persuasion

I would consider that a fairly large failure considering the amount of time which has passed. Iraq is By No Means unique in regard to some of these characteristics, Somalia has been in a destabilised state for years.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/16/07 - Best quote...

...on the reaction to Bush's Iraq strategy? My vote thus far goes to Jonah Goldberg:

    Saying we need a political solution is as helpful as saying “give peace a chance...It reminds me of the liberal obsession in the 1980s with getting inner-city gangs to settle their differences with break-dance competitions. If only Muqtada al-Sadr would moonwalk to peace!”


Careful there Jonah, John Edwards might actually pick up on that and run with it...

paraclete answered on 01/16/07:

Give peace a chance, what sort of wierdo, pinko, rubbish is that. In order for there to be peace there must be disarmament.

The Jewish view is better. Shalom, peace when your enemies are defeated, only then can there be peace. These views are unpopular but Bush subscribes to them. For you to have peace you must get Bush to repent! It's like the plot of star wars.
The emperor provokes the others into attacking him, unleashes a war and then says the Good Guys will be annilihated and then there will be peace. The whole picture has become twisted and obscured. We have OBL playing the emperor, Bush playing Anikin, the clones killing everyone in sight and the good guys finishing last

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/16/07 - What exactly is...

...a "fact finding mission" anyway? And why are so many potential presidential candidates running around all over the globe? What business do they have injecting themselves in US foregin policy?

NM governor Bill Richardson has recently supposedly negotiated a ceasefire in the Sudan and met with the Norks over their nukes. Hillary is on a "fact-finding" mission to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, calling for more troops to head off a "big spring offensive" by the Taliban and al Qaeda. Where will Obama go? Do any of these solo missions help further US interests?

paraclete answered on 01/16/07:

A fact finding mission is when they find the facts to support their theory. Hilliary will find the facts to promote the end of american participation in Iraq. Richardson will find the facts to support american participation in solving the world's problems. If Bush were to go he would find the facts to support an all out effort to eliminate al qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq. Perhaps he could send Jeb to find the facts, or perhaps he will wait four years until these facts become more favourable

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/15/07 - Bush on the climate change

Reply to "BUSH TO REVERSE POSITION ON CLIMATE CRISIS "

Yes that is what the Guardian did indeed report yesterday,and I have no doubt that it's reporting is correct . Bush set us up for this by recently declaring his desire to add Polar Bears to the endangered species list .If the polar bear is listed as an endangered species, the US government must verify, by law, that nothing is being done to jeopardize the bears' existence. Just what protection we could give remains to be seen but animals designated to the list have fared well. 98 percent of those protected by the act have survived. But eliminating climate change is of course beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act.

Besides ,there is no reason why Polar Bears cannot adapt to a changing climate according to an editorial by Investors.com :

Taking a somewhat different view is Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist with the government of Nunavut, a territory in Canada. According to Taylor, and contrary to greenie hype, climate change — particularly in the Arctic — is not pushing them to the brink of extinction. They have adapted and will continue to adapt to their environment.

In a 12-page report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Taylor stated: "No evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions." Taylor emphasized polar bears' adaptability, saying they evolved from grizzly bears about 250,000 years ago and developed as a distinct species about 125,000 years ago, when climate change also occurred.

Writing in the Toronto Star in May, Taylor opined: "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or are increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."

The current population of polar bears is said to have dwindled to 22,000 to 25,000. A half-century ago, before SUVs doomed the planet, there were only 8,000 to 10,000 polar bears, according to science writer Theo Richel.

Much of this increase is due to hunting restrictions that were put in place. And if polar bears, as reported, seem to be losing weight, it may be because increasing populations are competing for the same food supply.

Actually, global warming might help in that area. A reduction in ice cover creates a better habitat for seals, which are the bears' main food. Less ice cover means more sunlight producing more phytoplankton, increasing the supply of other food sources.

On land, blueberries, which the bears adore, would become more plentiful. Taylor says he's seen bears so full of blueberries they waddle.


The debate is not centered around whether or not the globe is getting warmer. It is centered around the cause of the globe getting warmer. The Earth has been steadily warming since 1700 which was before the industrial revolution . This fact negates the idea that it is soley being caused by increased CO2 emissions .

So the question becomes really ;Why does the Bush Adm. appear to be shifting opinion on climate change ? I think it really has something to do with geo-politics more than science. The clue is which publication made the announcement.

The Guardian does have a pipeline to inside 10 Downing St.As you know Blair and Bush have consulted with each other on a number of issues .Now this is clear speculaton ,but knowing how important global climate initiatives are to Tony Blair ,it would not suprise me if there is a quid pro quo that British continued support for the coalition in Iraq may depend on Bush softening his resistance to Kyoto-like initiatives . Blair is said to be extending his term as PM until a post-Kyoto agreement is reached .Bush and Blair held private talks on climate change before Christmas and there was a sense that Bush would agree on a cap on emissions ;something that much of American industry is already compliant with . Individual States have already enacted restrictions and if I read the new Congress correctly they will also pressure for changes in existing US regulations .

One thing that is clear ,the Kyoto protocols will not survive past the 2012 expiration date as written. They are hopelessly flawed and even signatory nations cannot keep to their committments .



paraclete answered on 01/15/07:

hey let's all hear it for the polar bears, but no one is championing the penquins who have to endure the largest hole in the ozone layer yet seen, as well as destruction of their environment from melting ice sheets and fish shortages. The US regulations arn't going to protect them. While polars bears bloat themselves on blue berries, penquins starve. Anything Bush is doing is only because he is a lame duck and about as in danger of extinction as those penguins and he wants to leave something positive people will remember him by. Maybe he thinks because the Dems have the power, environmental legislation will get passed, and make him look good.

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/14/07 - BUSH TO REVERSE POSITION ON CLIMATE CRISIS ISSUE

Bush set for climate change U-turn


Downing Street says that belated US recognition of global warming could lead to a post-Kyoto agreement on curbing emissions

Gaby Hinsliff, Juliette Jowit and Paul Harris
Sunday January 14, 2007
The Observer

"George Bush is preparing to make a historic shift in his position on global warming when he makes his State of the Union speech later this month, say senior Downing Street officials.

Tony Blair hopes that the new stance by the United States will lead to a breakthrough in international talks on climate change and that the outlines of a successor treaty to the Kyoto agreement, the deal to curb emissions of greenhouse gases which expires in 2012, could now be thrashed out at the G8 summit......"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:=D

paraclete answered on 01/14/07:

Let us guess, after his Iraq speech, we can expect that Bush will commit more resources to research in order to have a solution by November

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/13/07 - Iran supplying weapons to al-Sadr to use against US forces.

New Arms Shipments to Iraqi Militia Detected
January 12, 2007 12:49 PM

Alexis Debat Reports:

US military intelligence sources tell ABC News that large shipments of weapons have been smuggled to Iraqi militia over the past five weeks , including dozens of Iranian supplied EFP's , or Explosive Form Projectiles, highly effective against armored vehicles. [EFP's ...otherwise known as IED's or shaped charges.]



The weapons were sent to Moqtada al Sadr's Shi'a militia, known as "Mahdi’s Army" who control Sadr City, a slum in northern Baghdad with a population of 2 million.

US and Iraqi intelligence units on the ground detected the shipments which are believed to be of Iranian origin . In addition, US military sources tell ABC, Al Sadr has been working on his own "surge," actively recruiting hundreds of residents of Sadr City to supplement the 8 to 10,000 militiamen already believed to make up the "Mahdi Army" in Baghdad.


The article continues :Bahaa al-Araji, one of Moqtada al-Sadr's representatives in the Iraqi parliament, has told ABC News that the radical Shiite cleric has ordered his Mahdi Army not to attack US forces -- even if targeted.

Well then why would they need High-tech, armor-penetrating warheads ...to attack Sunnis who don't have tanks and Hummers ?

Explosives from Iran has killed and maimed too many US troops already . When are we going to declare what is so obvious,that we are and have been in a shooting war with Iran that we need to successfully prosecute ?We must initiate a policy of direct retaliation for every attack on Americans by Iranian agents or any Iranian supplied weapon used in an attack.



paraclete answered on 01/13/07:

"{When are we going to declare what is so obvious,that we are and have been in a shooting war with Iran that we need to successfully prosecute ?"

"which are believed to be of Iranian origin"

Where is your proof, it's easy to say these were provided by Iran, but where is your proof?. Everything about Iraq has been a saga of bad intelligence and misinformation. There a puppetmasters involved in this conflict and they want this war to escalate, to draw the US into a broader conflict. the real question is where do these puppetmasters reside is it Imamadjihad in Tehran or I've~been~Fissled
in Ryidah or Bashed~my~donkey in Damascus, someone is pulling the strings. These Camel Jockeys don't have the guts to do it themselves, they just get someone more stupid than themselves to do it for them

Don't join the ranks of those who are stupid enough to believe what comes out of the Middle East. George Bush was and look where it got him.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/11/07 - FIRST POLL RESULTS ARE IN

"Americans broadly reject President Bush's plan for a surge of U.S. forces into Iraq, with substantial majorities dismissing his arguments that it'll end the war more quickly and increase the odds of victory, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.

Indeed, rather than Bush bolstering public confidence, the national survey, conducted after his address to the nation on his new Iraq strategy, finds that a new high -- 57 percent -- think the United States is losing the war. Just 29 percent think it's winning."


CBS:

"Fifty percent of those who saw the speech said they disapprove of the president's proposals, while 37 percent said they approve. Just one-third of those surveyed said they support Mr. Bush's call to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Following the speech, 68 percent of Americans -- the same number as prior to the speech -- said they were uneasy about the president's ability to make decisions about Iraq."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush made no inroads into his failing public opinion about his ability to conduct his War of Adventurism in Iraq after his speech last night. There is no rescuing the low opinion of his Presidency by this move to add 20,000 more troops to the Baghdad area.

The Bush Presidency is sooooo over; a complete failure in almost all areas despite having a rubberstamp Congress until a few days ago.

I guess he will just have to up his psychiatric drug intake over the next two years.

paraclete answered on 01/11/07:

this is the problem with your political system. In ours he would have been out of there by now. Fixed terms are a bummer eh?

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/11/07 - Kelo reconsidered

At least it could be if SCOTUS agrees to hear and extortion case that will be submitted Friday.

Yes ,extortion ;that is the only way to read into what is happening in Port Chester, N.Y.

Bart Didden and his business partner, Domenick Bologna owned a piece of property in downtown Port Chester. They bought it, paid off the mortgage, paid their taxes, and in 2003, they decided to lease that property for the construction of a CVS retail pharmacy. Unfortunately for them, their property fell within the village's redevelopment district, and so the village's chosen developer ,G&S Port Chester ,dropped by for a friendly chat.

Since G&S had been guaranteed full use of the village's powers of eminent domain in developing downtown Port Chester, it made Didden and Bologna 'an offer they can't refuse ': give G&S $800,000 or a 50% stake in the CVS pharmacy or G&S will have the village condemn the property.Didden and Bologna said no , and the next day their property was condemned. Adding insult to injury, G&S announced plans to build on the .76 acre plot a Walgreen's pharmacy.

Friday the two will ask SCOTUS to review the case . If the court does then I am almost certain they will at the least put restrictions on how eminent domain can be utilized by local governments .

Of course if the idiots in the NY State Legislature would get off their asses and put restrictions on eminent domain like 34 States have already enacted since Kelo ........... never mind . This is NY we are talking about.



paraclete answered on 01/11/07:

sometimes I wonder what you have for laws in north american. Somewhere in your constitution it says something about just compensation, so how can these people have laws which conflicit with that.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/11/07 - Darn that global warming again

Governor Directs State Government to Prepare for Extremely Cold Temperatures

By: Office of the Governor
Published: Jan 11, 2007 at 08:38

In anticipation of unusually cold temperatures forecast throughout much of California in the coming days, Gov. Schwarzenegger directed state agencies to activate the extreme temperature protocols established last year to assist the most vulnerable populations in the state and asked local governments and the people of California to take common sense precautions in the unseasonably cold weather.

"Northern and Central California will see night time temperatures drop into the teens and low 20s," said Gov. Schwarzenegger. "Because of the extreme cold, I have directed state government to spring into action to protect our most vulnerable communities. The state has made 11 National Guard armories available and will make additional facilities available, such as fairgrounds, should local governments deem it necessary."

Among the steps the state is taking are:

* Protecting Seniors and the Disabled: The Department of Health Services is making contact with its licensed facilities and local health departments to ensure that they are aware of the cold weather event and to inform them of protocols to protect the health and safety of the vulnerable populations in their care given the extreme weather. Additionally, the Department of Social Services is making contact with County Welfare Directors to ensure that they are aware of the cold weather event and ensure that In Home Supportive Service (IHSS) workers are aware of the event and the protocols to protect the health and safety of the vulnerable populations in their care given the extreme weather.

* Warming Centers: The California National Guard and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are working with local government officials to make armories and fair grounds available to supplement their sheltering needs. Currently, there are 11 California National Guard armories that have been opened as shelters from the cold in Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Merced, Sylmar, Ventura, Los Angeles (Federal Ave), Culver City, Santa Ana, Fullerton and Glendale. They are opened daily from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Below is a list with addresses to the facilities. An additional 16 locations in parts of the state expected to be hardest hit by the cold weather have been identified and put on standby should local governments request the assistance.

National Weather Service has reported to OES that temperatures will drop into the 20s and 30s Wednesday night into Thursday, followed by daytime temperatures in the mid 40s in most areas. On Friday and into the weekend, temperatures will drop further, reaching the high teens to low 20s in most areas at night, and continued daytime lows in the mid 40s.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You'd think all those grenhouse gases in California would keep those record lows away, wouldn't you? By the way, we're expecting a high of 20 here in the high plains of Texas on Monday, so all you people enjoying the record warmth think of us poor, cold Texans, Californians, and snow-packed Coloradoans this weekend.

paraclete answered on 01/11/07:

It's all symantics, you have to stop talking about "global warming" and start talking about "climate change". once the symantics are out of the way it starts to make sense. We are having unusual weather events all over the planet, why you even did without a hurricane season this year

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/11/07 - Is the embryonic stem cell debate obsolete ?

Science Obviates Politics
By JAY LEFKOWITZ
January 11, 2007



The new Democratic leadership in Congress thinks it has a winning issue and possibly the votes to defy President Bush on stem cell funding. But an announcement this week by scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest universities appears to vindicate his policy and may relegate the national debate over stem cell research to a political side show.

Researchers have found that amniotic fluid is a fertile source for the kind of stem cells, called pluripotent, that can turn into several types of human cell tissue and potentially cure diseases. They already have succeeded in converting these stem cells into brain, liver, and bone cells, and even into heart cells that could grow to be replacement heart valves.

For five years, Democrats have sharply criticized the president's policy, with Democratic candidates making the issue a mainstay of their advertisements. The president has been all but blamed for the fact that millions of Americans with diseases and disabilities have not been cured. Most famously, in a speech at the last Democratic National Convention Ronald Reagan Jr. said that stem cell research "may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime" and that these cells could "cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal-cord injuries, and much more."

In order to understand the criticism of the president's stem cell policy, it is important to recall what he actually decided on August 9, 2001. At the time, federal funds had never been used to support research on embryonic stem cells. Although the president wanted to open the door to government funding for seemingly promising medical research, he objected to the fact that taxpayer dollars might be used to support or encourage the destruction of human embryos, which were believed to be the only source of embryonic stem cells. So the president struck a compromise. He allowed federal funding, but only on stem cell lines that were already in existence — as he put it, "where the life and death decision had already been made."

In early 2001, the president met with prominent scientists who told him that even a few stem cell lines would be sufficient to determine whether embryonic stem cell therapies were viable. In an interview a few weeks before the president's decision, Stanford University researcher Irving Weissman said that "a finite number would be sufficient. If we had 10-15 lines, no one would complain." Yet almost from the day the president announced his policy, the most often heard criticism has been that it does not permit sufficient stem cell research.

Initially, there may have been some credence to this argument. Throughout the latter half of 2001, only one stem cell line was available to researchers, in large part due to intellectual property issues and the reluctance of foreign institutions to make their lines accessible. But by 2003, 12 lines were available for federal funding, and today there are 22. These 22 lines have resulted in more than 700 shipments of stem cells to federally funded researchers, and the National Institutes of Health is poised to make thousands more available upon request. Moreover, given the absence of any restrictions on privately funded stem cell research, one imagines that if pharmaceutical companies believed that such therapies were indeed viable, there would be no shortage of private capital investment in the field.

At any rate, thanks to the development of new technologies and methods, many of which were developed with federal funds made available by the president's policy, there appear to be multiple sources of embryonic stem cells whose derivation does not require embryo destruction. The president's Council on Bioethics in May 2005 laid out several potential ways for harvesting embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, and all of them have since been attempted and detailed in scientific journals.

The possibility of cell re-programming also is promising. Scientists from Japan's Institute for Frontier Medical Science have shown that altering just four genetic factors was sufficient to change adult cells into pluripotent stem cells. If this technique proves successful, it will allow an ample supply of these stem cells without the ethical complications of embryo destruction.

And now the news from Harvard and Wake Forest researchers is the most promising of all. If their work stands the test of time, there will be little argument that taxpayers should be forced to underwrite what many believe is the destruction of human life. As Congress prepares to override the president's stem cell policy, and as the president prepares to use his veto pen for only the second time — the first time was also to block stem cell legislation — we should keep in mind that science sometimes can get in the way of a good political fight.

Mr. Lefkowitz served as a domestic policy adviser to President Bush between 2001 and 2003.

paraclete answered on 01/11/07:

no it's still immoral to create human beings for the purpose of medical research

labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/11/07 - Who's insane?



That seems to be the consensus among the critics, that Bush is insane for doing the same over and over in Iraq and after last night's speech it's "the same old story." Let's compare the 'insanity.'

As I pointed out yesterday, the backlash against the US over Somalia has begun. Tom noted the world is now "calling for blue helmet rapists to intervene."

Back in 1992, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called for military intervention in Somalia - now get this - "after traditional U.N. peace-keeping efforts have failed" to control the situation.

The first UN peacekeeping mission was established in 1948 to monitor and keep the peace between Israel and the Arab states. Since then a number of UN peacekeeping missions have taken place there, with armed forces in the Sinai, the Golan Heights, Lebanon and such. That's worked well hasn't it?

In 1949 the UN established the United Nations Military Observer Group to supervise the India and Pakistan ceasefire, and 58 years and thousands of dead later there is still no resolution to the Kashmir conflict.

Korea, Bosnia, Rwanda, the Congo, Sierra Leone, East Timor anyone?

Who's insane, Bush for continuing to press forward in the war on terror in spite of the appeasers and cowards, with the Husseins gone, al-Zarqawi gone, the Taliban out of power, two new functioning albeit delicate democracies? Or the rest of the world for calling on the UN to "keep the peace" in Somalia and the Sudan and rein in Iran and North Korea? That same UN whose history of sanctions, 'deplorings' and 'interventions' (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result) have done nothing to stop the loss of millions of lives?

paraclete answered on 01/11/07:

for a man who has few places to go and little strategy, he's between a rock and a hard place.

If he pulls out of Iraq this side of the election he's likely to lose the election for his party, If he escalates this "unwinnable" war, he will be condemned and lose the election for his party,

So making small steps in both directions at the same time is seen as doing something different, this is afterall politics and it's all in the eye of the beholder.

1. he goes in hard for a short time, hoping that he will make a real difference to the security situation without getting a lot of americans killed.
2 he announces a timetable for the commencment of withdrawal.
3. he tells his Iraqi buddies that the can is really theirs and he won't carry it any more, at least not without being able to shoot at the insurgents of all persuasions.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/10/07 - That didn't take long

As I suspected yesterday, the critics are out over US air strikes in Somalia...

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said, "The secretary-general is concerned about the new dimension this kind of action could introduce to the conflict and the possible escalation of hostilities that may result." (Though I digress, I heard another great Dennis Miller, "I took the UN tour recently...even the guidebook is spinless.")

Italy's Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said Rome opposed "unilateral initiatives that could spark new tensions in an area that is already very destabilised".

Ken Menkhaus, a 'US Horn of Africa specialist' said, "Before this, it was just tacit support for Ethiopia. Now the US has fingerprints on the intervention and is going to be held more accountable...This has the potential for a backlash both in Somalia and the region."

Amadeu Altafaj, spokesman for EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel said, "Any incident of this kind is not helpful in the long term."

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the US attacks "complicate the situation in Somalia and could increase the tensions that are already strong in the country."

The African Union’s chief executive, Alpha Oumar Konare stressed "the need for all concerned actors to refrain from any action likely to complicate the current situation."

Richard Cornwell, analyst with South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, said the strikes "certainly complicates matters" for an African peacekeeping mission:

    "Any sort of peacekeeping mission is fraught with difficulties if there is no political situation it can be hooked on to...Certainly it would be a matter of some surprise were the AU to be able to mount a sizeable or effective operation in Somalia within the next few months."


Norway said Washington's explanation was "not sufficient" and that "We support the fight against terrorism but we think that the best way to pursue the fight is in a court of law," according to Norwegian foreign ministry undersecretary Raymond Johansen.

al-AP's Tom Raum apparently thinks Bush is just playing politics:

    "Send in more troops, set goals for the Iraqi government and assure Americans it's better to wage war there than here. And now the U.S. military is back in Somalia, too, once again attacking suspected terrorist targets...

    As Bush outlines his new Iraq strategy, he may well mention the new U.S. airstrikes in Somalia that targeted Islamic extremists.

    He can cite the war on terrorism's multiple fronts. It fits in with his fight-them-abroad-not-at-home thesis. Administration allies suggest the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 helped strengthen the al-Qaida terror network."


There you have it, Bush has screwed everything up again. He attacked a country that was not a threat without provocation, he didn't ask the UN (or Europe) and he's mucked up the effort to get a coalition together to clean things up. No word on any criticism of Ethiopa's involvement.

paraclete answered on 01/10/07:

The waters are very muddied in Somalia, is The US fighting a rival islamist regime, or Al Qaeda fighters supporting that regime? There is talk now of US special forces being used. The strikes against Al Qaeda were opportunist. IF they knew they were there, why wait until now.

There appears to be a lack of will in this fight against Al Qaeda with assassination of it's leaders the apparent goal

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/10/07 - Questions

Elliot asked this in my previous post and I thought I'd asked them here.

Why is Darfur the "right war" and Somalia the "wrong war"? Or Iraq, for that matter?

paraclete answered on 01/10/07:

there is only war, Dafur is a case of civilians been driven from their homes and attacked, a genocide,, the government will not protect them, so intervention appears needed.

In Somalia there is a government and the enemy is Islam, the CIC, a rival political force. Iraq was wrong! there was a government which had existed for years, some of it with US backing and complicity. The US did nothing about it's actions then, so to wait until to it was reduced by economic sanctions was cowardise

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 01/10/07 - A name for the Mahdi Hatter

In the prior post, Tom mentioned:

    We have to settle on a name for the Mahdi Hatter

    I kind of like Ahm~a~mad~jihad .I have been spelling it that way for a couple of weeks and nobody has seemed to notice.


I figure it's a topic worthy of its own string.

I actually did notice that Tom had been spelling it that way, and I approve.

I've actually been using "Ahmad-genocide", but I think Tom's is pretty good too.

Anyone else have an opinion? (What, am I nuts? Of course you all have opinions...)

Elliot

paraclete answered on 01/10/07:

it's now just a small step to Imamadjihad who along with his friend kofimaman has terrorised the US into thinking they are under attack

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/09/07 - U.S. strike in Somalia targets 3 terrorists

By Josh Meyer
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published January 9, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Air Force Special Operations gunship struck a location in southern Somalia on Monday where three Al Qaeda operatives suspected in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa more than eight years ago were believed to be hiding, a U.S. defense official said.

U.S. military and counterterrorism officials said they did not yet know whether any of the three fugitives had been killed.

"It's not clear what the outcome is at this point," said the counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the operation was classified.

U.S. officials have secretly been negotiating with Somali clans believed to have sheltered the three men, hoping to obtain information about their locations. It could not be determined Monday whether the air strike was based on information provided by the clans.

The U.S. AC-130 gunship that carried out the strike was based in Djibouti, just north of Somalia. The strike was first reported by CBS News and independently confirmed by the Los Angeles Times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABC reported earlier this morning that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was believed to have been killed. What do you suppose the reaction's going to be from the left for such a brazen, unprovoked attack?

On a side note the BBC, as astute as ever, offered this photo of the AC-130 with the following caption:


The heavily-armed AC-130 gunship can fly at night

Wow, what a technological breakthrough, the AC-130 can fly at night!

paraclete answered on 01/09/07:

It is good news that the americans are again active in pursuing al qaeda

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/09/07 - And you thought LA was bad...

Iran smog 'kills 3,600 in month'

Air pollution is estimated to have killed nearly 10,000 people in Tehran over a one-year period, including 3,600 in a month, Iranian officials say.

Most of the deaths were caused by heart attacks and respiratory illnesses brought on by smog, they said.

The scale of the problem led one senior official to say living in the Iranian capital was like "collective suicide".

Cheap fuel encourages car use in Iran, correspondents say, and many vehicles do not meet global emissions standards.

"It is a very serious and lethal crisis, a collective suicide," the director of Tehran's clean air committee, Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, told an Iranian newspaper.

"A real revolution is needed to resolve this problem."

He said air quality had worsened and was linked to some 3,600 deaths in October. Many of the deaths were caused by heart attacks brought on by the air pollution.

New figures showed a sharp rise in pollution-related deaths in Iran, where 9,900 people died of pollution in the previous Iranian year (March 2005 to March 2006).

The latest assessments were based on World Bank figures which extrapolate mortality rates according to certain levels of pollution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everyone ready to “bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation?” Maybe the Mahdi Hatter will buddy up with alGore to fix this? Come to think of it, the two of them do kind of resemble each other...







paraclete answered on 01/09/07:

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? all the US has to do is export it's gas guzzling SUV minus the anti polution modifications to Iran and solve two problems, How to lower emissions and how to deal with the Iranians.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/08/07 - LEGAL DEFINITION OF LIBEL:


Since POLITICS is a touchy subject with many people, I thought it best to post the following:

"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another."

Source: "Black's Law Dictionary" - Fifth Edition

I don't think it's a good idea to attack the personalities and beliefs of our Experts in clarifications and/or elsewhere!

HANK
(Paralegal)



paraclete answered on 01/09/07:

libel has been used to frighten off opponents for centuries Hank. Opinions are free and may be expressed freely

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 01/08/07 - a record $100 billion. ......................

“Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts.
The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds - a record $100 billion. It will be submitted along with Mr Bush's February 5th budget.”
ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0108/breaking4.htm

Here is what I suppose: Suppose that if all this money had been spent to alleviate hunger and suffering in, say sub-Africa. Would we still have Terrorism against the U.S. or, would friends of the Terrorist rise up against them?

paraclete answered on 01/08/07:

It will take more than money and sub-saharian Africa isn't the place where you will stem the tide of terrorism. Where did this terrorism start, fester and become a life style? it happened with the establishment of Israel and the west (in particular the US) stood by and let it grow, now they reap the result of their laziness

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/07/07 - "greenwashing" OIL LIARS ARE FINISHED!!!!

Web Exclusive
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 6:10 p.m. CT Jan 4, 2007

Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.


Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.

Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.

For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 01/07/07:

A VERY BADLY WRITTEN PIECE

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/07/07 - DEMOCRACY:



I'm beginning to wonder if a Democracy is the best form of government. Too much 'hurray for me and to hell with you' going on. Our Constitution was set up to have State and Local governments take care of 95% of our business, leaving the federal government with 5%. I wonder what would happen if we didn't have the Bill of Rights.

What's your take on this?

HANK

paraclete answered on 01/07/07:

Obviously benevolent dictatorship is preferable however this does lead to despotism, somewhat like the present situation. The problem with a federal government system where their functions are basicly trade, diplomacy, military and taxation, they begin to acquire power by various means not envisaged in the constitution.

In my own nation we have interesting developments of this process.

The corporations power, that is the federal power to regulate the activities of corporations under regulation of interstae commerce, has been acquired from the states and used to introduce draconian industrial relations legislation. Industrial relations powers are vested in the states.

The external affairs power was used to protect a world hertiage listed river from being damed to provide augmentation of hydro electric power production. A strange decision in the existing concerns about environmental matters.

The states have taken away the local regulatory powers of local goverment by declaring their power over projects of special interest under environmental protection and other leglislation, thereby forcing through undesirable projects in local communities

The states have used their powers to take away water rights from private land holders and the federal government has then used it's powers over interstate commerce to
regulate the flows of rivers and their tributaries.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/03/07 - Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem

The NY Sun is reporting today what has to me been evident for a long time now ;that Iran is supplying both sides of the internal conflict in Iraq.

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.


One thing in the article I find that might be in error. All the information that I have seen indicates that it was Muqtada al -Sadr and not "Sunni Jihadists" who attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra . At the time he was convieniently out of the country confering with Hezbollah in Lebanon where he pledged that he and his militia were ‘at the service’ of Syria and Iran, saying in Damascus, “I am at the service of Syria and Iran. I will defend all Muslim countries with all means.” Those means evidently included the precision demolition of the ‘The Golden Mosque’, where the tombs of the 10th and 11th Imams were "amazingly" left undamaged by the massive explosion .In fact ;The explosives were arranged to collapse the dome while leaving the critical tombs unharmed and demolition teams lead by Iranians were in the mosque for 48 hrs arranging the explosives .

Sadr was put on an aircraft filled with special ops Hezbollah agentsw along with communications and intelligence equipment to be used in the service of Tehran. Al-Sadr then ,while calling for calm and for the coalition to leave Iraq ,allowed his militia to run a coordinated attack against Sunni mosques . This started the tit-for-tat murders that have been occuring in Iraq since Febuary .


Want and exit strategy ? The road out of Iraq goes through Tehran .

paraclete answered on 01/03/07:

"The road out of Iraq goes through Tehran"


that is a very poor strategy. in fact you could call it a bushite strategy. Iran is a enemy of the west and america in particular, but then america has many enemies, some with whom it trades and some it doesn't. the only good thing about Iran is america didn't set up the regime, so it can appear righteous this time, but war isn't the answer, it wasn't the answer in Iraq and it isn't the answer now. you have to take a broader view here. Iran will eventually implode.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/03/07 - Ethiopia

Elliot has been mentioning what occured but what was little reported about the sweep of the Ethiopian Army through Sudan to remove the jihadists there from power . I responded to a Question about Israel on the other board with this observation :

I think we should all go to school on how the Ethiopians handled the jihadist in Sudan this week . http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...345844,00.html

The funny thing is I hear no one belly aching about disproportionate force. ( rumors abound about US forces in the region supplying "support" btw ).This brief and successful military operation should send a message to the ‘realists’ of the Baker/ Hamilton Iraq Surrender Group and our State Department that appeasement doesn’t pay.

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

Ralph Peters has a good update today in the NY Post .

To Americans, Somalia is "Black Hawk Down" country, where our forces won a lopsided military victory only to have President Bill Clinton surrender to our enemies - the greatest single act of encouragement our government ever gave to the Islamist movement. We picture Somalia as a poor, dusty, war-ravaged place (all true) and as small, remote and unimportant (all wrong).

Somalia is the size of Texas with the Panhandle trimmed back; it has the longest coast on the African continent - over 2,000 miles of shoreline vitally positioned on the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. An artificial country slapped together by retreating colonial powers (who pretended that endlessly warring tribes would all just get along), its population by current guesses is just under 9 million.

The province of Somaliland, in the country's north, is peaceful, relatively prosperous - and anxious to secede. But the international community insists that all borders are sacrosanct. The United Nations would have preferred to hand over Somaliland to the Islamists rather than accept the will of Somaliland's people - who don't want a damned thing to do with Sharia law.

The United Nations did formally recognize the national coalition government - then, when faced with the Islamic Courts Council's aggression, did what the U.N. always does when confronted with fanaticism and terror: Nothing.

Fortunately, Christian-majority Ethiopia had had enough of Somali-backed Islamist subversion among its Muslim minority. Despite its serious internal flaws, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi did civilization a great favor by ignoring diplomatic table manners and confronting the Islamists in Mogadishu.






paraclete answered on 01/03/07:

one element would appear to have been missing in Somalia, popular support for the jihadists, the Somalie people have had long enough to get sick of this sort of thing and so without popular support the Jihadists were easily overrun.

To suggest the same might be possible at this time in either Gaza or Iraq is lunacy

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/02/07 - Would you repeat that?

As you all know, James Brown was laid to rest last week, in a funky way befitting the "Godfather of Soul." No disrespect to the man - may God rest his soul - but did anyone besides me find Sharpton's eulogy a little curious to say the least?

    In life and in death, James Brown should be remembered for his impact on music and on the world, not for the many people that surrounded him, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Friday in a passionate eulogy befitting the godfather of soul.

    "When he started singing, we were sitting in the back of the bus. When he stopped singing we were flying Lear jets"


Who is this 'we' he's talking about? Al, Michael and Jesse? Am I the only guy in the country that sees disrespect, insensitivity and a complete lack of judgment in that comment? How many of Al's constituency are "flying lear jets"?

paraclete answered on 01/03/07:

from the back of the bus to lear jets. Let me say the view is clearer from the back of the bus, In a lear jet you can only see the clouds

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/27/06 - Just for fun

here is a picture of John Kerry dining with the troops recently . Note the number of empty chairs surrounding the esteemed Senator .



some brilliant captions and comments for this provided by Freepers include :

the table sign says "reserved for Mensa members and billionaires only"

I can read lips,I think he is telling a joke ....yea thats it... a joke

He's on a listening tour....... you know, one of those "can you hear me now" moments.

Hanoi Bob is well known for being a friendly fire (usually his own) shrapnel magnet. I wouldn't want to be around him either.

Did he ask for a Purple Heart when he shot himself in his foot with his last "joke"?


"I was in Vietnam, did you know that?"

"Can I get me a huntin' license here?? Yuck, yuck...."

"Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?"

"You call this WHAT on a shingle?"

"Can my wife cook... I dunno. But she's pretty good at hiring them. French, you know; you simply must be French to make a decent quiche."

"What do you mean I can't get a manicurist appointment? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"









paraclete answered on 01/02/07:

why do we need pictures of has beens?

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 12/27/06 - OK Michael, let's hear it

You may recall the following from Michael Moore on November 26th:

    The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans.


It's been 31 days Mr. Moore, let the fight begin. If you wish to email Mike as I am about to do, click here.

Happy New Year, Mike.

Steve

paraclete answered on 01/02/07:

yes let the great war of words begin, or is it continue unabated.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 01/02/07 - Bush's last chance?

In more al-AP analysis...

    DEB RIECHMANN
    Associated Press

    CRAWFORD, Texas - Whatever the reasons for President Bush's lengthy deliberations on a new Iraq policy, they undoubtedly will serve two political purposes: Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas.

    The execution of Saddam by his countrymen would help legitimize the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yet, if it incites more bloodshed, it would remind Americans that the situation is "grave and deteriorating," as the recent Iraq Study Group concluded.

    The American public has grown weary of the war and even though past wars have seen vastly higher casualties, a U.S. death toll topping 3,000 - which is approaching - would shine a spotlight on the human toll of U.S. involvement.

    For now, Bush has been able to fend off calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve - and quickly - those calls could begin to drown out whatever new ideas he puts forth in the early weeks of the new year.

    Americans are a patient lot and likely will give Bush the time and backing he needs to take another shot at getting a U.S. policy in Iraq that works. And the new Democratically led Congress, which convenes on Jan. 4, probably won't block the commander in chief if he decides to briefly increase troop levels.

    "It is likely his last chance, however," said analyst Jon Alterman. "Republicans and Democrats alike will be looking for early signs that the president's policy isn't working, in which case they will quickly head for the exits. My sense is that this is taking a long time because they know it's their last shot."

    Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Friday that neither the approaching 3,000th U.S. death in Iraq nor Saddam's execution is "dictating when" Bush's speech will be delivered. Those two events, though, will influence its reception by the American people.

    When Saddam was pulled from his hiding spot in a spider hole in December 2003, public opinion shifted in Bush's favor. But the former Iraqi leader's execution likely would have less inclination to sway public opinion now because Americans' views have hardened as the war has intensified.

    The White House viewed Saddam's execution as an "important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."

    Still, skeptics of the president's policy can argue that remains mired in violent turmoil. And those opposed to a surge in U.S. troops will use the 3,000th death as a reason to continue opposing one.

    "I think there was a time when the death of Saddam Hussein would have given Bush the kind of political capital he needs to call for an increase in troops and an expansion of the military effort there, but I think we're past that time," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University.

    Bush is expected to deliver his speech - laying out his plan to improve security, assist the Iraqis in reaching a political reconciliation between warring sects and help with reconstruction - before his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.

    The president, who has been at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, this week, spent a windy, rainy Friday talking about Iraq on the phone with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and took time to ponder discussions he had on Thursday with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Military historian Frederick Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said Bush's speech - whenever it occurs - will overwhelm any event in Iraq.

    "We've reached a critical moment. The president is clearly contemplating a strategy that will be very different from what he has been doing," said Kagan, who is advocating a large surge in U.S. forces in Iraq. "That message is going to dominate the discussion. The American people want to know whether we're going to win this war, and they're going to listen very carefully to whatever the president says."

    Whether he likes it or not, the president's legacy is hinged to Iraq. Poor progress there helped sweep Democrats into power in both the House and the Senate in November's midterm elections. If the United States continues to be mired in a violent Iraq, the chances for Democrats to capture the White House in 2008 brighten as well.

    Bush's approval for handling Iraq was at 27 percent in early December, according to AP-Ipsos polling - his lowest approval rating yet in this area. Seventy-one percent disapproved of how he was managing the war. Moreover, almost two-thirds, or 63 percent, doubt that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq. That's up from 54 percent who felt that way in June.

    At this juncture, some political analysts think the timing of Bush's Iraqi speech is irrelevant. They say he has just one roll of the dice left on Iraq, and if his strategy does not help stabilize things there, it will be quickly overtaken by events.


After the seemingly thousands of times I've heard or read that Bush "rushed to war" or "failed to plan," it sure seemed curious to me that this al-AP writer would open her analysis with "Whatever the reasons for President Bush's lengthy deliberations." Why the rush now?

Are the twin political purposes of "Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas" behind the 'delay?'

Is all of this irrelevent since the left isn't kidding around and is going to fight those Democrats for not getting us out of Iraq already?

paraclete answered on 01/02/07:

You know the man is incapable of making a decision in a crisis, he proved that on 9/11, so why now do you expect him to be decisive?

Itsdb rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/02/07 - SADAM'S BOTCHED EXECUTION , A MARTYR IS CREATED

I guess we are all familiar with the circumstances of the hanging of Saddam Hussein, and I imagine some here watched it on the tape created by someone holding up his cell phone and photographing it.

All I could think was it should have been Osama bin Laden being executed. Bin Laden and the Saudi terrorists who carried out the 911 attacks!! But, apparently Bush/Cheney and their powerful oil company execs have managed a deal of some sorts giving bin Laden a pass.

Here are the comments of Tom Brokaw on the Imus radio show:

BROKAW: "No, it’s — you know, as we portray ourselves around the world as the champions of democracy and the rule of law — first of all, that began to unravel in the eyes of a lot of people in that part of world with Abu Ghraib and the great cruelties and indignities that were imposed on people there. The debate goes on here about Guantanamo and about access to people’s private records. And then to say that we are going to install in Iraq a judicial system and a democratic form of government and have something that resembled the worst kind of nightmare out of the old American West. Not much dignity. He was, he was a god awful man and he did have a trial, but not have control of the execution, and to have it really just fuel more sectarian violence at a time when we are trying to dampen that is not helpful, which is an understatement.

IMUS: Well, I guess the New York Times reported and I was also talking to Richard about that the United States apparently unsuccessfully prevailed about Maliki to delay this.

BROKAW: Yep.

IMUS: I wonder, I wonder why he refused? I mean…

BROKAW: I honestly don’t know either. But Saddam Hussein who had disappeared, in effect, as some kind of a symbol over there, suddenly becomes a martyr. He was a terrible tyrant who was responsible for an untold number of deaths, you know, waged his own jihad against the Shiite in that country, especially in the south following Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, and now he’s able to stand up there with the hood off and invoke prayer and even invoke the Palestinians, and go out in the eyes of his people at least as a martyr.

IMUS: I mean, it’s difficult to imagine how this could have turned out worse.

BROKAW: No, it is pretty difficult to imagine, and it’s, you know, just as the military commanders and the political people who are trying to run the war think that they’ve got something quieted over in one front, it pops up in another."


Today we learn the Bush is removing Gen. Casey blaming him for the failures in prosecuting the War on Iraq...WHICH WE ALL KNOW WAS RUN BY RUMSFELD FROM THE PENTAGON. The feedback from Generals in the field was ignored by Bush and his administration per many news stories over the last year or so.


So now, the Sunnis because of the recorded taunting of Saddam at the gallows, have a martyr to unite behind eternally WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS in their civil war against the majority Shi'a.


Bush has proven himself to be totally incompetent.

IMPEACH NOW

paraclete answered on 01/02/07:

did I miss something here?

When did Bush become emperor and america rule the world?

Saddam was lawfully executed, if the Iraqi wanted to turn it into a circus, that's their way and their business

Choux... rated this answer Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/26/06 - WARMER WEATHER CHANGING WASHINGTON DC FOLIAGE

WASHINGTON - "Fifteen years of warm winter weather is beginning to change the Washington area's landscape with Southern species like crape myrtles having an easier time and northern types feeling less welcome, according to findings by the National Arbor Day Foundation.

The foundation has revised its map of "hardiness zones" with each of the nine zones showing a range of average annual low temperatures that help serve as a guide for gardeners and others.

One big change was that the entire Washington area was reclassified in the same zone as parts of Texas and North Carolina. In 1990, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the region sat on the border of the northern and southern zones.

"You could say D.C. is the new North Carolina," said Bill McLaughlin, a curator at the U.S. Botanic Garden on the Mall."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate Crisis...Issue in 2008 Presidential Election?

paraclete answered on 12/26/06:

welcome to climate change

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 12/22/06 - CIA exercise reveals consequences of defeat

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 21, 2006

The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets, according to sources familiar with the two-day exercise.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that the simulation took place in Northern Virginia. He declined to discuss its findings, saying that a final report is not finished and that the report will not be the intelligence community's official view. It will, however, be circulated within the community and possibly to U.S. policy-makers.

The exercise involved 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists. It was conducted by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, within the agency's Counterterrorism Center.

A source familiar with the simulation said it was a "red team" exercise in which participants played the role of global jihadists and war-gamed how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will influence their terror movement.

Although it takes no policy positions, the simulation's key finding appears to bolster Mr. Bush's contention that a U.S. loss in Iraq will have far-reaching ramifications.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush said, "A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks."

Al Qaeda has made stopping democracy in Iraq a top priority, according to U.S. military officials. It has recruited hundreds of suicide bombers to come to Iraq and inflict mass casualties to spur a Sunni-Shi'ite Muslim civil war. The group wants to wear down U.S. troops to the point where they will retreat. Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to turn Iraq and other Middle East countries into hard-line Islamic states, U.S. military officials say.

One key finding from the "red team" exercise is that al Qaeda will follow past practices. Jihadists perceived the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1988 as a seminal event that spawned the creation of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda leaders thought that if jihadists could defeat a global power in one theater, it could bring down governments in other nations.

Six years later, when U.S. troops left Somalia after taking casualties at the hands of al Qaeda-trained Muslim fighters, it reaffirmed its feeling of invincibility and its belief that Western powers have a low threshold for casualties. After Somalia, al Qaeda -- and like-minded jihadists -- began attacking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf region and ultimately struck America on September 11, 2001.

The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits.

"When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower.

"Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do," said the source. "Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it's won."

This person expressed unhappiness that the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, devoted less than a page to what a loss in Iraq would mean for global terrorism.

The source said he hopes the CIA report is circulated within the administration to drive home the point that the stakes are high in Iraq. Mr. Bush is set to announce early next year new strategies and tactics for winning in Iraq. He previously has dismissed proposals from Democrats to pull out all 135,000 U.S. troops now or withdraw them on a set timetable regardless of events on the ground.

Mr. Mansfield said the Counterterrorism Center this year has sponsored 20 internal simulations, seminars and conferences using outside experts to examine issues related to the war on terror.

He added, "We frequently reach out to experts outside of government and solicit their views on a range of matters. It is done routinely, and it is a very important aspect of our work. The simulation consisted of officers from around the intelligence community as well as outside experts."

Such events are held, he said, "to better understand emerging threats to the United States."

Copyright 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Surely there were fatal flaws in the exercise. Just like the relentlessly negative press, nobody believes a pullout would "embolden the terrorists." Right?

paraclete answered on 12/22/06:

well surprise, surprise, their scenario confirmed government rhetoric. Has anyone I wonder, run the scenario, where, with no fight to engage in, the terrorists stay home and engage in a little local hostility

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/20/06 - Rumors of a changes leadership in the Iraqi theater .

According to AP and other news outlets ,General John Abizaid was supposed to retire in July but has continued to function at CENTCOM at the request of Rummy. He is purportedly ready to step down in March . He has vocally opposed increasing troop strength in Iraq. Rumors are that General George Casey currently in Iraq will replace him.

Possible replacements also include :

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who led the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 Iraq invasion and later headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces. He most recently oversaw the rewriting of the Army and Marine field manual for counterinsurgencies.

Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who last week finished his tour as the No. 2 general in Iraq, as commander of the multinational forces there.

Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, also a former division commander in Iraq and now head of the Iraq training effort.

I expect that the new commander will come from the ranks of officers who think that additional boots on the ground can make a difference .





paraclete answered on 12/20/06:

those are some high ranking dudes there

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/19/06 - Quick quiz

What nation is this?

7,100,000 cell phone subscribers - up from 1,400,000 only two years ago. This nation's leading cell phone company took in $333,000,000 in 2005, and is on track to take in $520,000,000 in 2006.

34,000 registered companies in the chamber of commerce - up from 8,000 two years ago.

GDP growth in 2005 was 17%, in 2006 13%. (We get jazzed when our GDP is 3-4%.)

$41,000,000,000 in oil revenues in 2006.

Salaries have risen more than 100% since 2003.

Income taxes have been reduced from 45% to 15%.

Real Estate prices have risen several hundred percent in the last two years, indicating a red hot real estate market.

Gasoline is .14 cents a liter.

And this list is just the tip of the iceberg.

paraclete answered on 12/19/06:

Iceberg is a giveaway, Norway,
this is what comes of being at peace with your neighbours and minding your own business

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/16/06 - YOU GO TO POSTERITY WITH THE REPUTATION YOU HAVE

NOT THE REPUTATION YOU WISH YOU HAD.

"The Associated Press noted the departure of Donald Rumsfeld with a curious retrospective, quoting a biographer who suggests that he is a "tragic figure" because of his wasted "talent and promise." But Nixon, who called him a "ruthless little bastard," had Rummy's number from the start. His "talent" was as a political hit man, a vicious insider who would do whatever his bosses wanted.
He was and is a nasty person of shrewd but limited intellect, a bully and a braggart and a bullshit artist. Nobody will miss him.

Do Rumsfeld and his friends regret his public disgrace, which will follow him into the grave? Too bad. They should have thought about that earlier, when he was slandering generals and political opponents alike (for being right), enriching war profiteers, and making one egregious error in judgement after another. No wonder he won praise today from Dick Cheney, a man whose predictions on Iraq have been as accurate as his shooting.

The only thing that could change the way Rumsfeld is remembered is if more is revealed about his complicity in torture and other war crimes.

What should Rumsfeld be remembered for, if not Iraq? For selling contraceptives and sweeteners as a drug executive? No. The GOP wanted this war, and Rumsfeld gave it to them. They wanted lying and deception, and Rummy delivered. They wanted to cut costs when it came to protecting our soldiers, and to jack them up when it came to making Halliburton rich. Again, Rumsfeld came through.

The only form of combat at which Rumsfeld ever excelled was bureaucratic infighting. That, and not expertise or brains, is why Nixon named him to a Cabinet post. "I need a man who will be in there fighting," Nixon said on the White House tapes. "He's a ruthless little bastard ... He's tough enough that if he knows what I want, he isn't going to come in and try to sell me something."

Rumsfeld knew how to get things done - particularly things that advanced Rumsfeld's career. He was appointed to direct the Office of Economic Opportunity so that the GOP could run it into the ground, but he proved an aggressive and adept advocate for some of its programs. That wasn't out of idealism, but rather as a way to expand his own turf.

As Secretary of Defense, he increased the military budget during a period of dtente and reduced military need. Why? Because - again - he wanted more power.

His first private-sector job, as CEO of G. D. Searle, was well-suited to his talents. He cut underperforming divisions, per the corporate trends of the day. (Some business analysts believe this tactic, while good for short-term stock values, actually guts the long term worth of some companies while making employees suffer needlessly.)

His political skills came in especially handy at Searle's helm, since he was able to persuade the Reagan Administration to reverse government policy and permit the use of Searle's formerly-banned product, Aspartame.

(Rumsfeld continues to profit from the decisions of his political pals. During the bird-flu scare Bush allocated a billion dollars to purchase Tamiflu, which another Rumsfeld company developed. The result was a few more million dollars in value for Rummy's portfolio.)

But Iraq will remain the capstone of Rumsfeld's career. He treated the lives and welfare of our soldiers as cavalierly as he did the jobs of employees at those Searle divisions he closed down. His limitations, both intellectual and moral, made him the Republican Party's perfect instrument for the pursuit of this war. He was the creature of the Party that created and nurtured him, and an accurate reflection of it.

His most famous quote was not only flippant but dishonest, since it was used to conceal his own managerial incompetence, lack of proper planning, and indifference to the human cost of his actions. Let's not forget the question that prompted it, either, from a soldier serving in Iraq:

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?

Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have--not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.--You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up...

Rumsfeld's press conferences were widely noted for his bullying, confusing, and often incoherent comments. What was less obvious to most press observers was that his elliptically-phrased aggression was an intentional strategy. He kept reporters confused, intidimated, and off-balance while showering the public with his muddled thinking, cynical manipulations, and flat-out lies.

The content of the AP piece is generally fair and balanced, although they turned to a Cato Institute scholar rather than one of his many progressive detractors for the observation that he will be remembered with a "dark epitaph."

But the AP's lamentation for the fact that his career "ended in ignominy" is a curious one. He will be remembered, if at all, for these qualities: callousness, libelous comments about those who disagreed with him, a hallucinogenic detachment from reality, smug refusal to consider other people's opinions, mental shallowness, and a sociopathic inability to take responsibility for his own actions.

Most of all, he will be remembered for that most destructive and personally unappealing combination of personality traits: arrogance and incompetence.

Given that record, what could be a more appropriate end to his career than "ignominy"? RK Eskrow, Blogger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 12/18/06:

where is posterity and how do you go there?

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/15/06 - The Holocaust Conference Shames Iran

The Holocaust Conference Shames Iran

by Amil Imani a free Iranian commentator living in the U.S.
Thursday, 14 December 2006
We have been telling the world that the present clique of Islamofascists ruling Iran is not Iranian in the world-view. And with each passing day fresh evidence supports our claim. The recent gathering of some of the worlds fascists in Tehran, at the invitation of the Islamic Republic of Irans Islamofascist President Ahmadinejad, provides further support to our claim.

Iranians have never had any animosity toward the Jewish people. In fact, our friendship with the Jews goes back thousands of years. You have to be a fascist to pick, with no justification at all, on any people to persecute and aim to annihilate. True Iranians are among the worlds staunchest supporters of universal human rights.

The circus in Tehran, billed as a conference, was nothing more than a disgusting attempt by the savage inheritors of Muhammads dogma of hate to continue in his tradition of wanton attacks on all unbelievers, particularly the Jews. It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who was given a front seat at this conference? It was, arguably, one of the worlds greatest racist scums, former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke.

In order to show his hateful fiber and simultaneously ingratiate himself to his newly discovered Petrodollar rich co- fascists, the fool Wizard told the 70 or so participants, The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel", music to the ears of the hate-driven mullahs and fascists of the world.

Then, the Wizard told the Associated Press, The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder.

You are excused if you dismiss the conference as an inconsequential forum, since any event that would have David Duke as its star attraction is bound to be nothing more than an instance of psychopathic bigotry. However, rest assured that this is not the case. The shameless Wizard and his handler, the equally disgusting fascist, have other luminaries working with them side-by-side to demonstrate conclusively that the Holocaust is a myth and the Jews will have to re-experience it to make it real to the delight of these children of Hitler.

The impish Ahmadinejad, a man called monkey by Iranians, opened Tuesday's session by thanking God that the Zionist regime was about to expire soon and declaring its lifetime will be over and their interests as well as reputation will be endangered.

Parroting the line of the monkey, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, a former interior minister and one of the founders of the Lebanese Hezbollah, told the gathering, "All the studies and research carried out so far have proven that there is no reason to believe that the Holocaust ever occurred and that it is only a tale.

A card-carrying psychopath, Austrian Wolfgang Froehlich, who served a two-year jail sentence in his home country for denying the Holocaust, handed out the text of his speech to participants. Apparently he did not relish another trip to jail, since denying the Holocaust is a crime in a number of European countries, while it can earn one valued privileges in some Islamic lands.

A crowning comment was that of Nabil Soleiman, an adviser to the ministry of religious affairs in Syria. "If the Holocaust ever occurred, it was a conspiracy against the Arab-Islamic world and today the Middle East is still paying the consequences", he said at the event.

Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser, announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews", at the end of the gathering. And here the rest of us had thought that these bigots had already the truth about the myth of the Holocaust in hand. They have been saying so, even before this landmark scholarly gathering took place. Why bother with another high commission to prove the proven? Well, its one of those fascists ways.

Serving on the committee with Ramini was Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, as well as Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain.

Now, how could anyone express any reservation, much less disgust about the impartial work of such a distinguished international group of scholars, sponsored by, no less than the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

We, Iranians, denounce this circus of hate and fraud that sullies the reputation of our nation. We hold the betrayers of our heritage of friendship and respect for all people accountable for their crimes against us and all humans who are affronted by the shameless actions of the propagators of hate.

We, free Iranians, express our deepest sympathy to the Jewish people for what they have suffered at the hands of the Nazis; and we condemn, in the strongest terms, the new coalition of fascists who are gathering under the disgusting and dangerous banner of Islamofascism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out the Wolf Blitzer smack down of David Duke on CNN . From the start he identifies Duke for the jerk that he is by mentioning his affiliation with the KKK 11 times in the intro. and by tying Dukes Jew hatinmg positions with those of the like minded Mahdi-hatter Ahamadjihad.

The thing that was interesting to me is that if you strip away the blatant anti-semitism from his rhetoric and mask it with the neo-isolationist lingo that Dennis Kucinich or Pat Buchannan frequently uses ;or the rhetoric that has come out of Jimmy Carter recently ,there really is not much difference .

Consider the following from Carter's recent editorial :

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices....


It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians....


What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land....

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark that I should be tried for treason and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors....

The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories...

An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid....


The supposition that Israel withdrawing from the territories will create peace is naive. If only that were true. How many times do we have to hear statements from elected Hamas members that there will be no peace at all with Israel at all before people like Mr. Carter believes them? Israel withdrew completely from Gaza and instead of working towards statehood, the Palestinians immediately starting firing rockets into pre-1967 Israeli territory. Mr. Carters different version of reality is what makes him so dangerous.

It is really lame that Carter ,a former President would stoop so low as to use the tiresome cannard that the biggots use about Israel ; that AIPAC ,and Jewish control of the media ,universities and Congress ;controls US foreign policy and public discourse . It is insulting to the general population and indeed anti-semetic .

People like Carter, Buchannan ,and Kucinich provide a rhetorical and ideological cover for the Mahdi-hatter to hold his bizzare symposium to voice blind anti-semitism. One can imagine that Jimmy Carter would've been very comfortable sitting in Tehran this week.





paraclete answered on 12/15/06:

What on Earth does the Holocaust have to do with the Arabs, aside from the possibility that some like the Mufti of Jerusalem might have stood on the sidelines cheering?

The move to re-establish the Jewish homeland started long before Hitler attempted to exterminate Europe's Jews.

But there is something else in the European character that Islamics should take warning from. The Europeans expelled the Jews on more than one occasion, and didn't take kindly to Islamic invaders and with large Islamic populations, the Europeans may feel these interlopers should be removed also

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 12/12/06 - Incoming House Intelligence Chief Botches Easy Intel Quiz

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite.

"That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

In an interview with CNN, Stein said he was "amazed" by Reyes' lack of what he considers basic information about two of the major terrorists organizations.

"If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball," Stein said. "You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder if he even knows if they're Muslims ????

The interview went like this :

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

Al Qaeda, they have both, Reyes said. Youre talking about predominately?

Sure, I said, not knowing what else to say.

Predominantly probably Shiite, he ventured.

He couldnt have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, theyd slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

Thats because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

Al Qaedas Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

Its been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.

Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?

Civil War

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

Why do you ask me these questions at five oclock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?

Pocito, I saida little.

Pocito?! He laughed again.

Go ahead, I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: Well, I, uh....

I apologized for putting him on the spot a little. But I reminded him that the people who have killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil and in the Middle East have been front page news for a long time now.

Its been 23 years since a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed over 200 U.S. military personnel in Beirut, mostly Marines.

Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, is close to taking over in Lebanon. Reports say they are helping train Iraqi Shiites to kill Sunnis in the spiralling civil war.

Yeah, Reyes said, rightly observing, but . . . its not like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Its a heck of a lot more complex.

And I agree with you we ought to expend some effort into understanding them. But speaking only for myself, its hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories.




So let me get this straight . Nancy Pelosi gets into a cat fight with the mildly non-partisan moderate Jane Harman ,who knows more about intel then any other demoncrat in the house and spitefully dismisses her from being Chairman . Now we get Silvestre Reyes who laughingly does not know the difference between Sunni and Shiite.Maybe after he gets out of terrorism 101 he can advance to 102 where he will learn about Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf .

Pelosi is looking more incompetent all the time.Next up on her docket ;William Jefferson to run the House Ethics Panel.

The next dem. I want to pass this quiz is the traitorous Jay Rockefeller who will now be handed the Senate Intelligence Committee next month .

paraclete answered on 12/12/06:

he is just typical of the ignorance of the administration he will serve

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 12/12/06 - DISGUSTING QUESTION:


I heard on the news this a.m. that 60 Iraqi laborers were killed and 220 were injured by a suicide bomber. That did it for me! Tell me this:

Before we went into Iraq, did anyone conduct an in depth study re: the mentality and religion of the Muslims? I'll have some comments after you answer this question! I'm damn mad!

HANK

paraclete answered on 12/12/06:

Where have you been for the past three years? This sort of thing is a daily event. You endorsed Bush and this is what you endorsed, the breakup of Iraq because of the irrational ideas of the invasion of Iraq promulgated by a President who thinks he's on a mission from God.

Any study they might have done was ignored.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 12/11/06 - Will they ever get it right?

Seems I've heard this before...

Agriculture is major factor in causing global warming

A recent report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options, warns of the dire environmental consequences of the world's growing meat and dairy production.

According to the report, animal agriculture uses 30% of the Earth's land surface for pasture and feed crop production. It is the driving force in worldwide deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction, with 70% of the irreplaceable Amazon rain forest turned into pasture.

Eventually, pastures are degraded into desert through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. Animal agriculture contributes more pollution to our waterways than all other human activities combined.

Principal sources are animal wastes, as well as soil particles, minerals, organic debris, fertilizers, and pesticides from feed cropland. Most of the world's water supplies are used for irrigating animal feed crops.

Animal agriculture is also a key source of manmade greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.

Sixty-five percent of nitrous oxide, the most damaging of these, is emitted by animal waste, according to the FAO report, and 37% of methane comes from cattle's digestive process. Operation of farm machinery and transport trucks account for 9% of carbon-dioxide emissions.

We don't have to wait for Earth Day to help save our planet. We can start with the next trip to the grocery store.


Ok, before I get to the problem I have to question this:

    Animal agriculture is also a key source of manmade greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.


So cow patties are now manmade?

Well, the solutions are obvious, and when I say "we" I mean Americans.

First we must enact an immediate ban on bovine intercourse and eat more beef to drive down the supply.

Second, once the beef supply has dwindled to a trickle all dairy products will be moved to the controlled substance list. Any remaining nonessential cows will be sent to predominantly Hindu countries.

Third, we must all then take a vow of poverty as the growth in meat and dairy product consumption is due to increased prosperity.

Fourth, rodeos will be restricted to using mechanical bulls and stick horses.

Fifth, the World Cow Chip Throwing Contest will switch from using cow chips to more environmentally friendly tofu patties.

Sixth, an extensive cow chip harvesting campaign will be enacted with cow chip collection centers being set up all across the nation. The collected cow chips will then be used as fuel for the UN building. The benefit of using them here is obvious - there is a ready supply of BS once the cow chip inventory is exhausted.

Oh, and this Texas ranch must be an example of how "pastures are degraded into desert."

paraclete answered on 12/11/06:

Okay, How do you suggest we start? Are you suggesting we don't eat? that's just plain stupid. What do you think would happen if you converted to vegetable consumption? you would become the methane producers. You think there is a lot of hot air in Washington now, the air would be positively unbreathable. Fuel consumption would increase in both the production and distribution of foodstuffs, causing greater carbon dioxide production. Now the answer is a little simplier, cut your beef and dairy consumption in half without increasing your vegetable consumption. We would then see the leaner, meaner you.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 12/09/06 - WHO ARE THE HUMBUGS:

Writing for WIRED NEWS: David Hambling: 02:00 AM Dec, 05, 2006

"The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws, the Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

"It will repel you," one test subject said. "If hit by the beam, you will move out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to experience it again."

But while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, "some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters," the Air Force experiments concluded.

The reports describe an elaborate series of investigations involving human subjects.

The volunteers were military personnel: active, reserve or retired, who volunteered for the tests. They were unpaid, but the subjects would "benefit from direct knowledge that an effective nonlethal weapon system could soon be in the inventory," said one report. The tests ranged from simple exposure in the laboratory to elaborate war games involving hundreds of participants.

The military simulated crowd control situations, rescuing helicopter crews in a Black Hawk Down setting and urban assaults. More unusual tests involved alcohol, attack dogs and maze-like obstacle courses.

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.

The ADS was developed in complete secrecy for 10 years at a cost of $40 million. Its existence was revealed in 2001 by news reports, but most details of ADS human testing remain classified. There has been no independent checking of the military's claims.

The ADS technology is ready to deploy, and the Army requested ADS-armed Strykers for Iraq last year. But the military is well aware that any adverse publicity could finish the program, and it does not want to risk distressed victims wailing about evil new weapons on CNN.

This may mean yet more rounds of testing for the ADS."

Could this weapon end the war in Iraq? Who are THE persons saying "NO" to this strategy NOW?

HANK

paraclete answered on 12/09/06:

Hank you are determined to get a rise out of this article, let's hope they replace tasers

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/06/06 - Report of Iraq Study Group

"The Iraq Study Group called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating" Wednesday and recommended a radically different approach from President Bush's current policy, including the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.

In delivering its report to Bush and Congress, the bipartisan panel listed 79 recommendations for change in Iraq strategy, including direct talks with Iran and Syria as part of a "diplomatic offensive."

All 10 members of the panel, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, met with Bush at the White House to present the bound report. (View the complete report -- PDF)

The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected calls to seek help from Iran and Syria.

But the report states that "Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own."

"If we don't talk to them, we don't see much progress being made," Hamilton said. "You can't look at this part of the world and pick and choose which countries you're going to deal with."

The panel, which was chartered by Congress, warns of dire consequences, both at home and abroad, if the U.S. fails to take action.

"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe," the report says.

"Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."

On the military front, the report suggests, "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

It adds: "At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue."

The co-chairs said they took "a pragmatic approach" to determining the best course for Iraq and determined the solution was not a military, political or economic one, but rather a combination of the three.

"We no longer can afford to stay the course," Baker said. "If we do what we recommend in this report, it will certainly improve our chances for success."

Hamilton echoed his colleague's sentiments, saying the Iraqi people are "suffering great hardship" and their lives must be improved....."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 12/06/06:

Sounds like a strategy

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 12/06/06 - Cowboys and Indians:



Why don't our soldiers in Iraq take a lesson from the Indians who roamed the plains during the old Wild West days? They surrounded wagon trains. No escape was possible. Why don't our soldiers use the same stategy in Iraq. Surround Baghdad, synchronize their watches and then start moving towards the center of that hell hole? The old squeeze play. Our planes and choppers could protect their 'backs' and take care of any trouble that may arise north, south, east and west. Since Bush is sending 30,000 more troops to the area, I think this strategy might work.

HANK

paraclete answered on 12/06/06:

DON'T YOU REMEMBER, HANK THEY DID THAT AT FALLIJUA but guess what? they were called off when it became too costly for the insurgents. the Iraqi don't want americans murdering their citizens, Hank, but they are fine with Iraqi murdering americans and other Iraqi. There is only one strategy that will work, get out and leave them to it, they will soon sort it out.

labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/06/06 - RIGHT WING SUPREME COURT IN ACTION

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected, in an 8-to-1 ruling, the Bush administration's aggressive use of immigration laws to automatically expel legal immigrants for minor drug crimes, a decision that could spare thousands from being deported. Since 1996, more than 12 million legal immigrants have been subject to mandatory deportation if they are found guilty of drug trafficking; four years ago, the government expanded the reach of this law to include simple drug possession, which ordinarily carries only a one-year sentence."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 12/06/06:

sounds like a bad decision but then if you don't respect the laws of the country why shouldn't you be kicked out. How do you truly tell the difference between drug possession and drug trafficing, it's a matter of degree, but a smart trafficer would keep only a small quantity to avaoid the higher penelty. Guilt by association can sometimes find the guilty.

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/01/06 - PEACEFUL COUP UNDERWAY IN BAGHDAD

Tom Hayden in a special to the Huffington Post::

"A peaceful coup is being attempted in Baghdad, seeking to replace Nouri al-Maliki with a coalition between the Sunni political leader Saleh al-Mutlak and the Shiite insurgent leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

In the background are calls from Iraq's leading Shiite and Sunni clerics for an American withdrawal timetable.

Al-Mutlak, an ex-Baathist who heads the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue has eleven seats in parliament which, combined with Sadr's twenty percent bloc, is enough to destabilize or even bring down the regime of al-Maliki.

As reported last week in the Huntington Post, secret efforts to strike a deal with the Sunni nationalist resistance have been underway for months. Ex-Baathists like Mutlak, Sunnis in the Muslim Scholars Association, and in particular the revered Sunni cleric Harith al-Dhari, are strongly supportive of a political settlement based on a US withdrawal timetable. But the sudden move by al-Sadr's Shiite bloc, which pulled out of the Baghdad government over al-Maliki's meeting with Bush, provides the anti-occupation coalition with significant, perhaps decisive, power, if they choose to bring down al-Maliki's shaky coalition.

US commanders make no secret of their desire to crush al-Sadr's Mahdi Army - indeed they are waging a war of attrition - but they will be frustrated if the new coalition takes hold. Mainstream media has reported that the US has hoped to cajole the Sunnis to align with al-Maliki against al-Sadr, a scenario that seemingly is being rejected and reversed. Instead, al-Sadr's bloc is demanding a US timeline for withdrawal.

CNN' Nick Robertson featured an interview today [Thursday morning] with al-Mutlak in Baghdad, describing the unfolding transition plan as having been months in the making. It appeared that a threatened al-Maliki would have to join the call for US withdrawal, or face the possibility of being replaced by an interim government. Wolf Blitzer described the al-Maliki government as "teetering." [Earlier this year, 104 Iraqi parliamentarians, over forty percent of its membership, signed a resolution calling for an American withdrawal timetable; it was tabled under American pressure.]

Any of these scenarios would seem intolerable to the Bush Administration. But how would it respond to a demand from a reconstituted Baghdad government for a withdrawal timetable? Send more American troops into Sadr City? Facing a request from Baghdad for withdrawal, American domestic demand for a pullout could become overwhelming, even for Bush.

This week's immediate outcome cannot be predicted, depending as it does on al-Maliki's response, the US embassy's role, and above all, the determination of al-Sadr to forge a coalition with al-Mutlak across the sectarian divides.

However, al-Sadr is a well-known Arab Shiite often at odds with more pro-Irani Shiite parties like that Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, and has been a critic of the "political quietism" of the elderly Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. His base is the Shiite urban underclass, centered in Sadr City slum. His forces fought in collaboration with the Sunnis during the American siege of Falluja in 2004, and rose against the American forces on two other occasions in 2003 and 2004. They have sent 100,000 people into the streets demanding US withdrawal, and on one occasion collected one million signatures door to door on a withdrawal petition. [for more information, see Ahmed Hashim's Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq, Cornell, 2006]

IF INTERESTED, READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT HUFFINGTONPOST DOT COM. IT IS LONG.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder how the fluid, violent situation in Iraq will effect Bush's foreign policy in the next few months?

Will soldiers want to go there under the increase of force proposed by Bush and McCain?

paraclete answered on 12/01/06:

In your dreams

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 11/30/06 - What the current state of tort law has brought us.

Or is it the current state of stupidity of the American people that is causing this? I'm betting its a combination of both.

Consumer Labels

The following are REAL warning labels on real products, that were put there by companies afraid of being sued frivolously by complete morons.

1. On Sears hairdryer:

"Do not use while sleeping."
(But..., that's the only time I have to work on my hair)

2. On a bar of Dial soap:

"Directions: Use like regular soap."
(And that would be how. . . ?)

3. On some Swanson frozen dinners:

"Serving suggestions: Defrost."
(But it's "just" a suggestion)

4. On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom of box):

"Do not turn upside down."
(Oops, too late!)

5. On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding:

"Product will be hot after heating."
(Hmm . . . .)

6. On packaging for a Rowenta iron:

"Do not iron clothes on body."
(But wouldn't this save even more time?)

7. On Boot's Children's Cough Medicine:

"Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication."
(We could do a lot to reduce the rate of construction accidents if we could just get those 5-year-olds with head colds off those forklifts.)

8. On Nytol Sleep Aid:

"Warning: May cause drowsiness."
(One would hope)

9. On most brands of Christmas lights:

"For indoor or outdoor use only."
(As opposed to underwater?)

10. On a Japanese food processor:

"Not to be used for the other use."
(I gotta admit, I'm curious.)

11. On Sainsbury's peanuts:

"Warning: Contains nuts."
(NEWS FLASH)

12. On a child's Superman costume:

"Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly."
(I don't blame the company, I blame parents for this one.)

13. On a Swedish chain saw:

"Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands."
(Was there a chance of this happening somewhere? . . .)

14. On a bottle of Palmolive Dishwashing liquid:

"Do not use on food."
(Hey, Mom, we're out of syrup! It's OK, honey, just grab the Palmolive!)


I long ago came to the conclusion that "common sense" isn't all that common. This just proves it one more time.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 11/30/06:

Really you should try these

On a blanket from Taiwan -
NOT TO BE USED AS PROTECTION FROM A TORNADO.

On a helmet mounted mirror used by US cyclists -
REMEMBER, OBJECTS IN THE MIRROR ARE ACTUALLY BEHIND YOU.
(Mirror -vs- Glass: people don't know the difference???)

On a Taiwanese shampoo -
USE REPEATEDLY FOR SEVERE DAMAGE.
(brain damage?)

On a New Zealand insect spray -
THIS PRODUCT NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS.
(Then what? Tested on humans???)

In a US guide to setting up a new computer -
TO AVOID CONDENSATION FORMING, ALLOW THE BOXES TO WARM UP TO ROOM TEMPERATURE BEFORE OPENING.
(Sensible, but the instruction was INSIDE the box.)

In some countries, on the bottom of Coke bottles -
OPEN OTHER END.
(The company knows what kind of people they are dealing with)

On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding -
PRODUCT WILL BE HOT AFTER HEATING.
(Isn't it obvious!?!)

On a Korean kitchen knife -
WARNING KEEP OUT OF CHILDREN.
(Very helpful...for murderers!)

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 11/30/06 - That darn global warming

Hurricane season ends quietly

By JESSICA GRESKO Associated Press Writer
2006 The Associated Press

MIAMI The mild 2006 Atlantic hurricane season draws to a close Thursday without a single hurricane striking the United States - a stark contrast to the record-breaking 2005 season that killed more than 1,500 people and left thousands homeless along the Gulf Coast.

Nine named storms and five hurricanes formed this season, and just two of the hurricanes were considered major. That is considered a near-normal season and well short of the rough season government scientists had forecast.

"We got a much-welcome break after a lot of the coast had been compromised in the last several years, but this is a one-season type break," said Gerry Bell, lead seasonal hurricane forecaster for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In May, scientists predicted 13 to 16 named storms and eight to 10 hurricanes, with four to six of them major.

The 2005 hurricane season was the busiest on record, with 28 named storms, including 15 hurricanes, four of which hit the United States, including Katrina and Rita.

Bell urged people not to become complacent about the next season, which starts June 1. Forecasters say the Atlantic is still in an active hurricane period that began in 1995 and could last another decade or more.

This year, a warm-water trend known as El Nino developed more quickly than expected in the Pacific, squashing the formation of storms in the Atlantic and creating crosswinds that can rip hurricanes apart. At the same time, upper-level air currents pushed most hurricanes out to sea, away from the U.S. mainland.

Only two storms, Tropical Storms Alberto and Ernesto, hit the U.S. mainland in 2006. Neither caused significant damage.

The season effectively ended with Hurricane Isaac, the last named storm, which dissipated Oct. 2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was just April when experts predicted 2006 will have about nine hurricanes (average is 5.9); 17 named storms (average is 9.6), 85 named storm days (average is 49.1); 45 hurricane days (average is 24.5); 5 intense (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.3) and 13 intense hurricane days (average is 5.0).

The probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is estimated to be about 55 percent above average.


I guess they missed that one. Btw, here in Amarillo, TX we have 7 inches of snow on the ground, it's about 18 degrees, the wind chill last night was 15 below zero. it was predicted we would receive a 'light dusting.'

With all those incorrect predictions, especially the 'sky is falling' predictions on the 2006 hurricane season, what makes any of these global warming 'experts' think they can predict this alleged threat?

paraclete answered on 11/30/06:

Some people are never satisfied, lurching from one disaster to another, however it is good to know you have thus far been spared. Climate change has this strange aspect about it, the climate changes unexpectedly, you see what you are experiencing is the result of all those fractions which, of course, have to happen sometime and they have happened in 2006. There's your explanation. .9 hurricanes, .1 storm days, .5 hurricane days
.3 category 3-4-5, and .0 intense hurricane days.

It's in properly anaylsing the statistics.

I'm open to offers

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 11/30/06 - Now THIS is the way to do business!

With the "other" now in total power, this will be the way to go, as it will be as easy as buttering bread!


TO: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C

Dear Sir,

I have been evacuated from New Orleans because the flood took my old trailer and beat up car. I thought I might go into business to supplement my welfare check.

My friend over at Wells, Iowa received a check for $1,000 from the Government for not raising hogs. Right now I'm getting extra help from the government and Red Cross while I'm displaced but when that stops I want to go into the "not-raising-hogs" business.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure tha t I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.
As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs. If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding
myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.

Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?

Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food
stamps.

Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.

Patriotically Yours,
Ima Taker

paraclete answered on 11/30/06:

It's very hard to work this all out, not to be out done by the US in agricultural policy the Australian government has launched a number of plans to create non agricultural sector, we have the dairy industry reconstruction plan, the pig meat industry reconstruction plan, the poultry industry reconstruction plan, the marginal lands assistance plan, the wool industry reconstruction plan, the wool stockpile plan, the riparian rights buyback plan

Like your friend from Louisiania we have many farmers and would be farmers being assisted to relocate to more profitable industries.

We find the best way to accomplish this is to accure the riparian rights by regulation allowing the flows released to nourish the wetlands and wildfowl.

Once it can be demonstrated that the property is no longer agriculturally viable,
the farmer is assisted to leave the property with welfare payments and cash subsidies whilst the property is then handed back to the local aboriginal lands council were it can be used to put aboriginal peoples to usefull employment raising kangaroos. This plan is an unqualifed success, the kangaroo population has quadrupled, the aboriginal populations have migrated from the cities to take up these opportunities and the farmers have taken up residence in the cities swelling the ranks of the unemployed and keeping the staff of Centrelink fully occupied advising the farmers on how to obtain employment for the first time in their lives.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 11/29/06 - Supreme Court takes up global warming for first time

WASHINGTON - "Frustrated by Bush administration inaction on global warming, states and environmentalists urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to declare greenhouse gases to be air pollutants that the government must regulate.

The courts first case on the politically charged topic showed an apparent split between its liberal and conservative justices, with Anthony Kennedy potentially the decisive vote in determining whether the administration must abandon its refusal to treat carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as air pollutants that imperil public health.

Justice Samuel Alito, who with Chief Justice John Roberts seemed most skeptical of the states position, said that even in the best of circumstances, the reduction in greenhouse gases would be relatively small.

Justice David Souter indicated that every little bit would help. They dont have to show that it will stop global warming. Their point is that will reduce the degree of global warming and likely reduce the degree of loss, he said.

The case involves whether the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new vehicles under a provision of the Clean Air Act. When a decision comes sometime before July, it could have a significant ripple effect that could extend to power plants as well as states efforts to impose more stringent regulations on car tailpipe emissions.

Many scientists believe that greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.

We own property, 200 miles of coastline, that were losing, Massachusetts assistant attorney general James Milkey said on behalf of 12 states and 13 environmental groups that sued EPA.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States because 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Garre also argued that the EPA was right not to act given the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.

Roberts pointed out that regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles addresses just one aspect of an issue of global dimensions.

The argument by those pushing for EPA action on vehicle emissions might or might not be valid, but it assumes everything else is going to remain constant, Roberts observed.

Whether Roberts was correct, Congress is expected to become more involved next year in the debate on global warming because newly empowered Democrats have promised to give the issue a thorough airing..."

Well, now that we have the Democrats in office all our worries will be over...

paraclete answered on 11/29/06:

clearly a rediculous proposition since for carbon dioxide to be declared an air pollutant and eradicated would require the eradication of every tree in American and you would still be no better off.

Where do these tree huggers get these big minds who can see the issues so clearly?

You want the government to change it's attitude, change the government, you have started in the right direction, keep going until the government is willing to be responsible and look after the long term welfare of its people, not the interests of the big corporates

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 11/29/06 - Atheist Comments on American Politics

Sam Harris comments:

"While the religious divisions in our world are self-evident, many people still imagine that religious conflict is always caused by a lack of education, by poverty, or by politics. Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise.

How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don't know what it is like to really believe in God.

The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization. Many of these people are lunatics, but they are not the lunatic fringe. Some of them can actually get Karl Rove on the phone whenever they want.

While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a "well-qualified candidate" from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country (while being a woman, black, Muslim, Jewish, or gay is not). Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry.

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting points. Anyone wish to comment on what he said?

Those usual suspects who deposit hate, propaganda and lies as their answer....get one star....**I don't read your bs in answers or posts for that matter.

All I have to do is read the first sentence to detect same. :)


Serious answers welcome.

paraclete answered on 11/29/06:

"the plain truth" cannot be spoken. It's no wonder that athiests are reviled if they think that their version of the truth must be accepted when, in reality, it is they who are wrong.

I have a suggestion for athiests, get your head out of your ....... and you might see daylight

Choux... rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 11/29/06 - December 7, 2008, began inauspiciously.

At 0753 at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the attack that had triggered America's entry into World War II, sixty-seven years before, was ceremoniously commemorated, an honor guard, taps, a 21-gun salute, the bugle's notes and the rifles' crack drifting across the bay to the USS Arizona memorial, where Admiral Arthur Peterson, USN Ret., laid a wreath in memory of the sailors sleeping below, one of whom was his own grandfather.

On the West coast it was 1053, and in Washington D.C. it was one fifty-three in the afternoon, 1353 military
time.

In 2006 America, tired of War in Iraq, had elected Democrats to modest majorities in both houses of Congress. Representative Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency. In the spring of 2007, on a narrow, party-line vote, Congress, led by Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy
and Barbara Boxer refused to authorize spending to continue the war in Iraq, and set September 30, 2007, as the deadline for complete withdrawal of American troops.

President Bush spoke to the country, to the American forces in Iraq, to those who had been there, and to
the Iraqi people, to apologize for the short-sightedness and irresponsibility of the American congress and the tragedy he believed would follow after leaving task of nurturing a representative and stable government in Iraq half done, his voice choked, tears running down his stoic face, a betrayal of emotion for which he was resoundingly criticized and denounced in much of America's media.

The level of violence across Iraq immediately subsided, as the Americans began preparations to redeploy back to the States. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised the new Congress for its clear vision and sound judgment. America's Democrats rejoiced and congratulated themselves for bringing peace with honor
and ending the illegal war based on lies that George Bush had begun only to enrich his friends in the
military-industrial complex, and promised to retake the Presidency in 2008.

"The failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Liberal Democracies everywhere, by an Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism, and which will fight any
war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve it, may prove to be the kind of
blunder upon which the fate of America turns, and falls."

At 1000 on September 30, 2007, precisely on schedule, the last C-5A Galaxy carrying the last company of
American combat troops in Iraq had roared down the Baghdad runway and lifted into the air. Only a few
hundred American technical and military advisers and political liaisons remained in-country.

The Galaxy's wheels had scarcely retracted when Iraq erupted in the real civil war many had feared and
foreseen, and which many others had predicted would not happen if only the American imperialists left
Iraq. Sunni militias, Shia militias, and Al Qaeda militias ravaged and savaged the country, killing
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis known or suspected to have collaborated with the Americans, killing Shias
for being Shias, Sunnis for being Sunnis, Americans for being Americans, and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

By noon, not one of the American advisers and liaisons left behind remained alive. Many had been beheaded as they screamed. Most of their bodies were dumped in the river and never seen again. In the next thirty days more than a million Iraqis died. The General Assembly of the United Nations voted to condemn the violence, and recessed for lunch and martinis. In America, there was no political will to redeploy back to Iraq. And after a few months of rabid bloodletting, the situation in Iraq calmed to a tense simmer of sporadic violence and political jockeying, punctuated by the occasional assassination, while several million refugees fled the country. Only Kurdistan, in the north, which had thrown up a line of its Peshmurga fighters to keep the southern violence away, remained stable and at relative peace.

In the spring of 2008 America began its quadrennial circus of a national election, and in November elected
a Democrat, the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as it next president, to the surprise
of few. Her running mate, to the surprise of many, was San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose intelligence, charisma, and reputation as an indefatigable campaigner for gay marriage and the homeless of San Francisco helped solidify Clinton's support among liberal Democrats who only grudgingly forgave her for
not openly opposing the Iraq war sooner, and the Clinton-Newsom ticket went to the top with a narrow 50.2% lead over Republican John McCain's 49.8% of the popular vote, despite, or perhaps because of,
Clinton's and Newsom's lack of foreign policy and military experience.

America, or a slim voting majority of it, felt it had had all the war it ever wanted to see, and Hillary had
led her party to a glorious (if narrow) victory with the unambiguous slogan: "Clinton & Newsom: No More
War." Crowds at every whistle stop had cheered and chanted, No more war! No more war! No more war! At
victory parties George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were hung and sometimes burned in effigy, enthusiastic crowds chanted "No more war!" many times more, and local
bands cranked up the theme from the first Clinton electoral victory, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow...yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone...," and indeed, it was.

President Bush had been a very lame duck since the 2006 election, and with a Democratic Congress could do little but veto most of the bills it sent him. The Democrats couldn't override his vetoes, so for nearly two years almost nothing important had been accomplished by anyone on the Hill or in the White House. After the 2008 election it was transition time, flocks and herds of thoroughly demoralized Republican staff began leaving Washington in search of greener pastures, Congress adjourned for the Holidays, Democrats came house hunting, and Clinton and Newsom began the briefings they would get from a fully cooperative Bush administration on the state of the nation and the state of the world they would inherit and have to cope with for the next four years, or eight, and in those last weeks of November both Hillary and Gavin seemed to age rather quickly. The exhilaration of the campaign was over, and the weight of a tumultuous world began to settle on their shoulders.

Back in early October, 2006, North Korean President (for life) Kim Jong Il had announced the detonation of
a nuclear bomb deep in a tunnel in the stony mountains of North Korea. The seismic signature had been small, and American intelligence at first doubted whether it had been a nuclear explosion at all. Traces of
radioactive emissions were detected a few days later, and the intelligence estimate revised to conclude that
it had been a failed test that produced perhaps only 10% or less of the expected yield, only 0.5 to 1.5
kilotons, not the 20 kilotons, at least, that Western intelligence had anticipated.


Kim Jong Il gloated. The deception had worked. The Americans were thinking in terms of long range
intercontinental ballistic missiles with huge warheads that they could shoot out of the sky with their
sophisticated billion-dollar anti-missile defense systems. He was thinking in terms of small warheads
carried by small, medium range cruise missiles that could be launched from many places, and infiltrated
close enough to slip in under the radar and hit America's coastal cities.

On the evening of December 6, 2008, a junior analyst in the National Security Agency was going over routine satellite photo production of ship movements in the Atlantic and Pacific within a thousand miles of the US coasts. Late in the shift he thought he saw something through a haze of fatigue and caffeine, and called a supervisor over to talk.

"Look," he said, photos up on several computer screens, more printed out and spread across his desk,
"See? These boats, not big ships, fishing boats, yachts, they've been moving in along shipping lanes
for several days, across from the South Pacific toward the West coast, up from the South Atlantic toward the
east. Nothing very unusual, they're all small and slow, and scattered up and down the oceans, it seems,
but if you look at the times and courses..." and he pulled out a chart he had plotted, "They're approaching so they will all arrive at about the same time, or all be about the same distance off the coast at about the same time...," he trailed off.

The supervisor looked a bit quizzical. "Coincidence? Probably. You need more sleep. Too much fun in the
night, eh? Let me know if you see something we can do something with." And walked away.

At 0723 Hawaii time on the 67th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack three old fishing trawlers, about
100 miles apart, and each about 300 miles off the east coast, launched six small cruise missiles from launch
tubes that could be dismantled and stored in the holds under ice, or fish, and set up in less than an hour.
The missiles were launched at precisely one minute intervals. As soon as each boat had launched its pair,
the skeleton crew began to abandon ship into a fast rubber inflatable. The captain was last off, and just
before going overboard started the timer on the scuttling charges. Fifteen minutes later and ten miles
away, each crew was going up the nets into a small freighter or tanker of Moroccan or Liberian registry,
where each man was issued new identification as ship's crew. The rubber inflatables were shot and sunk, and just about then charges in the bilges of each of the three trawlers blew the hulls out, and they sank with
no one on board and no distress signals in less than two minutes.
The missiles had been built in a joint operation by North Korea and Iran, and tested in Iran, so they would not have to overfly any other country. The small nuclear warheads had only been tested deep underground. The GPS guidance and detonating systems had worked perfectly, after a few corrections. They flew fifty feet above sea level, and 500 feet above ground level on the last leg of the trip, using computers and terrain data modified from open market technology and flight directors, autopilots, adapted from commercial aviation units. They would adjust speed to arrive on target at specific times and altitudes, and detonate upon reaching the programmed GPS coordinates. They were not as adaptable and intelligent as American cruise missiles, but they did not need to be. Not for this mission.

They were small, less than twenty feet long, and only 18 inches in diameter, powered by small, quiet, fuel-efficient, high-bypass turbofans, and painted in a mottled light blue and light gray ghost camouflage.
Cruising at 600 knots, just below the speed of sound, they were nearly impossible to see or hear. They came in under the radar until they reached the coast. After that they were lost in the ground clutter. Nobody saw it coming.

At precisely 0753, Hawaii time, 1353 in the District of Columbia, sixty-seven years to the minute after the
Pearl Harbor attack began, the first of six missiles to hit the Washington area exploded in a huge white
burst of nuclear fire just 500 feet above the White House, which disappeared in a mist of powdered plaster and stone, concrete and steel. President Bush and President-Elect Clinton had been meeting with Condoleezza Rice and Mrs. Clinton's national security adviser, reviewing the latest National Security Estimate, when they instantaneously turned into a plasma of the atomic elements that had once been human beings. No trace remained.

Alarms immediately began going off all over Washington, and precisely one minute later the second
missile exploded just as it struck the Capital dome, instantly turning thousands of tons of granite that had one moment before been the nation's center of government into thousands of tons of granite shrapnel that shredded several square miles of Washington like a leviathan Claymore mine. At precisely one minute
intervals, four more 3 kiloton nuclear weapons exploded at an altitude of 500 feet AGL above the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters, the NSA headquarters, the FBI headquarters, all of which were fully staffed in the middle of the day. In five minutes, the government of the United States of America was decapitated, and a quarter million of the people who made the place run were dead, or dying, or had simply disappeared.

Also at 1353 Eastern time, a missile had blown off just above the New York Stock Exchange, in New York
City, and thousands of years of collective financial knowledge and experience evaporated in the nuclear
flame. In one minute intervals, others had hit the financial centers of Boston and Baltimore, and the
Naval base at Norfolk, Virginia.

Simultaneously, within the same 10-minute window of hell, nuclear tipped cruise missiles devastated the
largest intermodel shipping facility on the West coast at San Pedro harbor, exploded just above the Library
Tower in central Los Angeles, and short circuited the computer technology ghetto of Silicon Valley in Santa
Clara County, big time. One exploded ten feet away from the top of the Bank of America Building in San
Francisco and set much of the east slope of the city ablaze. Another giant fireball flared among the phalanx of office towers along the Capitol Mall in Sacramento, instantly obliterating Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state government of California, the largest state economy in the US, the seventh largest economy in the world. Two ripped open the heart of Portland, Oregon, one shattered the financial district of Seattle, and the last one turned the Microsoft campus into a pillar of fire and smoke, wiping from the face of history, in a second, the IT giant that had revolutionized global communications.

It was 0803, Hawaii time. Ten minutes.

Three million Americans dead. And not a trace of the assault fleet remained on the surface of any ocean.

Vice-President Elect Gavin Newsom was in his bedroom at home in Pacific Heights, his window overlooking the Golden Gate and the Marin bluffs. He thought he heard an oddly loud crack of thunder and saw a flash
reflected on the hills across the inlet, but it was a clear day and nothing else seemed out of place. He
continued packing for the return trip to Washington, his second since the election, to continue his transition briefings and begin organizing his staff. His nomination as Hillary's running mate had come as a huge surprise, and he was elated.

Someone rapped on the door, loudly, twice, and without waiting for a reply the senior Secret Service officer
on his detail opened it and stepped quickly in. "Come with me, now," he said. Gavin was startled. "I need to
finish packing," he replied. "No time, sir. Something has happened. Very big.
No details yet. We have to get you out of here, NOW! RIGHT NOW! GO! GO! GO!" He grabbed Newsom's arm, swung him around, and pushed him out the door, where two other Secret Service agents flanked him down the stairs and out to a running black Suburban waiting in the garage. They pushed him into the back seat, jumped in, and the driver gunned the engine, out the drive, down the street, tires squealing. Nobody spoke until they were headed over the Bridge, northbound at seventy-five miles an hour, weaving through the traffic which wasn't yet the gridlock it would soon become.

"What the hell's going on?" he finally demanded.

"Okay. This is what I know," the officer said. "The US has apparently sustained multiple nuclear attacks in
the last fifteen minutes, including Washington D.C. and San Francisco. Financial district. We're not sure
how many, at least ten, maybe twenty. Lots of dead. Got the White House, the Capital, the Pentagon. Our
job is to get you on an airplane at the nearest functioning airport, that'll be Novato, and get you to a safe place.."

"Where?" Newsom asked. Things were moving way too fast now.

"Don't know yet. We'll get orders."

The Air Force Learjet had been airborne for two minutes when a cell phone buzzed, and the Secret
Service captain answered it and handed it off to the Vice President Elect. "It's Mr. Cheney, sir," he said.

"Gavin?" Dick Cheney asked. "Yes, sir," Newsom replied, subdued, for the events of the last hour had
sobered up his elated mood considerably.

"Okay, Gavin. I don't know what you know, so I'll tell you what I can. There have been approximately 20 nuclear strikes on government and financial targets in the US, about an hour ago. No real damage estimate
yet, except that it's awful. A hundred times 9/11, maybe a thousand times. I happened to be at the Air
Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and have moved into Cheyenne Mountain to set up a temporary HQ, until we get things sorted out. As you know Cheyenne was vacated by NORAD a few years ago, so we have plenty of space. You will be flown here, nonstop."

"I know you haven't a lot of national and international experience." Cheney had thought of saying that Newsom had none, but Newsom would be too painfully aware of that. He didn't need reminding. "The President is missing and presumed dead. So is Mrs. Clinton. So you may become the next president, in
about six weeks. I don't know. he Constitution says the Vice President succeeds a president who is dead or
disabled, but it doesn't say what happens if the President Elect dies before being inaugurated. I suppose the Court will have to answer that, if we can cobble one together by then. In the meantime, I will assume you will be inaugurated. You'll have a steep learning curve, a real steep curve. All presidents do, under the best of circumstances, and these are not the best of circumstances."

The next day a hard winter storm roared down the West coast from Alaska, pelting rescue workers in bombed out city centers with hard, cold rain, that did not let up for a week. People alive but injured or trapped in the wreckage died of hypothermia before they were found. Two days later, a cold front out of Canada brought heavy snow to the Northeast. Millions were already without electricity, and in a week of subzero weather hundreds of thousands more died. More than four million, altogether. More than one of every one hundred Americans.

Al Qaeda had picked December 7 because it was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and
because, just before Christmas, the Infidel holiday, it would destroy the Christmas shopping season so
important to so many retailers, driving another nail into the national economy of the Great Satan. And it
would destroy the festive spirit of the season for millions of Americans, perhaps for all. The perfect
psyop. Psychological warfare. And the weather forecasters had predicted severe winter storms on both
coasts during the week immediately after disaster.

Al Qaeda leaders had calculated, correctly, that by turning up the violence in Iraq during the weeks
before the 2006 election it could achieve an anti-war Democratic Congress that would vote to end America's
wars in the Middle East, and then by turning down the violence in Iraq after the election of an anti-war
Democratic Congress, it could lull America into a false sense of safety and security in anticipation of
the "peace in our time" that America's new ruling party had promised would follow from what Al Qaeda
perceived, correctly, as America's retreat before the unstoppable determination of the Islamic Resistance
Movement, the Jihad. America did not call it that, of course. The Americans thought they were just ending a
bad and illegal war ginned up by George W. Bush to depose Saddam Hussein who had proven not to have WMDs after all, the ones the Americans had never found, the ones buried in Syria. Al Qaeda saw more clearly. It was a capitulation, a de facto surrender of the Middle East to the coming Islamic Caliphate that would someday rule the world. The martyrs of Islam had beaten the Great Satan to its knees. In time they
would cut off its head.

By Christmas, the American economy had imploded. Inflation soared, unemployment soared, businesses
closed, cities that had suffered direct hits became ghost towns. Tax revenues evaporated, leaving state
governments without funds to pay unemployment benefits or teachers' salaries. With the New York Stock
Exchange gone, stock trading ended, and values plummeted. Retirement assets and pension funds
disappeared in a wink. Nobody knew what to expect. Real estate crashed, and major banks filed for
bankruptcy. With the collapse of the American economy, the largest on earth, the most productive country on earth, with just 5% of the global population producing one third of the global economic output, the rest of
the global economy fell into chaos. Oil shipments stopped, food shipments stopped, and in that winter
millions of people in third world countries starved to death.

The America era was over.

"In the spring of 1941, Nazi Germany was poised to dominate the earth. France, the low countries, Norway,
Denmark, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, and much of Poland had been overrun by the Germans. All of Europe, save neutral Sweden and Switzerland, was in the hands of Hitler's friends and allies: dictators or monarchs who ruled fascist Italy, Vichy France, Franco's Spain, Portugal, the Balkan
countries, Finland, and above all the Soviet Union."

"A single German division under General Erwin Rommel, sent to rescue beleaguered Italians in Libya, drove
Britain's Middle Eastern armies flying and threatened the Suez lifeline; while in Iraq a coup d'etat by the
pro-German Rashid Ali cut the land road to India. In Asia, Germany's ally, Japan, was coiled to strike,
ready to take Southeast Asia and invade India. No need to involve the United States; by seizing the Indies,
Japan could break the American embargo and obtain all the oil needed for the Axis Powers to pursue their war aims.

"Hitler should have sent the bulk of his armies to serve under Rommel, who would have done what Alexander did and Bonaparte failed to do: He would have taken the Middle East and led his armies to India. There he would have linked up with the Japanese. Europe, Asia, and Africa, would have belonged to the coalition of dictators and militarists."

"The Nazi-Soviet-Japanese alliance commanded armed forces and resources that utterly dwarfed the military resources that the holdouts, Britain (with its empire), and the United States, could field. The
English-speaking countries would have been isolated in a hostile world and would have had no realistic option but to make their peace with the enemy, retaining some autonomy for a time, perhaps, but doomed ultimately to succumb. Nazi Germany, as leader of the coalition, would have ruled the world."

"Only Hitler's astonishing blunder in betraying and invading his Soviet ally kept it from happening." -
David Frompkin, Professor of International Relations and History, Boston University, writing in What If:
Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
(Putnam 1999) pp. 308,
309.

History is made, wars are won and lost, cultures and nations and civilizations come and go, rise and fall,
as much by blunders as by victories.

The failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Liberal Democracies everywhere, by an Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism, and which will fight any
war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve it, may prove to be the kind of
blunder upon which the fate of America turns, and falls.

Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in northern California.

paraclete answered on 11/29/06:

a remarkable piece of fiction when will the movie be released, it should be an instant success

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 11/29/06 - Idiocy run amuck

Get this ; Fairfax Co Va. just initiated a new regulation that bans food for homeless shelters that is cooked in charitable minded peoples homes UNLESS the kitchen involved is first approved by the county .

From the Washington Compost



Under state and county code, food served to the public must be prepared in a kitchen that has been inspected and certified by the county Health Department. Those standards are high: a commercial-grade refrigerator, a three-compartment sink to wash, rinse and sanitize dishes and a separate hand-washing sink, among other requirements.

So if a church that services the homeless doesn't comply with these strict standards they can no longer feed the hungry according to the county .

There is a network of over three dozen churches that operate hypothermia shelters for the homeless .Which will mean that many of them will not be permitted to cook meals for their guests.

The Rev. Judy Fender of Burke United Methodist Church said 50 volunteers had been planning to cook beef stew, pork loin and other nutritious meals in the church kitchen when it hosts the hypothermia shelter Dec. 17 through 23.

But she found out this week that, because the kitchen is not Health Department-approved, it will have to prepare its food elsewhere.

It will be a logistical nightmare, Fender predicted, and is an insult to members who have cooked meals for years in the church kitchen without any problems.

"Why do [they] think that the traditional way of fixing a home-cooked meal is going to poison people off the street?" Fender asked.


Even year round shelters will be impacted as they frequently receive donations of prepared meals;casseroles ,baked goods ...even leftovers .


Such a regulation raises costs for those who operate out of the goodness of their hearts ; and will probably crowd out all those except for the largest, well-financed operations.
It will discourage start-up operations, or just everyday benevolence. You want to share your leftovers with the guy on the corner? Nice try, but is that kitchen inspected and certified approved ?
The county monopolozes the very area of public life that is supposed to be free from government regulation ,and thrives best without it.Do we now need to ask the county for permission to act charitably ? I wonder if they will certifiy the dumpsters that the homeless will have to scavange in once they cannot find a certified kitchen to eat in .


paraclete answered on 11/29/06:

there is only one answer to petty fogging officialdum, invite the homeless into their homes for meals. As far as the Church kitchen is concerned it should follow all public health rules.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 11/27/06 - Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do

An addendum to my reply to Choux...

Sunday, November 26th, 2006

Friends,

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn't much you can do 'til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I replied to the previous post prior to reading this email from Moore in which I said, "That is exactly what the left wants us to do, give up..."

    Moore: As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat...


"cut our losses..."

    Moore: Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.


"add a good dose of self-chastisement..."

    Moore: Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security...The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives...We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground...The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again. Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness."


"mind our own business"

    Moore: We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans


"and opening the door to the full fledged civil war in Iraq they've bemoaned for the past year."

    Moore: When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq.


So many questions on this pathetic tirade where does one start? How about, is it not rather callous and hypocritical to repeatedly throw tantrums over an alleged 髧,000' dead Iraqis and then resign oneself - in a rather cavalier way - to civil war?

And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens.

On his Afghanistan remarks, is Moore saying after the bad guys win in Iraq it will then be ok to come in and defeat the bad guys so everyone can live happily ever after?

Can anyone explain this mindset?

paraclete answered on 11/27/06:

Moore is one American who has got the message. However unpalitable this message is, it has to get through sooner or later. He is right, 9/11 enraged americans and in blind rage they struck Iraq, which was a symbol of Islamic defiance and militancy for them. He is right to say that america struck Iraq out of ignorance and with the intent of securing their oil. There is now nothing america can do to stop an iraqi civil war, that war has nothing to do with them, the reasons are ancient.

No one wins in Iraq, no win-win situation here. That sort of thinking is what got america into the problem and it won't get them out

America looses, Iraq looses and ultimately Al Qaeda looses. If america leaves the iraqi will turn on al qaeda

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 11/26/06 - Question for Tom and Elliot

Excerpted from the transcript of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it a civil war in Iraq right now?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, George, the difficulty that we're tackling with here is, we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region, whether it's the (1.)Palestinians, that of (2.)Lebanon or of (3.)Iraq...

... And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands. And therefore, it is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that I fear, and I see could possibly happen in 2007.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have a serious question based on this quote.

Was it one of the goals of the Bush Administration and the NeoCons to have the Middle East go up for grabs, as it were? A secondary alternative to the naive quest to install "Democracy" in Iraq and watch it flower and spread to their neighbors?

Choux


PS-I'm not altogether sure my work is done here in view of the situation in the middle east.

paraclete answered on 11/26/06:

it's good to hear the view of someone on the ground with a real interest in the outcome, instead of listening to bull coming out of WASHINGTON, WHERE THERE IS LITTLE REAL INTERST IN THE OUTCOME

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 11/20/06 - A European Utopia is just a car ride away.

or : Fun fun fun on the autoban goes urban .

From der Spiegel European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there, make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser. Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the country.

Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow.


The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.

It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy, relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.

But one German borough is already daring to take the step into lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500 inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.

The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains. "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood.


traffic rules ? we don't need no stinkin rules !





paraclete answered on 11/20/06:

anything the Europeans do is bizzaire, the idea they had for roundabouts which is essentially the same thing quickly got out of hand. They are not reasonable peopel so how do they expect peopel to act reasonably

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 11/17/06 - ONE vs THE OTHER:



What's the REAL difference between the President of a Nation and a Dictator of a Nation? (Remember the line-item veto comes into play)

HANK

paraclete answered on 11/17/06:

The true meaning of president is one who is presiding as in the chairman of an assembly and that person does only what the assembly empowers him to do, while a dictator had all power centralised in him and is answerable to noone.


Is George Bush a dictator, not yet but he has acquired some powers not given to him by the assembly

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 11/16/06 - Towards unbiased reporting on climate change

since a recent post indicated a highly biased position, those with interest in this subject might like to visit

www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org

where evidence is portrayed giving you the opportunity to make up your own mind

paraclete answered on 11/16/06:

yes Certainly less biased than the last post

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 11/16/06 - Global Warming Happens

According to a study by the Denis Avery and Fred Singer, adjunct scholars with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA*), human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend.Warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.

"The evidence supporting a 1,500- year cycle is too great to dismiss," said Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environment Policy Project. "Evidence from every continent and ocean confirms the 1,500-year cycle," added Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute .

According to Avery and Singer, within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world from tree rings and ice cores, stalagmites and dust plumes, prehistoric villages and collapsed cultures, fossilized pollen and algae skeletons, titanium profiles and niobium ions, and other sources.

According to the authors:

An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.

The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.


Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Considered collectively, the author's findings are clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle. And if the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world's peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change. You can read their findings in detail in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years '

More information here



[*The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C.]

paraclete answered on 11/16/06:

yes Global warming happens but you are selectively quoting the article. If, as you and the author allege, there is a fifteen hundred year cycle, can you explain the less than fifteen hundred year occurence cited in the article and tells us which of these occurences we should use as a reference point

"We have already had two cycles in recorded history; the Roman warming (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.) which was a very prosperous period, and the medieval warming (900 to 1300) during which farms were created in Greenland and Iceland. The modern warming period began about 1850".

This article also ignores the evidence for the impact on the natural cycle of growing carbon dioxide trapped in the atmosphere, and the impacts of industralisation and over population.

I therefore think the NCPA loses it's non partisan credentials

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
labman asked on 11/15/06 - Does anybody else find this ludicrous?

Do you think Israel would quit threatening them if they declared Israel had the right to exist and had no intention of attacking Isreal or helping others to?

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the United Nations on Wednesday that the Jewish state was repeatedly threatening to bomb it.

The threats were "matters of extreme gravity" and the U.N. Security Council should condemn them and demand that Israel "cease and desist immediately from the threat of the use of force against members of the United Nations," Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.



His comments, which came in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan dated November 10 and circulated at the United Nations on Wednesday, prompted a quick rejoinder from John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.



"I would say this is perhaps an example of the Iranians trying to learn 'chutzpah,"' Bolton told reporters, using a Yiddish word for unmitigated gall or outrageously arrogant behavior.

Fool story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/ts_nm/iran_israel_un_dc_2

paraclete answered on 11/15/06:

no it is called diplomacy

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 11/12/06 - Have you seen the movie "United 93"? This guy, no ...

Subject: Pilot's blog Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:31:32 +0000
This is the response from a retired Delta pilot in response to questions about whether he was planning to see "United 93."
I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I intend to when I get the chance. Retirement has made me busier than ever, and I haven't had the chance to see many movies lately.
As a Delta B-767 captain myself at the time of the attacks on 9/11 I was in crew rest in Orlando that morning. I had just turned on the TV in my hotel room only to see the World Trade Center tower on fire, and then saw the second airplane hit the other tower. My immediate reaction was
"Terrorists...we're at war", followed by the realization that we airline crew-members had all dodged a bullet; it could have bee any one of us flying those planes. As soon as the news stations flashed the first pictures of the terrorists I knew just how close and personal the bullet I dodged was. There, on the screen for all to see, was a man who had sat in my jump seat the previous July. His name was Mohammad Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers.
Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001 wearing an American Airlines first officer uniform. He had he corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a pilot, not to mention the required FAA pilot license and medical certificate that he was required to how me as proof of his aircrew status for access to my jump seat.

An airline pilot riding a cockpit jump seat is a long established protocol among the airlines of the world, a courtesy extended by the management and captains of one airline to pilots and flight attendants of other airlines in recognition of their aircrew status. My admission of Mohammad Atta to my cockpit jumpseat that day was merely a routine exercise of this protocol.
Something seemed a bit different about this jumpseat rider, though, because in my usual course of conversation with him as we reached cruise altitude he avoided all my questions about his personal life and focused very intently upon the cockpit instruments and our operation of the aircraft. I asked him what he flew at American and he said, "These", but he asked incessant questions about how we did this or why we did that. I said, "This is a 767. They all operate the same way." But he said, "No, we operate them differently at American." That seemed very strange, because I knew better. I asked him about his background, and he admitted he was from Saudi Arabia. I asked him when he came over to this country and he said "A couple of years ago." to which I asked, "Are you a US citizen? He said no.
I also found that very strange because I know that in order to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating, the rating required to be an airline captain, one has to be a US citizen, and knowing the US airlines and their hiring processes as I do, I found it hard to believe that American Airlines would hire a non-US citizen who couldn't upgrade to captain when the time came. He said, "The rules have changed." which I also knew to be untrue. Besides, he was just, shall I say, "Creepy"? My copilot and I were both glad to get rid of this guy when we got to Atlanta.
There was nothing to indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was, because he had the documentation to prove who he was. In retrospect, we now know his uniform was stolen and his documents were forged. Information later came to light as to how this was done.
It seems that Mohammad Atta and his cronies had possibly stolen pilot uniforms and credentials from hotel rooms during the previous year.
We had many security alerts at the airline to watch out for our personal items in hotel rooms because these were mysteriously disappearing, but nobody knew why. Atta and his men used these to make dry runs prior to their actual hijackings on 9/11. How do I know? I called the FBI as soon as I saw his face on the TV that day, and the agent on the other end of the line took my information and told me I'd hear back from them when all the dust settled. A few weeks later I got a letter from the Bureau saying that my call was one of at least half a dozen calls that day from other pilots who had had the same experience. Flights were being selected at random to make test runs for accessing the cockpit. It seems we had all dodged bullets.
Over the years my attitude towards the War Against Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been known to be on the red neck, warmongering, rah-rah-shoot-em-up side of things. I've been known to lose my patience with those who say the war in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world is wrong, or who say we shouldn't become involved in that area of the world for political correctness reasons. Maybe it's because I dodged the bullet so closely back in 2001 that I feel this way. I have very little patience for political rhetoric or debate against this war because for a couple of hours back in July 2001, when I was engaged in conversation with a major perpetrator in this war, I came so close to being one of its victims that I can think in no other terms.

I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons I retired early from Delta last May, other than to protect my disappearing company retirement, was because it became harder and harder for me to go to work every day knowing that the war wasn't being taken seriously by the general public.
The worst offenders were the Liberal detractors to the present administration, and right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate. Nobody was taking this war seriously, and it seems everyone found fault with the US government rather than with those who attacked us. I found that ncomprehensible.
I also found myself being scrutinized by TSA screeners more and more every day when I went to work, and suffered the humiliating indignity of being identified about half the time for body searches in front of the general flying public who looked at the entire process as being ludicrous. "They don't even trust their own pilots!" accompanied by an unbelieving snicker was the usual response. Here I was, a retired USAF officer who had been entrusted to fly nuclear weapons around the world, who had been granted a Top Secret clearance and had been on missions over the course of 21 years in the military that I still can't talk about without fear of prosecution by the DoD, who was being scanned by a flunky TSA screener looking for any sign of a pen knife or nail file on my person.
It wasn't until six months after my retirement when my wife and I flew to Key West, FL last November that I was finally able to rid myself of the visage of Mohammad Atta sitting behind me on my jumpseat, watching my every action in the cockpit and willing to slit my throat at the slightest provocation. I missed being a headline by a mere 47 days, and could very well have been among the aircrew casualties on 9/11 had one of my flights on my monthly schedule been a transcontinental flight from Boston or New York to the west coast on the 11th of September. Very few people know that, while only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights. The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day, and my faith in a higher power is restored as a result.
I will see United 93 when I get the chance, and I will probably enjoy the movie for its realness and historical significance, but forgive me if I do not embrace the Muslim world for the rest of my life. The Islamic world is no friend of the West, and although we may be able to get along with their governments in the future, the stated goal of Islam is world conquest through Jihad and it is the extremist Jihadists, backed and funded by "friendly" Muslim governments, whom we have to fear the most. We must have a presence in the Middle East, and we must have friends in the Middle East, even if we have to fight wars to get them. Only someone who has dodged a bullet can fully appreciate that fact.
Best to all, Pat Gilmore

Editor's Note: For some reason which is beyond me, some people do not want to believe this. Perhaps they do not want to believe that Jihadist terrorism actually exists, because it someone doesn't believe it yet, they never will. Capt. Gilmore himself posted this comment, in our comments below, but I will put it here for all to see:

I assure you this letter is true. As to the fact that I wrote that a holder of an Airline Transport Pi lot&nb sp;rating (ATP) must be a US citizen, I admit that I was mistaken here. I had always assumed so, because that's what I had heard, so I looked up the requirements for an ATP just now.
There is nothing that says that US citizenship is required. Okay, I'll bite the bullet on that one. I received my ATP back in 1975 and now that I think of it I do not remember having to prove my citizenship.
However, the rest of the story is true. As for my airline career, I worked for Western Airlines (who merged with Delta in 1987), Jet America Airlines (who was bought by Alaska Airlines in 1988), and Delta Airlines, as well as a few "fly by night" cargo airlines during my furlough period from Western from 1981 - 1985. I also flew in Vietnam as a transport pilot and retired from the USAF Reserve in 1991 after the Gulf War. I have 21,500+ flight hours in T-41, T-37, T-38, C-141/L-300, CE-500, CV-440, MD-80/82, B-727, B-737, B-757, and B-767 aircraft, all logged between 1970 and 2005 when I retired from Delta.
Trust me, folks, this was real. I must admit I am quite surprised that my letter made it this far on the internet. The letter was nothing more than an innocent reply to a group of friends, one of whom sent me a similar letter from another Delta pilot who had been flying the morning of 9/11 and who had experienced the flying that day for himself. His letter had detailed his thoughts as he viewed the movie "United 93", and he also told in detail how he had been diverted to Knoxville when the FAA shut down the airspace. My friend had asked me if I had known of any other similar experiences, so I wrote him what I had encountered myself a few months before. This was my letter to him.
Another retired Delta captain contacted me yesterday after reading this blog and related an experience his wife had on a flight from Portland, OR to Atlanta in August 2001, just a week or so after my experience with Atta. She was riding on a company pass and seated in First Class. A person of Middle Eastern" descent had sought permission to sit on the cockpit jumpseat, but was denied access by the captain because he did not have an FAA Medical certificate. She said he ranted and raved because he couldn't ride the cockpit jump seat, even though there were three empty seats in First Class, which the captain offered him. What pilot in his right mind would refuse a Fir st Class seat over a cramped cockpit jump seat? He stormed off the aircraft and they left him at the gate. You see, mine wasn't the only experience leading up to 9/11.
Delta Airlines Corporate Security even contacted me a few days ago to ask if I had, indeed written this letter. I wrote them back that I had.
They were worried that someone was using my name without my knowledge. I assured them I was the author.
Keep the faith, and don't let the bastards get you down.
Pat Gilmore

paraclete answered on 11/13/06:

no Fred and probally won't bother unless it pops up on television

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 11/10/06 - What a coward!

v



v



v


v

v
v
V
V
V
V
V
V
V



(in other words, see previous question on board)

paraclete answered on 11/11/06:

I agree, that was a cowardly post

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 11/06/06 - Advertising vs. Ethics


Hello:

Im old, so I think new stuff stinks. Ceptin the new stuff I like.

There was a time when lawyers didnt advertise. I think it was better then. There was also a time when pharmaceutical companies didnt advertise. I also think it was better then. Additionally, there was a time when hard liquor companies didnt advertise. I think it was better then. Finally, there was a time when doctors didnt advertise. And yes, I think it was better then.

These industries didnt take advantage of advertising because they were forbidden to, no. They didnt advertise because of ethical concerns. I think they thought, that these particular services or products should be sought out by a patron, rather than sold to him.

Why did executives of these industries think that way? Were they right?

I think they thought, that if they advertise, there will be an explosion of their services and products much of it un-needed. I think they were right.

Wouldn't it be better if these industries chose, on their own, to revert back to ethical standards they once held? If they don't, do we, as a nation, have a right to decide how businesses like these, that have national implications, are run?

Is there a time when we should consider oil to be one of these industries?

excon

paraclete answered on 11/07/06:

Hey ex why not attack advertising where it is doing some damage, like fast food, SUV's, investment brokers.

we would all be better off without advertising, we might actually get to watch a movie on television without wall to wall ads every five minutes

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 11/07/06 - SHOULD I VOTE?


Since there's been so much corruption on all levels of government and corporations, why should I vote? This has been going on since the days of Al Capone. A virgin in politics will eventually turn into a gnome after he/she is in office a year or so. De-ja-vu anyone? Don't politicians have the ability to change their colors, their long sticky tongues, and their eyes which can be moved independently of each other? Doesn't this make a politician two-eyed? How about saying one thing and doing another? Why should I vote?

Your HONEST opinion, please!

HANK

paraclete answered on 11/07/06:

Of course you should vote, how else is democracy to operate. If everyone thought like this what sort of government would you get, one as apathetic as yourself

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 11/07/06 - I propose a trade

We will send all the Dipsy Chix to Australia for Beccy Cole .

Whilst Beccy is winding up her involvement as an ambassador for this year's Jamm for Genes, a cause she has thoroughly enjoyed being involved with, the song which she penned on her return to Australia after spending last Christmas and New Year in the Middle East entertaining the Australian troops and International Alllied Forces has now topped the Country Music Radio Charts. The video for this song also hit the #1 spot on the Country Music Channel recently and the song has received very strong airplay on radio across Australia.

"When I returned from the Middle East earlier this year, I felt so proud of the Australian troops I had met. I was extremely inspired by these hard working and enthusiastic young Australians and I wanted to write a song that would pay tribute to them. I'm delighted that Poster Girl has reached the number one position, I hope I've been able to spread the pride"

Poster Girl lyrics :

You wont listen to my songs anymore
You ripped my poster off the wall
Cause Im the singer that went to the war
You see no good in me at all

Well pardon me if I believe
I havent got it wrong
And before you turn your back on me
Ill sing you one more song

Cause I shook hands with a digger
on the wrong side of the world
With a wife at home who holds her breath
and brand new baby girl
And the digger fights for freedom
in a job that must be done
And I let go of his hand
so proud to be Australian

And if unlike me you feel no pride at all
Then go ahead and take me off your wall
cause I prefer to be a poster girl
on the wrong side of the world

And Im just the girl who sings the crazy songs
not qualified to sit and judge
Ive been right and I know Ive been wrong
But Im for peace and Im for love

And I admire the burning fire
that causes you to fight
I only wish the wrong side of the world
had the same right.

cause I listened to the wisdom
of the Aussie Brigadier
He spoke of widows and of orphans
and the need to dry their tears
And he leads the fight for freedom
in a job that must be done
And Ive never be more proud
to say that Im Australian

And if unlike me you feel no pride at all
Then go ahead and take me off your wall
cause I prefer to be a poster girl
on the wrong side of the world

Maybe Im naive to think we all could get along
But sir I read your words and all I ask
is hear my song

I shook hands with a digger
on the wrong side of the world
With a wife at home who holds her breath
and brand new baby girl
And the digger fights for freedom
in a job that must be done
And Ive never be more proud
to say that Im Australian

And if unlike me you feel no pride at all
Then go ahead and take me off your wall
cause I prefer to be a poster girl
on the wrong side of the world

Im so proud to be a poster girl
on the wrong side of the world



...................................................

you go girl !!!!


paraclete answered on 11/07/06:

Some people actually come to understand the difference in the approach between australians and americans. The australian first response is not to shoot anyone but to understand the country they are in belongs to someoneelse, so they establish good relationships with the locals and incidents are rare. But we don't want any more yanks here thanks, just as we don't want any more Muslim troublemakers

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 11/05/06 - 1999 WAR GAMES PREDICTED LOSS IN WAR ON IRAQ

By John Heilprin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON "The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Very troubling information in view of Bush's War of Adventurism on Iraq.

paraclete answered on 11/05/06:

Troubling but not suprising afterall it was a game and everyone looses on the first attempt

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 11/05/06 - Strange Diseases



Hello:

I wondered about the "disease" caused by Agent Orange. Of course, Agent Orange WAS a real poison. Gulf War syndrome caused me some concern. Now, there's this unknown disease that the rescuers from 9/11 are suffering from.

Do you think these are real diseases, or just ways to cash in?

excon

paraclete answered on 11/05/06:

Come on ex, you know there is no such thing as battle fatigue, gulf war syndrome, or any one of a dozen descriptions of that wimpish disease that besets all people who come into contact with trauma. They are just cowards on the make, right, of course right. Well ex, you are wrong if you think that, the military doesn't care if you get sick, just that you get the job done and the same goes for the Fire and Police Departments. If your ears ring forever or your gut wrenches at the thought of it, so what.

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 11/03/06 - what am I missing ?

The NY Slimes today is reporting about a gvt. web site that was set up in March that links to Iraqi documents that proved that Iraq had a nuclear program .

Some nuclear experts started to complain that the information in the documents could conceivably aid Tehran in their nuclear program . So knowing that the gvt. shut the site down.

Now by all accounts ,Iran is a matter of months away from finishing the development phase of their nuclear program .If Tehran could benefit from reading these Iraqi documents then doesn't it stand to reason that Iraq's program was further along than we thought ?

What is the Slimes saying ? The stuff that Bush lied about and really didn't exist is too dangerous to post ? After years of claiming Sadaam had no WMD, the Slimes now claims that posting the evidence that that Iraq was close to making an A bomb is and dangerous.

In their effort to discredit the Republicans in the final weekend before the election they have just refuted one of the most lingering talking points of the moonbats . Way to go NY Slimes . You just did a Kerry !!! Go sip on some more mint tea with Joe Wilson you morons !



paraclete answered on 11/03/06:

Yes, Yes, we know they had a nuclear program, every despot in the world has a nuclear program, we know they had WMD, probally insecticide but WMD never the less, but these are matters of history, so on a slow news day, they get trotted out again. Perhaps Iran wanted to know what has been common knowledge for fifty years, but there is a difference between knowledge and action as was so ably demonstrated by George Bush.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 11/02/06 - Sen Joe Biden's Plan

Labperson said that the Democrats have no plan to end the war in Iraq. What follows is Senator Joe Biden's Five Point Plan. (In addition, Senator Murtha has a plan).

Establish three regions in Iraq -- one each for Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims and Kurds -- all governed by a central Baghdad-based government.

Provide the Sunni region with a 20 percent share of oil revenues, giving the Sunnis more resources than they would otherwise have and strengthening their interest in a stable Iraq. Increased stability, in turn, would attract more foreign investment, he said, which also would benefit Shiites and Kurds.

Tie increased U.S. reconstruction assistance to the protection of rights for minorities and women.

Propose a regional security conference, convened by the United Nations, that would draw a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect its boundaries and work cooperatively.

Withdraw most U.S. troops by 2008, leaving a force of about 20,000 to help maintain security.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I don't necessarily support Biden's plan.

Have a lovely evening, Choux

paraclete answered on 11/02/06:

at least it's a plan and a plan of disengagement, the first constructive suggestion we have seen out of the US in a long time, now why hasn't Bush got advisers like this?

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 11/01/06 - Rastlin


Hello:

Lets say you wrestle on a tag team.

After he knocked the first opponent down, your partner went to the corner and kicked the other guy in the nuts. After he went down, your partner started parading around the ring yelling, mission accomplished.

Well, the other two guys recovered and pounced on your partner. Theyre beating the livin daylights out of him. In between punches, he manages to look in your direction, and your eyes meet. Slowly, as hes being beaten, he mouths the question, whats your plan?.

Me? I'd keep following his lead. You?

excon

paraclete answered on 11/01/06:

so your solution is to knock the two opponents down and have a parade.

Let's look at Bush in this context. He knocked down one opponent and had a parade. Just because he had had a succesful match the previous year (v Talaban+Al Qaeda) meant nothing, so what happened, the other tag came up from behind, kicked him in the groin and king hit him with a fore arm jolt to the back of the head. But let's ask ourselves who is the cowardly tag partner who hasn't had a go yet, could it be Cheney or could it be Maliki.

As to a plan, my plan would be to tag my partner and let him take some of the punishment after all a successful tag match relies on changing over quickly and often while kicking the .... out of your opponent

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 11/01/06 - 9/11


Hello:

Did 9/11 scare you personally? Do you fear for your safety, or your family's safety?

excon

paraclete answered on 11/01/06:

no ex it didn't cause concerns for my personal safety but I found it very disturbing in other ways. It was a pivotal point in history, a breaking in trust perhaps

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/31/06 - KERRY, THE FOOL!



Kerry laid an egg yesterday when he spoke about education. Bottom-line: He said something like if you're not educated, you'll end up in Iraq. Boy, that guy is a piece of work.

Any comment?

HANK

paraclete answered on 10/31/06:

That's the criteria for army recruitment is it, lack of education? no wonder americans have problems in Iraq

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/31/06 - Is there any GOOD news about progress in Iraq?

Watch this video.
http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

paraclete answered on 10/31/06:

don't need to watch your video to know there is little good news from Iraq just more death, destruction, mayhem

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/30/06 - Why the Democrats cannot be trusted to run our foreigh policy

The Democrats are loaded with people who have no clue about foreign policy .There are leaders of the party like Jack Murky Murtha who's brilliant plan for Iraq is to redeploy to Okinawa where our troops will be supposedly in a position to rapidly respond to events in the M.E.

Can he or someone like Harold Ford Jr really be trusted to make foreign policy decisions ? Harold Ford Jr. ;why single him out ?

Well because recent comments he has made have proven to me that he is unqualified to be a Senator .(the Aussies on the board will love this one )

Australia 'a nuclear threat'

By Geoff Elliott October 28, 2006 12:00am Article from: The Australian

Harold Ford, a handsome 36-year-old from Tennessee, has become one of the sensations of the mid-term elections in the US and a reason why Democrats are a good chance of winning back control of the US Congress for the first time in 12 years. But if Mr Ford, already a US congressman, wins his bid to become a more powerful senator, Australia had better watch out. Because according to Mr Ford, Australia has an interest in nuclear weapons and is part of the broader nuclear threat to the US.


He was speaking of the risk of nuclear proliferation which as we know has grown in the last decade. The article continues :

Yesterday he stumbled into gaffes on the North Korean nuclear tests and then mentioned Australia in the same breath as rogue nations wanting to go nuclear.......On North Korea, he claimed Pyongyang had conducted two nuclear tests, the first of which he said occurred on July 4. This confuses the ballistic tests Pyongyang carried out on that date with the single nuclear test earlier this month.

[He also erroneuosly mentions South Africa as desiring nukes .That was true during the apartheid regime but not since majority rule. He may be suprised to learn that they voluntarily gave up their program ;as did Australia ]

When the Aussie reporter attempted to get clarification Ford's handlers refused to allow it.

"You don't win us any votes," said his spokeswoman. And she might have added that it also means he is insulated from pesky questions probing his limitations on enunciating a foreign policy involving a trusted ally.

Now if asked ,Paraclete and Mathmacoat will tell you that Australia is and has been more than capable to build a nuke since the 1950s .Following World War II, Australian defence policy initiated joint nuclear weapons development with the United Kingdom. Australia provided uranium, land for weapons and rocket tests, and scientific and engineering expertise. Canberra was also heavily involved in the Blue Streak ballistic missile program. In 1955, a contract was signed with a British company to build the Hi-Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR). HIFAR was considered the first step toward the construction of larger reactors capable of producing substantial volumes of plutonium for nuclear weapons. However, Australia's nuclear ambitions were abandoned by the 1960s, and the country signed the NPT in 1970 (ratified in 1973).

Australia has 30% of the world known uranium deposits and one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world .I would shudder to ever think of them as a security threat to the US or a rogue nation.

Fortunately for us ,Australia is one of our best allies and someone who aspires to be a Senator of the United States should know that.Australians know that Australia since attaining independence in 1901 has always been America's absolute loyal ally .If I was an Australian I would not look kindly to an American who has aspirations of leadership placing an equivalency between them and a dispicable criminal rouge State run by Kim Jong Il . Australia is in fact the only nation post WWII that has actively supported the US in every major military initiative . It even sent troops to Vietnam (England never did ).Post 9-11 John Howard declared ""This is no time to be an 80% ally!" and he has backed up his words .It was Australia and India that assisted us in the Tsunami relief effort that rushed to the scene long before the UN managed to get boots on the ground . I guess that in Ford Jr's mind Australia is just another Bush poodle.

Certainly he should know before he speaks that Australia abandoned it's nuclear program long before it became fashionable to do so. Australia today does not even have a nuclear-power generating capacity. It has just one nuclear reactor, which is used exclusively for scientific research. (There is a growing debate in the country however over the need to build nukes for power generation .)

Certainly a gaffe such as what came out of the Senate-wanna be is something that the national press should've been quick to point out .They certainly would've seized the opportunity if President Bush had said something simular Did you see it on 'ABC World News' or 'Meet the Press 'or did Ford Jr. the 'dumbest man alive " during the Keith Olberman countdown ? I didn't.



paraclete answered on 10/30/06:

Let me put it this way Tom, what is about your nation that breeds these people with peculiar extremist views. Doesn't he already know that Australia is more an economic threat than a nuclear one, why Australians have already infiltrated and headed some of your iconic organisations. I speak of course of Fox, Ford and so on. Doesn't this dude know you may not have had atomic weapons without the Australian ingenuity of Oppenheimer. You are lucky we are a peaceful people who recognise that democracy has an important role.

I think it is logical that Australia will build nuclear reactors and even enrichment technology, if only to remove the environmental pariah tag it will have because of it's coal industry and the need to stop nuclear proliferation.

We only do things here because it's necessary, not just because we can

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/25/06 - Early Happy Halloween

Got a Blue Mountain e-card in the mail . Thought you would enjoy it .


The Flasher

paraclete answered on 10/25/06:

yes I be frightened too, (if I were you)

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/24/06 - Are we in trouble???


Hello wingers:

Karl Rove is very good at politics, because he knows how to reduce politics down to a few words, and then he hammers them. It works.

However, Rove is not very good at governing, because you cant reduce governing down to a few words like stay the course, or cut and run. It doesnt work.

Iraq is a failure. Even OReilly said it last night. He used the word lost. Its, lab, Wolverine, tom, you guys know it too. Yes, we shouldnt have gone in. But, once we were there, we could have won. We absolutely could have.

Now, all those terrible things that you said would happen if we leave Iraq, are gonna happen because we are gonna leave Iraq.

Did the failure happen because of the media? Or did it happen because the war wasnt prosecuted properly? Who is to blame - the NY Times, or Bush?

excon

paraclete answered on 10/24/06:

George W Bush, he reflects that other George of whom it is said "all the Kings horses.............

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee2 asked on 10/24/06 - Is this why we're in Iraq?

A good reason?

or, if the link doesn't work --

http://alternet.org/story/43045/

paraclete answered on 10/24/06:

I have said all along Iraq was about oil, there is nothing new here just business as usual for oil man George Bush

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/21/06 - Iraqi Casualities

Oct. 20 The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the countrys medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable.

The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society.

Concern over the numbers of civilians who have died in Iraq has risen sharply at a time when organized attacks by insurgents are swelling the numbers of victims and when a new report from a team of Iraqi and American researchers shows that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion.

Mr. Qazi, a former Pakistani diplomat, says that the order to let the prime ministers office take over the release of the numbers came down a day after a United Nations report for July and August showed a serious upward spike in the number of dead and wounded. The leader of the Health Ministry in Iraq appealed to be allowed to continue supplying the figures to the United Nations but was turned down according to a subsequent letter from the prime ministers office, Mr. Qazis cable said.

The existence of the cable was reported Friday by The Washington Post.

Feisal al-Istrabadi, Iraqs deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said he had not seen the cable and therefore could not comment on its specifics. But what I can say is what the prime minister is aiming for is to have one voice reflecting accurate information about the statistics of those who are dying every day, he said. So, the concern was that the Ministry of Health, which has had accurate figures to date, be the official source of the information.

It is trying to avoid a situation where different agencies, which may have different perspectives, put out sets of numbers that are, in fact, not as accurate as they should be.

The most recent United Nations report, published in September, showed that 3,590 people were killed in July and 3,009 in August in violence across the country. Compiled by statistics from Baghdads central morgue and from hospitals and morgues countrywide, the report posited an average death rate of 97 people per day.

The United Nations reports have been cited by independent researchers as reliable indicators of the incidence of violence in Iraq and were not disputed by the Iraqi government until the September report that showed sharp rises in the figures.

In his cable, Mr. Qazi described a process by which his office tried to compile the most reliable statistics.

He said that initially his office had been able to overcome Iraqi government reluctance to release figures by obtaining statistics from the Health Ministrys Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad.

The institute records the number of unidentified civilians killed violently whose bodies are taken to the morgue in Baghdad, but not those killed violently whose bodies are taken to hospitals and later handed over to families for burial. Therefore, Mr. Qazi said, the institutes figures represented only an indicator, albeit imperfect, of the growing number of civilian victims in the capital.

To come up with a more thorough account, Mr. Qazi said, the United Nations combined the institutes findings with figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health, which records those killed or wounded as a result of violence from hospitals across almost all parts of the country.

Mr. Qazi noted that the figures may have contributed to an increased international awareness regarding the severe consequences that the conflict in Iraq is having on civilians.

The cable said that following the release of the last United Nations human rights report on Sept. 20, the prime ministers office expressed doubts about its accuracy.

The next day, the Ministry of Health was told that it should no longer release its figures but instead channel them through the prime ministers office. Mr. Qazi said he learned of this on Oct. 12.

Mr. Qazi said the United Nations would continue to seek figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health and use our contacts to see what measure of verification may be possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

The body count is meaningless anyway unless it is the bodies of insurgents then we could have some statistics such as how many US troops die for each insurgent killed. I think that would make very interesting reading

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/21/06 - Iraqi Casualities

Oct. 20 The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the countrys medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable.

The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society.

Concern over the numbers of civilians who have died in Iraq has risen sharply at a time when organized attacks by insurgents are swelling the numbers of victims and when a new report from a team of Iraqi and American researchers shows that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion.

Mr. Qazi, a former Pakistani diplomat, says that the order to let the prime ministers office take over the release of the numbers came down a day after a United Nations report for July and August showed a serious upward spike in the number of dead and wounded. The leader of the Health Ministry in Iraq appealed to be allowed to continue supplying the figures to the United Nations but was turned down according to a subsequent letter from the prime ministers office, Mr. Qazis cable said.

The existence of the cable was reported Friday by The Washington Post.

Feisal al-Istrabadi, Iraqs deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said he had not seen the cable and therefore could not comment on its specifics. But what I can say is what the prime minister is aiming for is to have one voice reflecting accurate information about the statistics of those who are dying every day, he said. So, the concern was that the Ministry of Health, which has had accurate figures to date, be the official source of the information.

It is trying to avoid a situation where different agencies, which may have different perspectives, put out sets of numbers that are, in fact, not as accurate as they should be.

The most recent United Nations report, published in September, showed that 3,590 people were killed in July and 3,009 in August in violence across the country. Compiled by statistics from Baghdads central morgue and from hospitals and morgues countrywide, the report posited an average death rate of 97 people per day.

The United Nations reports have been cited by independent researchers as reliable indicators of the incidence of violence in Iraq and were not disputed by the Iraqi government until the September report that showed sharp rises in the figures.

In his cable, Mr. Qazi described a process by which his office tried to compile the most reliable statistics.

He said that initially his office had been able to overcome Iraqi government reluctance to release figures by obtaining statistics from the Health Ministrys Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad.

The institute records the number of unidentified civilians killed violently whose bodies are taken to the morgue in Baghdad, but not those killed violently whose bodies are taken to hospitals and later handed over to families for burial. Therefore, Mr. Qazi said, the institutes figures represented only an indicator, albeit imperfect, of the growing number of civilian victims in the capital.

To come up with a more thorough account, Mr. Qazi said, the United Nations combined the institutes findings with figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health, which records those killed or wounded as a result of violence from hospitals across almost all parts of the country.

Mr. Qazi noted that the figures may have contributed to an increased international awareness regarding the severe consequences that the conflict in Iraq is having on civilians.

The cable said that following the release of the last United Nations human rights report on Sept. 20, the prime ministers office expressed doubts about its accuracy.

The next day, the Ministry of Health was told that it should no longer release its figures but instead channel them through the prime ministers office. Mr. Qazi said he learned of this on Oct. 12.

Mr. Qazi said the United Nations would continue to seek figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health and use our contacts to see what measure of verification may be possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

The body count is meaningless anyway unless it is the bodies of insurgents then we could have some statistics such as how many US troops die for each insurgent killed. I think that would make very interesting reading

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
captainoutrageous asked on 10/22/06 - Schroeder: Bush's faith raised suspicion

By MELISSA EDDY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 21, 7:06 PM ET

BERLIN - Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose second term was marked by vehement opposition to the war in Iraq, described in an advance copy of his memoirs how he was suspicious of President Bush's constant references to his Christian faith.

In an excerpt of his book, "Decisions: My Life in Politics" published in the German weekly Der Spiegel Saturday, Schroeder discusses the key political choices that marked his seven-year term in office, including the decision to call early elections and his split with Bush over the Iraq war.

"I am anything but anti-American," Schroeder told Spiegel in an interview to accompany the excerpt of the more than 500-page book that goes on sale Thursday.

In it Schroeder, who led the Social Democrats to power in 1998, recalls the tears in his eyes as he watched television footage of people jumping from the burning World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

He knew Germany would have to react.

"It was important to me that Germany fulfill its requirements as an ally" of the U.S., he wrote. "It was also fully clear to me that this could also mean the German army's participation in an American military mission."

Several months later, during Bush's 2002 visit to Berlin, Schroeder wrote he was surprised at what he described as Bush's "exceptionally mild" speech to the German parliament.

While meetings with Bush at that time were friendly, Schroeder said he could not reconcile himself with the feeling that religion was the driving force behind many of Bush's political decisions.

"What bothered me, and in a certain way made me suspicious despite the relaxed atmosphere, was again and again in our discussions how much this president described himself as 'God-fearing,'" Schroeder wrote, adding he is a firm believer in the separation of church and state.

Schroeder accused some elements in U.S. as being hypocritical when it comes to secularism in government.

"We rightly criticize that in most Islamic states, the role of religion for society and the character of the rule of law are not clearly separated," Schroeder wrote. "But we fail to recognize that in the USA, the Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible have similar tendencies."

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

There is nothing wrong with Bush making his Faith known but when he tells us he is on a mission from God, the word meglomaniac comes to mind

captainoutrageous rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/22/06 - Cut & Run


Hello Wrongwingers:

I finally learned what stay the course means. It means cut and run. I didn't know that. Did you?

excon

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

no ex it means keep running around in circles doing the same thing over and over again.

You know they say it is madness to keep doing the same things and expecting things to change when they don't. Could George be mad, do you think?

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/22/06 - TONY BLAIR:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American
Sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime
Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by
One of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he
Said:

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many
want in... and how many want out." Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

HANK

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

Hank, You should know better and so should Blair, Soldiers of every nation have died for their country but that doesn't put them on a par with Jesus Christ

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/22/06 - greetings from an endless war guy


I'm an endless war guy because I oppose strongly the probable recomendations of the James Baker ( a leading exponent of the realpolitik view, thoroughly discredited in the post-9/11 world, that the price of international stability is the appeasement of Middle Eastern dictators )and Lee Hamilton(didn't he do enough damage in the 9-11 Commission ?) "bipartisan Commission " to enlist the aid of Iran and Syria in solving the problems in Iraq.Baker has already met with representatives the Syrian government and Iranian ambassador to discuss the future of Iraq. This has reinforced my belief that his groups report instead of proposing genuinely new solutions to the Middle East, will recommend the old realist tack of holding direct talks with Americas declared enemies.

In the new issue of the Weekly Standard Michael Rubin previews the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton Commission on American policy toward Iraq. Rubin suggests that our current difficulties in Iraq emanate from Iran and that the commission's anticipated recommendations will work to Iran's advantage.

Baker and Hamilton gerrymandered these advisory panels to ratify predetermined recommendations. While bipartisan, the groups are anything but representative of the policy debate. I personally withdrew from an expert working group after concluding that I was meant to contribute token diversity rather than my substantive views.

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy. Raad Alkadiri, for example, has repeatedly defined U.S. motivation for Iraq's liberation as a grab for oil. Raymond Close, listed on the Iraq Study Group's website as a "freelance analyst," is actually a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which, in July 2003, called for Vice President Dick Cheney's resignation for an alleged conspiracy to distort intelligence, which they said had been uncovered by none other than Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The following summer, Close posited that "Bush and the neocons" had fabricated the charge "that the evil Iranian mullahs inspired and instigated the radical Shia Islamist insurgency." To Close, the problem was not Iranian training and supply of money and sophisticated explosives to terrorists, but rather neoconservatism.

Other experts include a plaintiff in the January 17, 2006, lawsuit against the National Security Agency for its no-warrant wiretap program and a think-tank analyst who had not traveled beyond the Green Zone on her only trip to Iraq in September 2003, but nonetheless demonstrated her open mind by declaring the Iraq endeavor a failure in an interview with a German magazine just days before the commission's inauguration.

Baker placed Chas Freeman, his former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, on the panel, despite Freeman's assertion, in the antiwar documentary Uncovered: The War in Iraq, that the Bush administration had fabricated its justifications for war. Why seek advice from an area specialist who has clearly crossed the line from analysis to conspiracy?


Rubin anticipates the commission recommending a course of action including "engagement with Iran," a course of action that resembles what Paul refers as "a double defeat."Outsourcing the problem to our enemies would represent a double defeat -- we'd lose in Iraq and strengthen Iran immeasurably.

paraclete answered on 10/22/06:

You fellows are so obseceesed with victory any outcome but your agenda is defeat. Why not see it from an Iraqi perspective, Saddam is gone, leave and let them get one with it.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 10/19/06 - Help For NY's Bravest, Finest and Best

Hello all,

As of you know, many of the cops, firefighters, rescue workers and construction crews who worked their hearts out to save lives on 9-11 and in the days that followed are now suffering from various ailments. You may also know that the city and state governments are giving these brave people, who stepped up under fire and under the most stressful conditions, nothing but trouble in getting medical benefits. They are letting down these brave men and women who put it all on the line for us.

This is, in my opinion, the worst kind of betrayal that the government can commit. Turning their backs on our men and women in and out of uniform who gave their lives to those in need is disgusting. And worse, it will mean that next time a disaster hits, those who might have stepped up to help will think twice. Honor and duty drive men and women into uniform, but keeping faith with each other and having the government keep faith with them is what KEEPS them in uniform and what keeps them going when the crap hits the fan. Now the government is breaking that faith, and the result is going to be disasterous.

So here's my idea: if the government won't keep faith with these brave men and women, then it is up to US to do so. On Monday, this nation's 300,000,000th citizen was born (there's an argument as to which of 3 babies in NY was the milestone-setter). My idea is that if each American citizen were to place $1 into a fund for these brave men and women, we could gather $300,000,000 to help those suffering from post-911 ailments. Imagine that... just $1 per person could cover all the medical expenses for all those who stepped up when America was in need. These guys stepped up for us, it's time that we step up for THEM. In this way, at little cost to ourselves, we can properly take care of and keep faith with our 9-11 heroes who are in need today. They were there for us, now its time for us to step up for them.

I have absolutely no idea how to start a not-for-profit fund of this type. But I would propose that 100% of all money collected be used for benefits, and any overhead associated with this endevour should be covered separately.

Could this work? How would we go about it? We need to keep faith with those who kept the faith for us when we were in need. Anything less is a complete failure of the moral fiber of this great nation.

If anyone has another idea, please feel free to share it.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 10/20/06:

Good Idea Elliot, you need to start with PR and look to interest on that money you collect to meet expenses, there will be a gap between the time funds are recieved and when they are dispensed and you sould with wise investment be able to gain significant revenue from the gap, but think about finding volunteers to help with the work to keep costs down and find a business who will support your efforts, go front up the likes of Gates and Trump, it could even be a good project for the apprentices.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/19/06 - REPUBLICANS MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR INCOMPETENCE

"The Iraq war is one of the greatest blunders in American history. The American people already know that the human and financial cost of the war has been far too great. Nearly 2,800 Americans have been killed and we are spending nearly $250 million on each day on the war in Iraq.

Robert Greenwald's new film, Iraq for Sale, shows how the Bush Administration has been outsourcing this war to corporate America - and how that effort has been mismanaged. His film is a convincing indictment of the Administration's decision to give multi-billion dollar sweetheart deals that have lined contractor's pockets while failing to meet the basic needs of our soldiers. All Americans should be asking how the Bush Administration could have allowed contractors to fail to provide our soldiers with safe food and drinking water.

Greenwald's film adds further evidence of the Bush administration's incompetence from the start of this war and continuing to this day. We now know that they misled the American people about the pre-war intelligence and ignored the warnings from the State Department and others that Iraq was not the threat they claimed it to be. There was no smoking gun to link Iraq to the attacks on September 11th, no convincing link to Al Qaeda, and no compelling evidence that Iraq was close to building a nuclear bomb.

The American people know that the Bush Administration has been dangerously incompetent in the conduct of the war. They sent far too few troops into Iraq, contrary to the recommendations of key military leaders, and spread them far too thin. Without sufficient troops, we were unable to stop the looting or protect the stores of enemy munitions.

They sent the troops into battle year after year without adequate armor to protect them against roadside bombs made from the same explosives that we failed to protect, which have been the leading cause of death of our brave soldiers. They disbanded the Iraqi military, and then waited a year to begin training a new security force.

Sadly, the Republicans in Congress have been complicit in this incompetence and mismanagement. They have failed to exercise their oversight responsibilities and demand better for our men and women in uniform. The Republicans must be held accountable for their incompetence. But in November, the American people have a chance to make a change and put an end to these back-room deals. Greenwald's film is a poignant reminder of why this election is so important and why America needs a new course and a new direction in Iraq". Senator Ted Kennedy DMass

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 10/19/06:

what's this, a revolution? Holding a politician accountable. Now that's an idea with much merit but little hope of success

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/19/06 - Rules vs People


Hello:

I finally figured out WHY people join one party or the other. I get, that all of us want pretty much the same thing.

However, Republicans think the problems are caused because we havent written the rules exactly right, and the Democrats think the problems arent the rules, but whether people will obey them.

Thats why people like the Wolverine who, even though he disagrees with a law, will obey it absolutely, because its written. Then there are guys like me, who question the morality of the law, and make decisions to obey or not, based on that.

Neither position works for us as a country.

I had a business partner who was designing a job for an underling. As designed, the job had no redeeming qualities, and couldnt produce any satisfaction for the worker. I said, if the job isnt satisfying, well have trouble filling it. My partner said, whats that got to do with it? Heres the job. Heres the pay. Do it. He's a Republican.

Republicans think that all they have to do is write a law, and their work is done. People WILL obey, because they wrote it. Democrats worry so much about how a law will be perceived that they dont write laws that matter.

Maybe the solution is, that we have enough laws right now, and they should take a vacation.

excon

paraclete answered on 10/19/06:

ex this problem has been long observed in business and the answer is empowerment. That's not a word politicians like to hear because there is no political quodos when you arn't part of the solution of the problem, particularly when the problem is solved before you know there is a problem.

What you don't need is more law, you need to empower the people to fulfill the law. How does this work. Well instead of pork barrelling local projects, you empower the local government to fix the problem within a budget without any other approvals. You need a new dam, build it, a new highway, build it, a new bridge, build it. The bureauracrats hate it, the politicians are in dismay but it's power to the people. The Auditors shout; accountability, the accountants; cost, the lawyers; liability, the political opponents; waste but in the end the waste of the political process is eliminated and things are done more economically and much more democratically

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/19/06 - The Darkest of day's are upon us.


Hello rightless people:

To continue regarding our discussion about your rights that were stolen from you like, a thief in the night. Unbelievably, Im the only one who noticed.

You say that the recent tribunal law only applies to aliens, that it DOESNT apply to Americans. To that, I say, BUNK!

As it stands now, the president or his secretary of defense or their designates, can declare YOU to be an enemy combatant, and wisk you off to some CIA prison in Budapest.

Yes, you are an American held illegally. But, without the right to challenge your imprisonment (habeas corpus), who are you gonna complain to?

As it stands NOW, we are at the mercy of the president. I know, I know, you say we can trust him. To that, I say BUNK!

Previous to the dark day that just passed, we didnt HAVE to trust him. We didnt remain free because hes a benevolent guy. We remained free because we HAD rights. Now we dont!

Tell me Im wrong. But I am NOT.

excon

paraclete answered on 10/19/06:

ah the Illusion of freedom and democracy

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 10/17/06 - I'm BAAAAAaaaaaack!!!

Been on vacation for the past 10 days. Now I come back, and look at how the fecal matter has connected with the rotary air impellers. (Translation: "how the $h!t has hit the fan".)

1) Harry Reid, the guy who was all over the MSM when the Abramoff story broke turns out to be one of the better examples of political corruption after all. How many different "questionable" items have come to light now about his political finances? 10? 12? I've lost count.

2) Treason has become punishable by 2 1/2 years in prison. I've seen J-walkers get more time than Lynne Stewart will serve. And the wench is actually going to appeal her sentence to try to get her law-license back. So to all who say that terrorism has to be handled by the criminal-justice system rather than the military system, I give you Lynne Stewart. Screw that: just line the scumbags up against a wall, tie electrodes to their privates, and throw the switch. Then when you have drained then of all the information they have, shoot them behind the ear and bury them in unmarked graves. Because the criminal-justice system is clearly not designed to deal with terrorists.

3) It turns out that Bush was right again... when he named the Axis of Evil, he was right on the money. The biggest threats to Democracy in 2002 were indeed Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

For those who argue that Bush invaded the "wrong country at the wrong time", and that by eliminating the Hussein regime we "empowered" Iran, I say BS. If we had instead invaded Iran and eliminated the Iranian Mullocracy, those same people would be arguing that Saddam was the real threat, and we had empowered Iraq. And if we had instead invaded North Korea, people would have argued that we were ignoring the "real" threats of Iran and Iraq and "empowering" South Korea. Well guess what: no matter what we had done, a power vacuum would have developed, and SOMEONE would have stepped up to fill that vacuum just as Ahmadinejad has done in Iran. That is the nature of power... whoever is able to do so grabs as much as he is able, and Ahmadinejad has just been the most vocal grabber to date in the Middle East, and Kim Jong Il has been the power-grabbing guy in Asia. It could just as easily have been any other leader. And so the argument that "Bush's ineptness and lack of forward-thinking destabilized the region" is pure BS. The region is perpetually unstable, power-grabs are the norm, and the only way to deal with them is to have the stronger military and the cojones to use it. Ahmadinejad and Jong Il are betting that the American people don't have the cojones. And if the Dems win Congress, they'll be right.

4) The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit several new highs, the unemployment rate hit new lows, and the economy is chugging along quite comfortably. The media has completely ignored this. They have played up the national debt, but they've ignored every other economic indicator in existence. Again. Or is that "still"?

5) The MSM has played up the Foley-Page scandal, but has essentially ignored the Harry Reid scandals (plural). They have called for everyone and their best friend who had any connection to Foley in the past 20 years to be strung up by their testicles. This is the same MSM that has repeatedly defended Clinton fo having sex with an underage intern in the Oval Office.

This is also the same MSM that has largly ignored the fact that former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) who died this weekend was a child molestor who actually had sex with several Pages while in office (as opposed to just e-mailing and IMing them about sex). They lionized him as a gay-rights activist who was Congress' first openly gay member, but ignored the fact that he lured underage Congressional Pages into having sex with him.

Yeah, I'm back and better than ever... and more pissed off at the stupidity and hypocracy of the left than ever before.

Alright, libs... come and get some.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 10/18/06:

what can we expect from you then, a fresh perspective I hope.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 10/18/06 - Humanitarian war?

Is 'humanitarian war' ever justified?

Is it just a myth?

In The Doctrine of Humanitarian War, Karel Glastra van Loon and Jan Marijnissen argue that in "rightful wars" such as Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and presumably Iraq:

    The negative consequences of these "rightful wars" threaten to become bigger than the positive effects that provided the pretext for action in the first place. The international legal order has become international disorder.


In a Washington Post article, Eric A. Posner argues:

    The problem with humanitarian intervention is not only that the costs are usually too high, but it turns out that the benefits usually are low.


What cost is too high? How do we know we've reached it? If a "humanitarian war" provides us with no benefit should it be undertaken, or is there ever a time when someone just has to try and do what's right regardless of the consequences?

Van Loon and Marijnissen close with:

    Militarism is not the solution, but it is one of the main reasons for growing insecurity in the world. As long as this truth is denied, real solutions will stay hidden beyond the horizon.


What are the "real solutions?"

paraclete answered on 10/18/06:

There is no such thing as as a humanitarian war, the concepts of being hunamitarian and war are diametrically opposed. What you are really saying is the end justifies the means, such as a war should be fought to liberate the staving people of North Korea or a war should be fought to liberate the religiously oppressed people of Iran. Violence begets violence.

If the people of North Korea or Iran don't see that their only way out is to rise up and overthrow their oppressors they will remain as they are. The people of the Phillipines achieve it and so can others.

For the US and others to suggest they should intervene militarily is adverturist, look at the outcome in Somalia, did it ultimately solve anything?

If you want to fight a humanitarian war, do it with food aid, do it with medical aid, do it with compassion, not guns

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/17/06 - Enemy Combatant


Hello Fascists:

How long do you think it will take Bush to declare drug users enemy combatants? I say less than 2 years.

excon

paraclete answered on 10/17/06:

hey dude drug users arn't combatants, they can barely stand, but if you were to declare drug pushers and the thugs that protect them enemy combatants and keep them in a hell hole with no possibility of release, it might have some impact, but don't expect them to be pursued with any more success that that other illegal combatant, Osama bin Laden

But what George could do is iniatiate another faith based initiative, divert funds away from existing porgrams to his new programs and actually take some initiatives against drugs, like treatment clinics, rehabilitation centres, training centres, all administered by faith based organisations

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/17/06 - CHENEY-Iraq Going Remarkably Well

"Rush Limbaugh interviewed Vice President Cheney on his show today. At one point, Limbaugh asked Cheney to respond to growing frustration over U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Cheney acknowledged there is a natural level of concern out there because fighting didnt end instantaneously. (Next month, the war will have lasted longer than U.S. fighting in World War II.) Cheney then pointed to various news items to paint a positive picture of conditions in Iraq and concluded, If you look at the general overall situation, theyre doing **remarkably well**.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Captain of Hindenberg" to mooring staff, "Things are going **remarkably well**"!!

Napoleon at Waterloo, "Things are going "remarkably well"!!

Nixon to Pat while walking to the helicopter, "Things are going **remarkably well**"!!!




How are things going in your life?? :D

paraclete answered on 10/17/06:

Yes they are doing "remarkably well" not to get killed in greater numbers, Military and civilian deaths have risen to new highs this month

as to your question remarkably well

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/17/06 - Cindy Sheehad...

...is on a list of Nobel Peace Prize nominees(self proclaimed ..I don't know if she is or not ...but she says she is and is actively campaigning for the prize ). Want to help her ? Sign this petition .


When considering her qualifications I'm sure this passage from her book 'Peace Mom' will be the slam dunk that pushes here nomination over the top :

I often contemplate the "baby Hitler scenario" when I think of George Bush. It's the time-machine fantasy. If I had a time-machine (it always looks like H.G. Wells's invention), and if I rode in it back to the time George Bush was a baby, could I kill him .....

She can join the ranks of previous prize winners like Yassar Arafat .

paraclete answered on 10/17/06:

very juvinile of you Tom, and how will you sign?

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 10/16/06 - It's been confirmed...

...Bush is inspired by Satan.

    According to the Iranian media, Mr Ahmadinejad said he had inspirational links to God, and went on to say that if you were a true believer, God would show you miracles.

    Then the Iranian president said Mr Bush was similar to him.

    According to Mr Ahmadinejad, the US president also receives inspiration - but it is from Satan.

    He repeated: "Satan inspires Mr Bush."


First Chavez, now Ahmedinajad - what will those poor suckers at TheocracyWatch do now that these world 'leaders' have set the record straight?

paraclete answered on 10/16/06:

one would like to think Bush was inspired in any particular, but the sad result is he is not. Face it, he is a puppet of the system with others pulling the strings. As to those other raving ratbags mascarading as international leaders, they are as much inspired by Satan as Bush. I have no doubt both Chavez and Ahmadinejad are inspired by Satan, only Satan would want a war that has killed hundreds of thousands

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/14/06 - I'm a criminal, all right!!


Hello Law Abiding Citizens:

I'm not one. I'm a felonious poker player. Should I be ashamed??? Maybe if I killed somebody.... but for placing a bet???? Nahhh. There must be something wrong with me..

Maybe that's why people kill other people a lot more now, than they ever did. Making stupid laws demean the not so stupid laws....

excon (forever)

paraclete answered on 10/14/06:

look ex you know the rules, stop doing it. It's for the greater good, gambling is a serious social problem, so don't put money in the hands of international preditors

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
nikki6 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/13/06 - NATIONAL DEBT ANSWER:



Collapse the multiple exchange rate into three rates. Institute a 'crawling peg' system of four monthly devaluations, different in each segment to achieve exchange rate unification.

(I couldn't make a clarification to the Board. So, I had to answer it this way)

paraclete answered on 10/13/06:

sorry Hank you have lost me, is this "higher" finance or another exploration of the theories of your book.

The exchange rate is already pegged to inflation, the faster the rate of inflation the lower the value of the currency, this is determined by external factors and any attempt to manipulate it is doomed to failure

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 10/12/06 - Global 'warning' no. 2

California AG Puts Climate Skeptics on Trial

By Steven Milloy
August 1, 2006

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is apparently trying to position California as a leader in the movement to silence scientific debate.

The State of California has filed a request in federal court to force auto makers to disclose all documents and communications between the companies and the so-called climate skeptics. California accuses the climate skeptics of playing a major role in spreading disinformation about global warming.

The underlying litigation is a lawsuit by General Motors, DaimlerChrysler Corp., and the Association of Automobile Manufacturers against the state of California challenging the states greenhouse gas emissions limits for new cars, light-duty trucks and sports utility vehicles (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep Inc. v. Catherine Witherspoon, No. 04-6663).

California has been joined in the lawsuit by environmental activist groups including, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense.

In a pre-trial discovery motion, California and the environmental groups asked for:

    All DOCUMENTS relating to both GLOBAL WARMING and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to:

    1. All DOCUMENTS relating to any communications between YOU and these individuals, and

    2. All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR relationship (or the relationship of any automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturers) with any of them, including but not limited to payments directly or indirectly from YOU or any other automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturer to any of them.


The state then goes on to quote from Ross Gelbspans book entitled, The Heat Is On:

    Ever since climate change took center stage at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, together with Sherwood Idso, S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, and a few other high-profile greenhouse skeptics have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. They have made frequent pronouncements on radio and television programs, including a number of appearances by some of them on the Rush Limbaugh show; their interviews, columns, and letters have appeared in newspapers ranging from local weeklies to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In the process they have helped create a broad public belief that the question of climate change is hopelessly mired in unknowns.

    The tiny group of dissenting scientists have been given prominent public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community on the issue of global warming. They have used this platform to pound widely amplified drumbeats of doubt about climate change. These doubts are repeated by virtually every climate-related story in every news-papers and every TV and radio news outlet in the country.

    By keeping the discussion focused on whether there really is a problem, these dozen or so dissidentscontradicting the consensus view held by 2,500 of the worlds top climate scientistshave until now prevented discussion about how to address the problem.


California then asserts that:

    As set forth above, Defendants are entitled to review the documents most likely to contain internal dissent at the manufacturers and the most likely such documents are those dealing with the tactics of entities like the GCC and individuals like the climate skeptics.


The automakers responded by stating that:

    The so-called climate skeptics are not on trial in this case, and the court should resist defendants attempt to put them on trial. Nor does this case require the court definitively to resolve questions regarding GLOBAL WARMING writ large. At most, as Plaintiffs have stated before and will state again at the risk of redundancy, the only relevant issue in this case with respect to global warming is the much narrower issue of what impact, if any, the A.B. 1493 Regulations will have on global warming. To adjudicate this issue, the court will need to assess the greenhouse gas reductions that the A.B. 1493 Regulations will cause and then compare these reductions to the proffered experts view about how much this level of reduction will affect the global climate. In the context of this battle-of-experts, Defendants attempt to plumb the plaintiffs files for documents regarding Defendants hit-list of climate skeptics is beside the point.


There are at least three points to make here.

First, California and the global warming lobby doesnt like what the skeptics have to say and, by virtue of this sort of intimidation, is apparently out not only to silence the skeptics but to make sure that no one dare support the skeptics lest supporters be implicated as aiding and abetting thought-crimes against California-approved, politically-correct global warming science.

Next, I wonder whether Attorney General Lockyer disclosed to the judge that Gelbspan is a rather dubious character for example, he misrepresented himself as a Pulitizer Prize winner on the jacket of his book, entitled The Heat Is On. Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer, nor was he ever even nominated. Click for more on Gelbspan

Finally, AG Lockyer has a track record of trying to silence scientific debate. In 2001, for example, the pro-gun control Lockyer gagged California state experts who opposed Lockyers dubious plans for pre-sale ballistics fingerprinting.

The so-called climate skeptics are all that stand between junk science-based global warming alarmism and higher energy prices, reduced economic growth and increased Green political power.

Support your favorite skeptic or prepare for the consequences.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well then, let's just get algore on the stand, too.



Still think Bush is taking your rights away? The left is trying their darndest to silence scientific debate. Who needs real science when you have preconceptual science?

Go ahead, vote for a liberal, see what you get.

paraclete answered on 10/12/06:

what is it about that society over there that it is so adversarial. The climate change debate will not be helped by putting people on trial. Evidence is evidence and lawyers are entitled to make what discovery they will, that's their job. However we should not take inferences from this process, niether should we have another monkey show trial so lawyers can become richer

The science is clear here, things are happening that have not been observed before. The why is being debated and vested interests are protecting themselves as they always do. The oil industry knows it is already on borrowed time,the coal industry too, the only question there is how long, but even if it's a hundred years, the time to change is now. Nuclear energy has proven to be effective in powering large ships, why is there any vessel left in the world that is not nuclear powered? The same with ethanol, why is there any car not using ethanol fuel? you want to revolutioise agriculture in third world countries, there is a simple answer, grow fuel, and it's cheaper than oil in the long run.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/12/06 - Global Warming alert

Via National Weather Service

Earliest Measurable Snowfall in Chicago and DeKalbs History PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO/ROMEOVILLE IL 1030 AM CDT THU OCT 12 2006

...EARLY SNOWFALL HISTORY IN ROCKFORD AND CHICAGO AND DEKALB...

0.3 INCHES OF SNOW HAS FALLEN AT CHICAGO O`HARE THIS MORNING...BREAKING THE RECORD OF THE EARLIEST MEASURABLE SNOWFALL IN CHICAGO`S HISTORY DATING BACK TO 1871. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS OCTOBER 18TH IN 1972 AND 1989 WHEN 0.2 AND 0.7 INCHES FELL.

ALSO...0.5 INCHES OF SNOW FELL IN DEKALB WHICH...DATING BACK TO 1895...IS THE RECORD FOR THE EARLIEST MEASURABLE SNOWFALL IN ITS HISTORY.

TODAY IS THE RECORD FOR THE EARLIEST MEASURABLE SNOWFALL FOR ROCKFORD AND SO FAR HAS ONLY RECORDED A TRACE SO FAR TODAY AT THE AIRPORT. IF ANY ACCUMULATIONS OCCUR...IT WILL TIE THE RECORD FOR EARLIEST MEASURABLE SNOW ACCUMULATION.

paraclete answered on 10/12/06:

Yes and where I live, winter came a month early and was more severe thatn most and now summer has arrived early and with it el nino, more drought and fires. What does it mean, it means things are a changing.

Even before he knew what he was talking about Bob Dylan said it so well, listen to him again



THE TIMES ARE A CHANGING - Bob Dylan




Come gather 'round people


Wherever you roam


And admit that the waters


Around you have grown


And accept it that soon


You'll be drenched to the bone.


If your time to you


Is worth savin'


Then you better start swimmin'


Or you'll sink like a stone


For the times they are a-changin'.




Come writers and critics


Who prophesize with your pen


And keep your eyes wide


The chance won't come again


And don't speak too soon


For the wheel's still in spin


And there's no tellin' who


That it's namin'.


For the loser now


Will be later to win


For the times they are a-changin'.




....


There's a battle outside


And it is ragin'.


It'll soon shake your windows


And rattle your walls


For the times they are a-changin'.




.....




The line it is drawn


The curse it is cast


The slow one now


Will later be fast


As the present now


Will later be past


The order is


Rapidly fadin'.


And the first one now


Will later be last


For the times they are a- changing


prophetic words and in this context, those who don't change will be come like the dinosaur... extinct

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 10/12/06 - Global 'warning'

Last week I came across an article climing we had entered "ecological debt," meaining rising consumption of natural resources means that humans began "eating the planet" on 9 October. In looking for more info on this drivel I came across something even more interesting - and truly alarming on the 'global warming' front.

David Roberts, blogging in the environmental magazine Gristmill - a magazine that Al Gore and Billy Moyers granted interviews to - advocates Nuremberg-like trials for what algore calls "global warming deniers."

    Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat.

    It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details.

    When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.


You people want more liberals running this country? This is what you're going to eventually get if you put the Republicans out to pasture. You think Bush is taking away your rights? You ain't seen nothin' compared to what's going to happen if the moonbats take control...

paraclete answered on 10/12/06:

Let's face it, whether we like it or not, there is a crisis, it is called climate change, and it is happening, whether science has a divided opinion on the cause or the effect, it cannot refute the definate truth that things are happening to our environment that we have not observed before and that we may have had a hand in tipping the balance. Can we stop the forces that we probally put in motion, highly unlikely, but to continue as we are, given the finite resources we have is lunacy. Just because we have a tendency to be alarmist doesn't invalidate the need to change. Europe has embraced some of this change because costs of sustaining the current regime are extortinate. So it makes good sence to change, but in the cheap energy economies, the head in the sand attitude prevails. It is only in an oil price crisis that people even start to listen and they listen to their pocket, they listen to their bank balance. We may not be able to stop the green house effect but we may be able to prevent it from becoming a runnaway. We have little time, if the perma frost melts the amount of carbon diooxide poured into the atmosphere will trigger catastrophic changes.

carrying on like an idiot and assigning blame is counter productive, the debate is not who did what to whom with which, but who has to change their attitude, their economic activity and even their over stuffed diet so they can fit in a smaller vehicle

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/11/06 - This just in

First picture from the NORK nuke test is released



As a bonus the picture of the July 4th missle test is also released :

paraclete answered on 10/11/06:

ah yes the acme atomic bomb company has made a sale

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/11/06 - N. Korea


Hello:

Bush: Well, NOT talking to the N. Koreans didn't work, so I'm going to stay the course.

Huh?

You guy's really ought to do something with that guy.

excon

paraclete answered on 10/11/06:

Yes Ex, you really ought to do something with that guy, he is incapable of having more than one idea.

toughing it out isn't always the answer. Now for a Texican that is probally a revelation, after all you have to ride tall in the saddle and all that

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/11/06 - HERE OR THERE:



President Bush made a statement at his news conference this a.m. that went something like this:

If we don't beat them (Muslims/insurgents) over there, we'll have to beat them here (United States).

I agree 100%. How about you?

HANK

paraclete answered on 10/11/06:

poor silly fools (you and Bush), like Vietnam this is a war you cannot win, surely the Soviet experience in Afganistan should have tought you that. This isn't a football game Hank where the strongest team wins, this is a golf game played in the rough

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/11/06 - NATIONAL DEBT:



Can our national debt be satisfied by printing $$$ et al at our Denver mint and/or elsewhere?

HANK

paraclete answered on 10/11/06:

you are not serious, are you. That is a recipe for run away inflation

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Judgment_Day asked on 10/10/06 - Ironic and funny....

This is to good to not share....


An Indian (Native American) Chief residing on a reservation wrote to George Bush: "Be very careful with your immigration laws. We were careless with ours."

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

what you tolerate will ultimately kill you

If You Tolerate This...
Radio/Audio; Posted on: 2005-09-18 20:14:45

...then your children will pay the price.



by Kevin Alfred Strom

IF YOU TOLERATE multiracialism, then your children will suffer and die. That is not hyperbole. It is a rational and well-substantiated extrapolation, based on the known facts and current trends. It is a prediction that is already coming true.

Lets face it Multiculturism tipfied by multiracialism killed the american indigenous people, today they are a remnant.
Multiculturism tipified by multiracialism killed the Australian aboriginee, today they are a remnant

The same will be so of America of 2006, the Hispanics (multiculturism) will ultimately kill the multiracial american society

Judgment_Day rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/10/06 - Good news! The Republicans are going to lose control.


Hello people:

The bad news is the Democrats are going get it.

excon

PS> Question - what to do, what to do???

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

The sky is falling, the Sky is falling, extinction of life on Earth as we know it. Repent for the end is neigh.

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/10/06 - How would Reagan defeat N.Korea without firing a shot

President Reagan entered office in 1981 with a clear vision of allying with Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain and Pope John Paul II to defeat the Soviet Empire. Without firing a shot, they worked to strengthen the Solidarity trade union in Poland, increase the resources available to the Polish people and undermine the effectiveness of the Communist dictatorship. Within 11 years of Reagan's inauguration, the Soviet Union disappeared. The Cold War was over. We had won.

North Korea is a vicious dictatorship in the middle of a famine. Its policies have shrunk the height of the average North Korean by more than three inches over the last generation through malnutrition..(note the size of the dwarf with the chia pet hair doo running the place ). There are more than 200,000 North Koreans imprisoned in concentration camps. It is an evil regime grinding down the lives of its people.

A Reaganite strategy would funnel every penny of help and every bit of food aid through a system of private activity consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship.

A Reaganite strategy would isolate the government while helping the people. It would seek every angle to get humanitarian aid to the people. Food might be parachuted into the country, delivered from submarines and small boats by clandestine services, shipped in from China and Russia through anti-regime middlemen and delivered in every way possible to divert energy and authority away from the government and toward an alternative organizing system of individuals dedicated to a better, more prosperous life. Just as in Eastern Europe, we would rapidly discover a lot of people willing to subvert the regime for better lives for their families, and we would find the regime beginning to splinter and fragment in the face of opportunities for food, goods and prosperity.

He would also announce an agreement with our allies in the region like S.Korea ,Japan ,and Taiwan to arm them with the medium range tactical nuclear missiles and the latest in missile defense technology .He would sell the cruisers armed with AEGIS Combat Systems. And since we are retiring our F-14s anyway,why not sell them at a good price to our allies ? It is still the best fighter in the sky save the new F-A18 ?

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

No Reagan would say to Kim you want war, we have satellites that can shoot down your missiles, we have satellites that can target you with multi warheaded missiles. You want a demonstration, because we would love to test them, they have been up there a long time without action.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 10/10/06 - Prepare for War Order

A prepare for war order was issued to the commanders of the various vessels now chugging to the Staits of Hormuz, and it is reported that these commanders are concerned because Congress has not issued a Declaration of War on Iran.

Is a War on Iran Rove's October surprise?

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

well George has to do something to restore the price of oil to it's former heights

jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/10/06 - Hastert coverup - His staff did it!

Hello:

Hastert: Well, I dunno if my staff covered up. They don't tell me anything. They'll be under oath pretty soon and then maybe we'll learn the truth.

Huh?

And, this is the guy who is running things for the Republicans............

Omigawd are we in trouble?

excon

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

did it take this for you to find out?

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 10/09/06 - WAR ON IRAN IN THREE WEEKS

"The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

War with Irana war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle Eastis probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as the Axis of Evil. They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.

These men advocate a doctrine of permanent war, a doctrine which, as William R. Polk points out, is a slight corruption of Leon Trotskys doctrine of permanent revolution. These two revolutionary doctrines serve the same function, to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to silence domestic critics who challenge leaders in a time of national crisis. It works. The citizens of the United States, slowly being stripped of their civil liberties, are being herded sheep-like, once again, over a cliff.

But this war will be different. It will be catastrophic. It will usher in the apocalyptic nightmares spun out in the dark, fantastic visions of the Christian right. And there are those around the president who see this vision as preordained by God; indeed, the president himself may hold such a vision.

The hypocrisy of this vaunted moral crusade is not lost on those in the Middle East. Iran actually signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has violated a codicil of that treaty written by European foreign ministers, but this codicil was never ratified by the Iranian parliament. I do not dispute Irans intentions to acquire nuclear weapons nor do I minimize the danger should it acquire them in the estimated five to 10 years. But contrast Iran with Pakistan, India and Israel. These three countries refused to sign the treaty and developed nuclear weapons programs in secret. Israel now has an estimated 400 to 600 nuclear weapons. The word Dimona, the name of the city where the nuclear facilities are located in Israel, is shorthand in the Muslim world for the deadly Israeli threat to Muslims existence. What lessons did the Iranians learn from our Israeli, Pakistani and Indian allies?

Given that we are actively engaged in an effort to destabilize the Iranian regime by recruiting tribal groups and ethnic minorities inside Iran to rebel, given that we use apocalyptic rhetoric to describe what must be done to the Iranian regime, given that other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are making noises about developing a nuclear capacity, and given that, with the touch of a button Israel could obliterate Iran, what do we expect from the Iranians? On top of this, the Iranian regime grasps that the doctrine of permanent war entails making preemptive and unprovoked strikes.

Those in Washington who advocate this war, knowing as little about the limitations and chaos of war as they do about the Middle East, believe they can hit about 1,000 sites inside Iran to wipe out nuclear production and cripple the 850,000-man Iranian army. The disaster in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli air campaign not only failed to break Hezbollah but united most Lebanese behind the militant group, is dismissed. These ideologues, after all, do not live in a reality-based universe. The massive Israeli bombing of Lebanon failed to pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 70 million people? As retired General Wesley K. Clark and others have pointed out, once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters, cruise missiles and iron fragmentation bombs on Iran this is the choice that must be facedeither sending American forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war or walking away in humiliation.

As a people we are enormously forgetful, Dr. Polk, one of the countrys leading scholars on the Middle East, told an Oct. 13 gathering of the Foreign Policy Association in New York. We should have learned from history that foreign powers cant win guerrilla wars. The British learned this from our ancestors in the American Revolution and re-learned it in Ireland. Napoleon learned it in Spain. The Germans learned it in Yugoslavia. We should have learned it in Vietnam and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are learning it all over again in Chechnya and we are learning it, of course, in Iraq. Guerrilla wars are almost unwinnable. As a people we are also very vain. Our way of life is the only way. We should have learned that the rich and powerful cant always succeed against the poor and less powerful.

An attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with Silkworm missile attacks by Iran on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send oil soaring to well over $110 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a huge, global depression. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey will turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We will see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and the widespread sabotage of oil production in the Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for American troops as Shiites and Sunnis, for the first time, unite against their foreign occupiers.

The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis aptly call their nuclear program the Samson option. The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself.

If you are sure you will be raptured into heaven, your clothes left behind with the nonbelievers, then this news should cheer you up. If you are rational, however, these may be some of the last few weeks or months in which to enjoy what is left of our beleaguered, dying republic and way of life."Chris Hedges, blogging


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

paraclete answered on 10/10/06:

I think George has a little more to think about right now and that battle group probally made a distinct right turn

jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 10/09/06 - 2001 Bush Withdraws US from Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty

In 2001, Bush withdrew America from the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty.

Now, we have N Korea launching missles and conducting an underground nuclear weapons test using plutonium obtained since Bush Presidency.

Bush started a war of adventurism in Iraq.

We have Russia and Iran and others forming an alliance to oppose America's position as the sole remaining superpower, a hyperpower, as it were. The New Cold War.

There are rumors of a plan to invade Iran.



NEVER ENDING WAR IS OBVIOUSLY HIS SICK PLAN.


Who benefits from this plan? I know do you??

paraclete answered on 10/09/06:

What's the point of having a treaty when back woods places like Korea, Pakistan and India are developing missiles, who are you fooling, only yourselves.

However what you have now is a license to kill

jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/09/06 - Bush failed!! - Bush failed!! - Bush failed!!!


Hello Bushies:

In the final analsys, North Korea is the biggest failure in an administration that knows nothing else BUT failure. The Koreans DO have WMD's!!!!!!!

It's a failure that endangers the lives of your family and our country. What does that say for family values?

excon

paraclete answered on 10/09/06:

paranoia, what do you care if some tin pot dictator on the edge of Asia has nuclear weapons. Do you know why? because that person and that nation feel insecure with american foriegn policy, particularly as it's negative aspects appear directed at them. George Bush has a big mouth and this is the result. Talk big, carry a big stick, and watch out for the big dog while the little one is biting your ankles

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 10/09/06 - WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT N KOREA..BUSH

Why should I care about North Korea?

In "State of Denial"(new book), Bob Woodward recounts a conversation between then-Gov. George W. Bush and then-Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar, in which Bush wonders why he should care about North Korea. I get these briefings on all parts of the world, Bush said, and everybody is talking to me about North Korea.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why indeed??

paraclete answered on 10/09/06:

what, no mention of America?

jackreade rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 10/07/06 - What dod you thing will happen if N. Korea tests????

Shots Fired Along Korean Border as Tensions Mount Over Nuke Tests
Saturday , October 07, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea Tensions mounted over North Korea's threat to test its first atomic bomb, with shots ringing out Saturday along the border with South Korea and Japan warning of harsh sanctions if Pyongyang goes nuclear.
With a possible test expected as early as Sunday, the U.N. Security Council issued a stern statement Friday urging the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions and warning of unspecified consequences if the isolated, communist regime doesn't comply.
Jittery nations have warned a test would unravel regional security and possibly trigger an arms race.
CountryWatch: North Korea
A midday incursion Saturday by North Korean troops into the southern side of the no-man's-land separating North and South Korea only stoked the unease.
South Korean soldiers rattled off 40 warning shots at the five communist troops who crossed the center line of the Demilitarized Zone, the inter-Korean buffer.
It was unclear whether the North Korean advance was intended as a provocation, or was an attempt to go fishing at a nearby stream, an official at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said on condition of anonymity, citing official policy. No one was hurt, and the North Koreans retreated.
While such border skirmishes are not unheard of, they are relatively rare. Saturday's incursion was only the second this year, the official said.
Meanwhile, world powers were stepping up diplomatic efforts to avert a nuclear test. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was to visit Beijing on Sunday for talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao and then proceed to Seoul for talks with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun the following day.
A State Department spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said Saturday the United States was concerned about North Korea's threat to test its first atomic bomb and that the department was closely monitoring the high tensions.
Also Saturday, South Korea's nuclear envoy announced he will visit Beijing on Monday for two days of talks with Chinese officials about the threatened nuclear test.
In a separate statement from Tokyo, Japan's Foreign Ministry said it was prepared to push for punitive measures at the United Nations if the North goes ahead with the test.
"If North Korea conducts a nuclear weapons test despite the concerns expressed by international society, the Security Council must adopt a resolution outlining severely punitive measures," the ministry said.
Japan plans to step up economic sanctions against North Korea, tighten trade restrictions and freeze additional North Korea-linked bank accounts should a nuclear test be carried out, Japan's Nihon Keizai newspaper reported.
The U.N. statement adopted Friday expressed "deep concern" over North Korea's announcement Tuesday that it is planning a test.
The council acted amid speculation that a nuclear test could come on Sunday, the anniversary of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's appointment as head of the Korean Workers' Party in 1997.
Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi told Japan's TV Asahi: "Based on the development so far, it would be best to view that a test is possible this weekend."
The U.N. statement also urged North Korea to return to six-nation negotiations aimed at persuading the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions in exchange for security guarantees and badly needed economic aid.
Those talks, which involve the United States, China, Japan, Russia and North and South Korea, have been stalled since late last year, when North Korea boycotted the negotiations in response to American economic sanctions.
A North Korea expert in China, the North's closest ally, said only the removal of the sanctions could dissuade the North.
"North Korea has already made a decision to carry out a test," said Li Dunqiu of China's State Council Development Research Center, a Cabinet-level think tank. But "if the U.S. removes sanctions ... then tensions can be eased. Otherwise launching a nuclear test is unavoidable for North Korea."
The United States imposed economic restrictions on North Korea last year to punish it for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
North Korea said Tuesday it decided to act in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war," but gave no date for the test. Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading North Korea

paraclete answered on 10/07/06:

to answer your specific question, there will be a nuclear explosion, to answer your political question, there will a call for sanctions but it would be stupid to start another war over WMD

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/06/06 - IF I WAS PRESIDENT ...



1. I'd bring all of our guys and gals home from Iraq no later than December 1st. (As of this evening, some 2,737 of our troops have been killed in a war that's going nowhere. This does NOT include Afghanistan)

2. I'd bring almost all of our guys and gals home from Afghanistan no later than December 1st.

3. I'd suggest to all private citizens to vote out all the trash in Congress on November 7th.

4. I'd send ALL illegals back to where they came from.

5. I'd commend Wal-Mart for taking the lead in making prescription drugs (generic) affordable for all citizens. (I sure wish Sam was still with us!)

6. I'd author a Constitution of Morality for ALL local, State and Federal employees. This applies to all Congressman as well.

7. I'd increase the minimum wage to at least $9.40 an hour.

8. I'd tell Iran to go to Hell.

9. I'd tell North Korea to go to Hell.

10. I'd consider isolation for our Country after all of the above materialized.

That's it! I'm mad as hell about many things that are going on at this time in our small World. If I'm not making any sense, tell me! Even the homeless need a program to get back on their feet. That can be #11.

HANK






paraclete answered on 10/07/06:

go for it Hank. isolationism isn't the answer but nor is engagement, the best thing you can do is enforce and defend your borders, as to internal issues, make your people take responsibility, this is important

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 10/05/06 - The price of lettuce


Hello antiMexicans:

Since the beginning of this discussion I have been on OUR side. In terms of my argument, OUR side doesn't care about illegal immigration. OUR side is only interested in clean dishes at our local restaurants, and clean sheets at Motel 6. We want apples, and grapes that won't send us to the poor house to buy. And yes, we want our lawns mowed and our children watched - ALL at reasonable prices - and why shouldn't we?

Well, you haven't been listening to me. You think OUR side is the one that wants to kick out the illegals already here and stop any more from coming in.

That's fine. But the price of lettuce is going to skyrocket, and the apples are withering on the vine, right now, today, as we speak. And, when the prices hit YOU in the pocketbook, let's see how quickly you change your tune.

Me? I'd rather fix the agency that keeps willing workers on lists for years instead of letting them come in to pick grapes. That's what's broken - not the border.

AND THAT AIN'T FIXED!!!!

excon

PS> And, I dont care how long you build your fence, or how high it is. If theres a job to be filled, theyre gonna fill it, and theyll piss on your fence as they cross.

paraclete answered on 10/05/06:

Ex, there is nothing like a good rave is there, and this is nothing like a good rave.

"the apples are withering on the vine"? if apples grew on vines like grapes they could be easily machine harvested, however you have overlooked the ingenuity of mankind, when you can't find labour then you use machines and how hard can it be to harvest lettice and apples with machines, so the price won't change very much but all the illegals can go home.

Having picked grapes by hand I can tell you that the machines can do it quicker and no one can afford pickers today and who wants to work for $50 a day, not I, so you are just going to have to pay a little more for that fruit and drink a little less of the juice of the grape

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Judgment_Day asked on 10/02/06 - This is funny...enjoy!

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/13180/HillaryCondi_HoDown.swf

paraclete answered on 10/03/06:

not very funny

Judgment_Day rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 10/03/06 - Illegal immigration

Great editorial by someone that really explains the illegal immigration situation:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.


Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).


According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.


It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know.


And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

paraclete answered on 10/03/06:

great analogy, however don't forget that if you didn't have all these people earning income in your land, you might actually have to give some monetary assistance to these places where these people come from.

What I say is this, no freeloaders, if they can't come with, say enough money to get by for twelve months, they shouldn't come.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 10/03/06 - For MaryChouSan... er Susan

I have read some of your posts over the past few days and I felt a little economics lesson was indicated.

First of all, national debt is NOT and indicator of national health.

When you go for a mortgage or a car loan, does the lender only look at the amount of debt that you have? Or does he also look at your assets and income? If he's smart, he's looking at your assets, liabilities and income as a whole picture. Otherwise he's not making very many loans.

Similarly, when you look at the health of the US economy, you need to look at the assets, liabilities and income as a whole picture. Why would you look at debt levels alone without looking at what that level of debt has purchased and what the income has been derived from those assets?

In this case what that debt has "bought" us was increased employment levels, and thus increased income in the form of taxes. By lowering the tax rates, more people became employed, and tax income increased, despite the fact that everyone was paying less per person. From 2003 (when Bush's 2nd round of tax cuts took place)to 2005 IRS tax collections grew from $1,952,929,045,000 to $2,268,895,122,000, a 16% increase in tax revenue.

Second of all, looking only at national debt without looking at it as a percentage of GDP doesn't mean anything: it's just a number. Looking at it that way, Donald Trump must be a pauper because his personal debt is in the millions. Without looking at his assets and his income, the level of liabilities alone is decptive.

So... looking at the national debt as a percentage of GDP: the highest levels ever reached were during the Rooseveldt and Truman administrations: debt was 121% of GDP in 1946. And that was at a time when the economy was in recovery from the Great Depression. High government debt was necessary to the government to run WWII and to give the economy the booste it needed to recover from the depression.

We again see the national debt going up as a percentage of GDP starting in the late 80s and through 1996... national debt reached 67% of GDP in 1996 before it started to decrease again. And this was during what is arguably the greatest economic boom in our nations history. Of course it was based on the telecom bubble, where the economy boomed based on investments in companies that had no earnings... but that is a different story. In short, while more millionaires were being created in the USA than in any other period in history, national debt was at its highest levels as a percentage of GDP. And conversely, when national debt started coming down in 1997 - 2001, that's when the telecom bubble burst, and the country saw more former millionaires filing for bankruptcy than ever before.

So it could be argued that when national debt is the highest is when the economy does best, and when the national debt decreases, its time to watch out for an economic bust. But this would be too simplistic an argument.

Third, national debt is a terrible way to look at the economy anyway. As I've mentioned before, its just a number: it doesn't give the whole picture.

Better ways of looking at the economy are employment/unemployment levels, inflation (CPI or PPI), home ownership levels, residential construction levels, and retail sales levels. Each of these is a good indicator of how the small individual is doing economically.

Currently (as of August 2006) unemployment is at only 4.7%... an extremely low level, histoically speaking, and a level not seen since before 9-11.

CPI for 2005 was increasing at roughly 6%, which is pretty low as well.

These statistics indicate that more people are able to afford to buy more stuff.

Homeownership in the 2nd quarter of 2006 was at 68.7%... almost 70% of Americans own their own homes. The highest level of homeownership we have ever seen was in the 1st quarter 2005 at 69.1%.

Construction speding in 2005 totaled $13,707,661,000,000, up from $12,384,083,000,000 (11%)in 2004 and $11,103,248,000,000 (24%) in 2003. This included private construction of $10,775,579,000,000 and public (government) construction of $2,932,079,000,000. Of that total, $7,794,633,000,000 was for residential use.

These statistics indicate that people are more able to afford to build and/or buy new housing.

Retails sales for the first quarter of 2006 totaled in the $463 billion range, up $37.5 billion from the same period in 2005. Net profits increased by roughly $4 billion for the same period. This indicates that MORE PEOPLE ARE BUYING RETAIL GOODS, which in turn indicates that more people have money to spend on retail goods.

The bottom line is that for all the talk you hear about the national debt being $8 trillion, it is meaning less as an indicator of the economic health of the country without taking into consideration other information.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 10/03/06:

National debt, that's what I had before I moved from the National Bank.

GDP that's the Greater Democratic Party who increase the National Debt to increase the nations wealth

A better way of looking at the nation's economic health is the balance of payments. For some pecular reason the WMF thinks high balance of payments debt means impending disaster but as recent observation will show the higher the imbalance of payments the higher the economic activity

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 10/03/06 - New Terror threat

NEW YORK -- A public school teacher was arrested today at JFK International
Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a
protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, the Attorney General said he believes the man
is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement.

He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying
weapons of math instruction.

"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Gonzales said. "They desire solutions by
means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.

They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of
the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.

paraclete answered on 10/03/06:

As I understand it Al-gebra was of Muslim origin so the FBI are right to be alarmed, after all these techniques have been taught to the unsuspecting children who daily intone the square root of a is equal to the cube root of x divided by the square of y, why I do not know

Great laugh Tom

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/02/06 - A COUPLE OF FOLY'S E-MAILS

"In addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.

"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News.

The FBI says it has opened a "preliminary investigation" of Foley's e-mails. Federal law enforcement officials say attempts by Foley to meet in person could constitute the necessary evidence for a federal charge of "soliciting for sex" with a minor on the Internet.

In another message, Foley, using the screen name Maf54, appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yetbut likely Friday
Teen: okill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til febthen we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eatwe drinkwho knowshang outlate into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing hereim not sure what I would be comfortable withwell see

Foley resigned Friday after ABC News questioned him about the Internet messages.

He says he has checked into a rehabilitation facility to deal with alcohol and behavioral issues."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, "The Family Values Party" covers up this vile Foley's advances to young men, this pedophile freak was on a committee to protect missing and abused children.

The whole country is watching.

paraclete answered on 10/02/06:

if the whole country is watching they must have turned into a nation of voyeurs, surely this sad incident isn't worth multiple postings with no question

MarySusan rated this answer Average Answer
ladybugca rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/01/06 - RICE WARNED OF ATTACK IN JULY 2001

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action.

Details of the previously undisclosed meeting on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, were first reported last week in a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward......"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Lots of pants on fire in the White House....liars, the lot of them.

paraclete answered on 10/02/06:

What do you expect, The whole bunch of them has demonstrated incompetience, why would this be any different. Where I come from we call such people teflon coated, time and time again they are exposed but they are still there

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 10/01/06 - STATE OF EMERGENCY

"PAT BUCHANAN is finally hip after all these years.

The man who is legendary for advising Richard Nixon, appearing on "Crossfire" and running for president, told me that never before has he evoked the level of interest in a matter of public policy.

I spent some time with him earlier this week after reading his new book, "State of Emergency," in which he pulls no punches in spelling out how the United States is being "invaded." So worried is Buchanan that he says children born in 2006 will experience the "death of the West." It's not just hyperbole, he's got lots of data to back up his concerns:

There are at least as many illegal aliens now in the United States as all English, Irish, and Jewish immigrants who came to America in 400 years.

Every month, the border patrol apprehends about 150,000 illegal aliens, more than the number of troops in Iraq.

One in every 12 people breaking into the United States illegally has a criminal record.

By 2050, the U.S. population of European descent will be a minority, as it is today in California, Texas, and New Mexico.

Buchanan argues that these trends make America more vulnerable than any threat we face from al Qaeda.

It's not just the magnitude of the invasion, it's the composition. Like the Cuban Mariel boatlift, Buchanan makes the case that we've become a dumping ground for the Third World.

Those coming here are disproportionately poor, uneducated and criminal. And the fact that they are emigrating from countries that have themselves never been fully assimilated into the First World, is what separates this group from our forefathers.

They are breaking in, not playing by the rules. Most important, many have no desire to be American. So why does it continue?

The status quo is enabled by multinational corporations anxious to topple sovereign borders, a Hispanic media that depends for its survival on the perpetuation of bilingualism and gutless politicians.

Political correctness is a major factor. Witness how many seek to dismiss Buchanan's analysis as the work of a white guy uncomfortable with the realization that his kind is losing its dominance and control. Or they try to label him a racist or xenophobe.

That kind of talk limits the debate. But Buchanan has heard it before. The elitists who try to cast him as a relic clinging to cultural oppression are no match for his arguments.

He's on a mission to foster a debate he knows he can win on the merits.

That'll happen if Republicans get some guts and stop deluding themselves into thinking they'll get Hispanic votes sooner or later. Democrats, after all, are a winner on this issue. They're already getting this bloc, and soon the political dynamics will be such that no candidate for president will be willing to go to California, Arizona or New Mexico and speak the truth about immigration, much in the same way that no one will go to Florida and question the Cuban embargo.

Thinking about all this, I'm reminded of a personal story. In 1926, Victoria Grovich came to Ellis Island with an infant in her arms to reconnect with her husband, who left her in Yugoslavia a year before so he could go to work in the Pennsylvania coal mines and establish a new home.

Today, she is my 100-year-old grandmother. One of her daughters met the son of Ilko Smirikowitz, who had come here from Austria-Poland in 1891. That union produced a talk-show host and columnist who in 2006 has had his eyes opened by Patrick J. Buchanan to the fact that the American dream has become a national nightmare.

"State of Emergency," indeed. It's time to close and defend our borders." Michael Smerconish, blogging

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

President Bush and his Crime Family including a Republican majority in both houses of Congress have CHOSEN TO IGNORE THIS PROBLEM by inaction over the lst six years.

Why is Bush so willing to let America be overrun by illegal Hispanics? It is because he, his wealthy friends and Corporations benefit financially....and America gets screwed.

This issue alone is grounds for impeachment.

paraclete answered on 10/01/06:

I thought you had a Department of Homeland Security over there. Are you saying it's job is not to secure the homeland, which would include monitoring the borders and detaining all who try to cross illegally. I can see you have a large problem, what happens to the 150,000 people a month, do you have concentration camps on the border? if not, it's a strategy, think what could be accomplished by a couple of months of forced labour, you could have a big wall constructed right along the border in no time and at bargain rates.

I think the US problem is it has lost the ability to think low tech and practical, this problem could be easily solved

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 09/30/06 - The Bush Boom

From a NY Sun editorial :
The Dow Jones industrial average flirting with an all-time high is just one more signal of how healthy the Bush administration's tax cuts have been for the American economy. The stock market has withstood a war in Iraq, an untested new chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank who is filling the large shoes of Alan Greenspan, high oil prices, the Sarbanes-Oxley Full Employment for Accountants Act, and Eliot Spitzer's raid on the New York Stock Exchange and many of its brokerage houses. Yes, the stock market reached new highs in the Clinton years, but those valuations were unsustainable, driven partly by speculation in money-losing Internet companies. In this market, stock prices are backed by underlying earnings that is, actual profits that have been robust, driven by American ingenuity, freer global trade, and yes, the incentives unleashed by those Bush tax cuts. Experience shows that economic upturns don't last forever, but this one has been remarkably durable and long-lived, especially given the background conditions. It's something to celebrate.
.................

Larry Kudlow calls the Bush economy the greatest story NEVER told. I don't have to ask why the press isn't covering it . [They'd rather dig deep into George Allen's hereditary past ;or find unsubtantiated claims that he's a racist .Meanwhile his opponent allegedly drove through Watts with his buddies;pointing unloaded rifles at African-Americans while yelling vile names at them . ] But Bush and all the Republicans who want to win their Congressional races should be shouting it loud and often .The tax cuts worked !! Any Republican who chose to run away from Bush in this campaign is a fool.

paraclete answered on 10/01/06:

There is no bomb thee are market cycles and yes they do seem to happen when things are going better but Bush has nothing to do with it

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 09/29/06 - Bush the puppet of Kissinger ?

I have been thinking about this all day since I read that Bob Woodward made the claim in a 60 Minutes interview to be aired Sunday that HK is a frequent visitor to the White House to tell Bush how to wage the war. Besides Woodward's obvious lack of math skills (he claims an average of 800-900 attacks on US troops a week ;on average, every 15 minutes which would be almost the force than the Germans mustered during the Battle of the Bulge );it is most improbable that the master of realpolitik would be advising the ideological 'neo-cons 'on how to wage this war short of reinstating Saddam on the throne.

Woodward claims that Kissinger advises Bush to stay the course because he sees the American mistake in Vietnam was it's lack of resolve to win it . uhhh yeah. That is what Bush has been saying all along;that it would be a big mistake to withdraw .If anything, Bush has opened the eyes of Kissinger, not the other way around.

Woodward said This is so fascinating. Kissingers fighting the Vietnam War again " ,which I find interesting since I believe it is people like Woodward and the anti-war crowd that are trying to relive their glory days of the past . Woodward for one has not been relevent since Watergate .

paraclete answered on 09/29/06:

What's this; the White House is haunted by the ghost of mistakes past. I would have thought there were enough hauntings by the ghosts of mistakes present and certainly Bush is haunted by the ghost of mistakes future, where he will probally earn the title of mission unaccomplished George

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee2 asked on 09/29/06 - 2nd try - Newsweek cover for all but the U.S.

(Sorry - had forgotten to remove the quote marks in the tagging)

Newsweek Cover Stories

paraclete answered on 09/29/06:

what rubbish, Waziristan has existed for centuries, Pakistan is just being pragmatic recognising that's it's not worth national resources in a constant war with these people. yes their views are extreme but they are entitled to exist in their mountains.

What is the issue is their attacks on Afganistan and that is an american problem

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 09/29/06 - Water World?

What the world needs now is more water

http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/Australia/index.html

paraclete answered on 09/29/06:

I expect, Mat, that you mean if we are drowned then so are all the less desirable parts of the world with us. Yes, we will survive but there arn't many who will, just the gentle people of the earth. It put's Noah's flood in perspective

Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 09/28/06 - House Approves Bill on Terror Detainees

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the Bush administration authority to interrogate and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The mostly party-line 253-168 vote in the Republican-run House prompted bitter charges afterward by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that opposition Democrats were coddling terrorists, perhaps foreshadowing campaign attack ads to come. Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear...

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

For nearly two weeks, the GOP has been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year...

...House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops. She said the bill would be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Speaker Hastert's false and inflammatory rhetoric is yet another desperate attempt to mislead the American people and provoke fear," said Pelosi, D-Calif., adding that Democrats "have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear." What are the Democrats doing, instilling confidence?

    Kucinich: "This bill is everything we don't believe in."

    Levin: The bill would be "used by our terrorist enemies as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to proclamations of human rights."

    Leahy: This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing.

    Hoyer: When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well.

    Tauscher: "Keep in mind, the president's original plan has not given us the ability to prosecute anyone, because they got it wrong...and because they blew it, and are about to blow it again, we're still not going to be able to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice."

    Pelosi: Its been five years since 9/11, yet not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. Theres something wrong with this picture. And this bill today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, also could produce convictions that may well be overturned...

    This bill does not help us achieve the goal of bringing anyone to trial. It is badly flawed. It threatens the safety of our troops, our ability to prosecute terrorists effectively, our ability to protect the American people, and to honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution...

    Perhaps most distressing, this bill could very well boomerang on us putting American troops in danger...


Isn't that 'provoking fear'?

Pelosi said Democrats "have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans." Is that the Democrat plan for protecting us I've been hearing about, punishing those who attack us? What's their plan for preventing those attacks?

paraclete answered on 09/28/06:

whose left to prosecute for 9/11 not the prisoners in Gitmo, only OBL remains to be captured and prosecuted to bring closure, but it's clear closure isn't what's desired. Maintain the rage and stay in office, that's all that matters to a politician.

You can fight all the wars you like you can't stop the attacks and you make them more likely.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 09/28/06 - House Approves Bill on Terror Detainees

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the Bush administration authority to interrogate and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The mostly party-line 253-168 vote in the Republican-run House prompted bitter charges afterward by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that opposition Democrats were coddling terrorists, perhaps foreshadowing campaign attack ads to come. Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear...

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

For nearly two weeks, the GOP has been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year...

...House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops. She said the bill would be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Speaker Hastert's false and inflammatory rhetoric is yet another desperate attempt to mislead the American people and provoke fear," said Pelosi, D-Calif., adding that Democrats "have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear." What are the Democrats doing, instilling confidence?

    Kucinich: "This bill is everything we don't believe in."

    Levin: The bill would be "used by our terrorist enemies as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to proclamations of human rights."

    Leahy: This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing.

    Hoyer: When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well.

    Tauscher: "Keep in mind, the president's original plan has not given us the ability to prosecute anyone, because they got it wrong...and because they blew it, and are about to blow it again, we're still not going to be able to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice."

    Pelosi: Its been five years since 9/11, yet not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. Theres something wrong with this picture. And this bill today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, also could produce convictions that may well be overturned...

    This bill does not help us achieve the goal of bringing anyone to trial. It is badly flawed. It threatens the safety of our troops, our ability to prosecute terrorists effectively, our ability to protect the American people, and to honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution...

    Perhaps most distressing, this bill could very well boomerang on us putting American troops in danger...


Isn't that 'provoking fear'?

Pelosi said Democrats "have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans." Is that the Democrat plan for protecting us I've been hearing about, punishing those who attack us? What's their plan for preventing those attacks?

paraclete answered on 09/28/06:

you want a plan for preventing the attacks, you just don't want to hear it.

Here's the plan, very simple and not too expensive, no new expenditure needed.

NUKE Damascus, Tehran, Cairo, Beruit, Addas Ababa, Mogadishu, Istanbul, Jakata, Islamabad, Baghdad, Ryidah, Mecca, did I leave any out, well there can be a second strike. As I said no new expenditure all the weapons needed are available for deployment immediately.

You know what you would get

An immediate end to the war in Iraq
thunderous applause from the rest of the world

But this plan is too audacious, even for Georgie baby

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
labman rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 09/28/06 - TFAa

Trans-Fatty Asses.

The NY Board of Health has begun the process of making the use of Trans-Fatty Acids illegal for use in restaurants. They unanimously passed a proposal banning the use of TFAs in restaurants in New York, and the proposal will be brought before lawmakers shortly.

All Hail the Nanny State of New York.

The basic concepts of free choice and personal responsibility are becoming endangered species in New York. And the majority of New Yorkers are (rather stupidly) going along with it. First came the Bloomberg smoking ban. Then Bloomberg's personal attack against gun ownership. Then there is the little-known "diabetes database" which is an effort to track diabetics and make sure they take their meds --- whether they want to or not. (Never mind that Diabetes isn't a communicable disease, and the only person hurt by not taking their meds is the diabedic.) And NYers seem to support these ideas.

What happened to the idea of taking responsibility for our own decisions. If I want to eat fatty fries or a Krispy Kreme doughnut, that's my choice. If I want to drink in a bar where smoking is permitted, that's my choice. If I refuse to take my medications for my non-communicable disease, that's MY CHOICE. And I have to live with the consequences of that choice. But why are so many people in favor of government regulation of these choices. (Notably, these are most often the same people who want the government to "stay out of their bedrooms" and "off their bodies" on the abortion and gay rights issues.)

What really gets me is that this ban on TFAs will have virtually no effect on the health of Americans in general or NYers in specific. It turns out that only about 2% of average caloric intake is from TFAs. And it doesn't address the issue of overall caloric intake, which is the real cause of obesity and a much greater contributor to heart disease than TFAs.

In fact, I suspect that if people believe that their fast food is healthier because of the removal of TFAs, they will actually eat more of it, and as a result they will get fatter and more prone to heart disease. Eliminating one specific (rather low-quantity) ingredient from our diets is NOT going to change our overall health. All it will do is make food taste different.

So in fact, the ban itself, while it might sound good in theory, is a useless jesture that serves only to increase the power of the Nanny State over the public... without any real benefit to the public.

So how do we fight this movement toward Nanny-Statehood? How do we get people to start taking responsibility for themselves instead of relying on corporations' warning lables and government agencies' regulations to keep them safe? How do we stop this trend toward Socialism and Big Government, and litigation/punishment of corporations for giving people what they want?

What's next? A ban on sugar? Meatless burgers? A soda prohibition?

Elliot

paraclete answered on 09/28/06:

look you go ahead and kill yourself if you want too, but why should I have to put up with your irresponsible behaviour

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 09/27/06 - Circular logic


Hello Wingers:

Here's how Bush says he's winning in Iraq.

Factually, Iraq didn't have any terrorists to begin with. Now there are plenty. Bush captured about 15,000 of 'em so far. And, the more he creates, the more he captures - giving credence to his claim that he's winning the war.

excon

PS> That's pronounced cir-QUE-ler in Bushspeak.

paraclete answered on 09/27/06:

yoo! ex, we know wars are won by words, so it's logical, the more George says the greater the victory

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 09/27/06 - How to be a good liberal

18 WAYS TO BE A GOOD LIBERAL

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. Y ou have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee,and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

GOD BLESS AMERICA


Oops, can't do that either...

paraclete answered on 09/27/06:

"Good Conservative-Bad Liberal" Dichotomy

For over three decades the political right has practiced wedge politics, aggressively spinning language into Orwellian distortions and mind-bending inconsistencies, in efforts to silence and render irrelevant their political opposition. Framing issues to disempower historically marginalized groups, the right brands women "murderers" gays "pedophiles" immigrants "criminals" and public schools "unconstitutional and unbiblical." As occurred during the welfare reform debate, poverty and injustice are dismissed, and all problems attributed to the moral failure of women, minorities, gays and immigrants. On PBS "Think Tank" in 1996, Independence Institute fellow David Kopel pronounced gun control laws "dangerous" because they divert attention from welfare and single parenthood as the "primary cause of crime." Tom DeLay linked school shootings to birth control, small families, daycare, working women, evolution, the absence of prescribed school prayer, etc. Blanket indictments of women and minorities for societal ills have historically served a dual purpose of oppressing women and minority groups, while preserving male/corporate dominance and prerogatives of behavior.

Scanning the radio dial on a California trip early in 2005, I heard Sen. Orrin Hatch railing against liberal money - large sums of cash allocated to liberal causes, by the likes of George Soros. He mocked liberal "inheritors of wealth" who "never worked a day in their lives." Hatchs outburst marked a low in civil discourse that has been conspicuous for efforts to silence and demonize the political opposition. Corrupted language and distorted religion of contemporary culture wars are wielded as tools against disfavored groups, contributing to a vastly degraded public dialogue, and undermining democracy.

The "good conservativeevil liberal" dichotomy is an example of what Chris Berlet of the Research Policy Institute calls the ŗ Ds" - efforts to dehumanize, degrade and demonize liberals, toward silencing adversaries. The subversion of language and religion maligns civil rights gains and religious freedoms that exemplify liberalism at the heart of democracy. "Liberalism brought us a pact with the devil," proclaimed Newt Gingrich. Liberals "aided by Satan" have taken control of government, media and education, preaches Pat Robertson. Tolerance promoted by liberals has brought us a "downward moral slide," echoes Gary Bauer. Wrapping religion around their politics renders any disagreement an attack on the faithful.

Furthering linguistic treachery, ultraconservatives level charges of "class warfare" for any mention of huge tax breaks for the rich and increased tax burdens on the working class. Distorted populism that vilifies liberalism and government is traceable to the 1968 presidential campaign of George Wallace, who likewise, equated social change and civil rights advances with moral corruption. Overtly racist political ads that in the 70s south identified Democrats as the party of "high taxes, crime and domination by blacks," mutated into more subtle racism, as taxes have become code for minority-associated government programs.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
twelfth_imam asked on 09/26/06 - Free Press? Is the US media under the control of the White House?

Newsweek features 'Losing Afghanistan' in international edition, celebrity photographer in U.S.

Muriel Kane - Raw Story research director
Published: Monday September 25, 2006

The United States edition of the October 2, 2006 issue of Newsweek features a radically different cover story from its International counterparts, RAW STORY has learned.

The cover of International editions, aimed at Europe, Asia, and Latin America, displays in large letters the title "LOSING AFGHANISTAN," along with an arresting photograph of an armed jihadi.

The cover of the United States edition, in contrast, is dedicated to celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz and is demurely captioned "My Life in Pictures."

The International cover story begins:

"You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village."

The United Story cover story begins:

"Annie Leibovitz is tired and nursing a cold, and she' s just flown back to New York on the red-eye from Los Angeles, where she spent two days shooting Angelina Jolie for Vogue. Like so many of her photo sessions, there was nothing simple about it. 'I talked with Angelina before the shoot,' says Leibovitz, who's famous for her preparation. 'She felt like she was coming back from having the baby and she felt very sexy and ready to go.' ... There were 50 people on the set, and racks of clothes from the New York spring collections to be tried and styled."

The story aimed at the United States then goes on to discuss the difficulties Leibovitz had in photographing Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' infant. The International story continues with difficulties of a very different kind:

"In Ghazni and in six provinces to the south, and in other hot spots to the east, Karzai's government barely exists outside district towns. Hard-core Taliban forces have filled the void by infiltrating from the relatively lawless tribal areas of Pakistan where they had fled at the end of 2001. Once back inside Afghanistan these committed jihadist commanders and fighters, aided by key sympathizers who had remained behind, have raised hundreds, if not thousands, of new, local recruits, many for pay. They feed on the people's disillusion with the lack of economic progress, equity and stability that Karzai's government, NATO, Washington and the international community had promised.

"NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a daygood money in Afghanistan, and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive."

=====

What / who is controlling what Americans are allowed to read in the land of the free?

Sensible answers please.


paraclete answered on 09/26/06:

well what do you know, you have found out what we have been trying to tell you, you don't know the facts, you are not free but puppets

twelfth_imam rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 09/26/06 - Thanks again Mr. President

Saturday I filled my ྎ Toyota pickup with gas at $2.14 per gallon - another 35 cents less than 2 weeks ago. I hear it's down to $1.97 in some places. Thanks Mr. President. No, you say? It's a conspiracy, you say? Some say...

Don't be fooled by low gas prices

    I've done it. I've figured out how to bring gas prices down: Hold a national election where the political party in control might get its butt kicked...

    So, why are gas prices here at home dropping faster than the sales of Ford SUVs?

    I'll tell you why. Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.


Politics and the Price of Gas

    In the midst of the back and forth on gas prices comes a new poll from Gallup that shows large numbers of the American public are skeptical about the timing of the cost cuts. Forty-two percent of the sample said that the Bush Administration had "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections," while 53 percent said the price drop had nothing to do with the President.


Barrel of theories for gas-price slide

    Retired farmer Jim Mohr, of Lexington, Ill., rattled off a tankful of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including the end of the summer travel season and the fact no major hurricanes have disrupted Gulf of Mexico output.

    "But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected," Mohr, 66, said while filling up for $2.17 a gallon. "They think getting the prices down is going to help get some more incumbents re-elected."

    Fifty-three percent did not believe in this conspiracy theory, while 5 percent said they had no opinion.

    Almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day are registered Democrats, according to Gallup.


Sounds like it's time to invest in Alcoa, as the demand for tinfoil hats is on the rise.

Conspiracy or not? Vote now...or just show me your hat if you'd like.

paraclete answered on 09/26/06:

Of course it's all a conspiracy, but who's behind the conspiracy, that's the question?

Who benefits from high oil prices, and whose favourite son started the war which caused the price spiral to begin.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 09/25/06 - I am probably stepping over the PC line here...

but this is too good to pass up.

The Hebrew word for "monkey" is "kof".
The Hebrew word for "cloud" is "anan"

Does that make Kofi Anan "The Monkey of the Clouds"?

Hey, I didn't make up the language. Don't shoot the messenger.

Elliot

paraclete answered on 09/25/06:

It's no worst Elliot than when I used to call aton an ass since his handle meant ass in hebrew, but you shouldn't do such things

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 09/24/06 - Terrorisim....


Hello again, wrongwingers:

Our intelligence services say the war in Iraq is causing terrorisim to SPREAD, instead of DECLINE!

What's up with that? Don't those guys watch FOX news?

excon

paraclete answered on 09/24/06:

ex, get with the program it's all aBush plot to usher in one world government under the pretext that terrorism must be stamped out by force where ever it is seen. No one can do that unless they have universal authority, so the more terrorism grows the more Bush will gather partners untill they are all under his direction, zeig heil the fascist bush

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 09/23/06 - AMAZING:




* "A huge network of military tunnels has been discovered
in China. The network is the biggest found so far in China,
covering 300 square kilometres. The tunnels were
discovered in Hebei province 100 kilometers south of
Beijing. They consist of passageways linking large halls
capable of sheltering groups of warriors. (China Daily)

* Sahara, Africa: No less than 230 visible tunnels at least
ten feet high and twelve feet wide, have been discovered
between Sebha, the modern capital of the Fezzon, and the
oasis of Ghat on the Algerian border. They run an average
length of three miles a total of 700 miles not counting
those that are unknown. In places they run less than 20 feet
apart.

Considering the 100,000 graves found in the wadi, the
region must have been populous, which presupposes an
adequate and regular rainfall in the Sahara when the
tunnels were built several millennia ago.(James Welland,
Lost Worlds in Africa, Book 3)"

Source: archaeologyanswers.com

I wonder what's 'under the sands' of Iraq and Iran.

HANK

paraclete answered on 09/23/06:

very interesting but why were they built?

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 09/22/06 - ILLEGALS:



I've always contended that U. S. corporations run the country and not Congress. I heard this a.m. that 56% of new employment this year has gone to ILLEGALS. This fact knocked out many chances for school kids, both High School and College, to get jobs this past Summer and those on Unemployment. This also effected some real LAZY PEOPLE who decided to do a day's work. Some employers pay cash to these employees to protect their identity. By doing this, they dodge paying State and Federal taxes.

This is slave labor. This is also criminal activity because the employees are in this Country illegally and the employers are defrauding our government, i.e. You and I.

What can we do about it? (Please don't mention voting or writing letters. Congressmen have large wastebaskets)

* PLease let me know if I am wrong about any aspect of my post. Thanks.

HANK

paraclete answered on 09/22/06:

I was under the impression, no doubt created by the american white house press corp, that the US abolished slavery, although when is not absolutely certain. Given this american dictionary definition of slavery I doubt the conditions actually did exist for its abolition

slavery
Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE
Function: noun
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 : the state of a person who is a chattel of another

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 09/18/06 - This must be driving the Mahdi-Hatter nuts .

Anousheh Ansari was born 9/12/1966 Ansari witnessed the Iranian Revolution in 1979 as a young teenager. She emigrated to the United States in 1984 with her parents . She received her Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and computer science at George Mason University and her master's degree at George Washington University.

Ansari began work at MCI after graduation, where she met her husband, Hamid Ansari. In 1993, she persuaded her husband and her brother-in-law Amir Ansari to co-found Telecom Technologies, Inc. using their savings just as a wave of deregulation hit the telecom industry. The company was acquired by Sonus Networks, Inc. in 2000. Ansari was listed in Fortune magazine's ൰ under 40" list in 2001 and honored by Working Woman magazine as the winner of the 2000 National Entrepreneurial Excellence award.

Prodea, the new Ansari business has announced the formation of a partnership with Space Adventures, Ltd. and the Federal Space Agency of the Russian Federation (FSA) to create a fleet of suborbital spaceflight vehicles (the Space Adventures Explorer) for global commercial use. Ansari is a member of the X Prize Foundations Vision Circle, as well as its Board of Trustees .

Ansari was in training as a backup for Daisuke Enomoto, a Japanese businessman for a Soyuz flight to the International Space Station. In August he was medically disqualified from flying the mission . Ansari was elevated to the prime crew.

Today she and the crew of the Soyez lifted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan .She became the first female space tourist, as well as the first female Muslim and the first Iranian in space. She has agreed to take part in several experiments for the European Space Agency ESA,even though she is technically only a space tourist .She will speak to students back on Earth. She has said that she hopes her trip will inspire Iranian girls to study science.

Ansari intended to wear the U.S. flag and the version of the Iranian flag that predated the 1979 Islamic Revolution, to honor the two countries that have contributed to her life But At the insistence of the Russian and U.S. governments, she is not wearing the Iranian flag.(she has told reporters that she will keep he flag stowed away in her gear). She was also asked, by Russian and US governments, not to make any political statements while on board the ISS. But her presence on the trip is statement enough .