Magox

Wow! I refrained, but I guess this proves it, you're DiN²

Because he's pandering to the Evangelicals, don't ya know, it's loony primary season... Duh

I take back half of what I said about Romney, America hates successful capitalists

ummmm, the way she sung the SSB was incredible.

Doesn't sound like it should be that difficult.

What? Like as if there would be something wrong with that. Sheeesh

I'm Lost

Well you did it now, the mellows are harshing man, the mellows are harshing....

If this happens, I'm dippin back to South America

I've never heard of the term. Who said it?

Now if that's not Crony Capitalism, then there is no such thing as Crony Capitalism.

I don't know that, and you can't say for sure that you do either. What I do know is that people who are in the know, that are in a much more informed position disagree with you and others. That I do know. Let me reiterate, I've never been a war hawk, I don't promote it, as a matter of fact I've spoken against it on this board. So I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that I am somehow defending aggressive behavior. Having said that, I understand the concept of how military muscularism can be seen as a deterrent. Is having 1500 warheads any more of a deterrent than having 350? I have no idea and I don't profess to know unlike some other posters. I made an extremely SIMPLE argument that having more strength than others can be an effective deterrent. I cant help that some of you interpreted that the way you wanted to. That's your problem. So there

I dunno

You are making the assumption that 350 is enough. I on the otherhand admit that I have no clue what is or isn't enough. So yeah, that's what you said. Yeah, like I said that. Dude, go back and like study or pick up comprehension skills or something.

Listen, you nor anyone here is qualified to give a substantive answer regarding how many warheads is enough. What's ****ty is that you somehow believe that you are.

That's just robbery.

I would say as designed, they may work a little in changing smoking behaviour, but in regards to how that money is spent, well that's why I said some sort of a "lock box", where that money doesn't go towards gov spending programs, but strictly towards wellness programs and promotions of healthier living.

That's because you frequent bars where dudes strictly eat lentils and study journalism.

That's actually a good idea. Thanks

I didn't say it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that it is natural instinct for MOST people to go after things they believe they can achieve easier. A good big guy will usually beat a good smaller guy, most people in bars aren't good fighters, alot of big guys arent that great of fighters either, but usually fights are won before they even start, simply because of fear, big guys usually intimidate smaller guys. Big guys in more cases than not feel as if they can intimidate people more so than smaller guys, so when you get people drinking, and you get superiority complexes that are multiplied with alcoholic machismo you will see in more cases big guys picking on smaller guys than the other way around. That's just how it is.

This is kinda funny. Obviously they shouldnt be doing that But I absolutely do agree with the idea of restricting what kind of foods can be bought with Government welfare money. I also am for promoting healthy eating in schools and only providing healthy foods, and cut down significantly the fat and sugars. I also believe taxing sugars and putting that money in a "lockbox" of sorts and applying that money towards preventative care and promotions of exercise and healthier eating.

I disagree with the Bar part. As an ex owner of a night club that averaged over 500 people a night on the weekends and a billiards bar, working 6 nights a week over a 6 year period, You're wrong. Big guys in most circumstances picked on guys that they believed they could take down, why? Because in their mind they knew they could.

I'm not a pro war sort of dude at all, and I know I'm oversimplifying things here, but common sense tells me that if someone is gonna pick a fight, they usually will pick the smaller dude.

The oil refinery mergers played almost no role in the increase of the price of oil. What caused the price of oil to increase during his term were a few main factors, one the economy in the US domestically speaking was in a bubble, so demand was at all time highs. While we were in that bubble demand period there were tons of Gas guzzling vehicles that our automakers were creating. Also, the Global economy was in full swing, Europe was experiencing it's biggest boom period in over 30 years and China was growing at ridiculous 11% GDP growth rates. A US dollar that was plummetting hitting all time lows. There was also a shortage of rigs and tankers, more so than there is today at that time period. Not to mention all he instability in the Middle East. Then you throw in devastating Hurricanes that hit the heart of our domestic deep sea drilling and refineries and a surge in demand because of the Chinese Olympics that diverted oil shipments from the US and VOILAAAAAAAA!!!!! High prices.

And yes, healthcare costs were gonna go up regardless, but the president said his healthcare bill would bend the cost curve, did he not? well he was right, but it bent it to the upside. Shouldn't he be held accountable for his failed promises? But lets just say his policies had nothing to do with that, just for the sake of argument, approximately half the people who took that poll citied regulations as reasons for not hiring. Remember when you and I had this conversation, I cited SPECIFIC examples of companies and industries that made these claims and you scoffed at that suggestion. Now you have a poll taken by SMALL BUSINESS owners that are saying the same thing. I guess you'll ignore that too right? Oh, and are you saying Apple hitting $600 = US having a strong and vibrant DOMESTIC economy? Is that what you are trying to say? Really??? http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html Yeah and I guess the "BOOM"ing economy had more to do with that then their ability to innovate and maximize on a growing consumer global market.