jimshiz

You're the one who implied that probation officers went after unpaid parking tickets. Only an idiot would send an amputated arm case to the school nurse instead of calling 911 for an ambulance or even rushing the person to the hospital themselves.

YES !!! Because the only reason CNN is doing that is to tug at the heart strings of those who might make the connection that drilling for oil in Alaska would be "bad" for caribou. The results of the study that I found showed the exact OPPOSITE is what happened in reality.

"The Alaska Fish and Game Depart ment just did a study on the porcupine caribou in Prudhoe Bay. The size of the herds has increased since 1969 by 35 percent. The pipeline area is a protected designation and the caribou have figured this out. They have migrated into this area for protection," Lawler said. (http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm)

Maybe assigning a probation officer to someone with unpaid parking tickets is part of the problem?

Which ones of Cleveland, Detroit, or St. Louis taxed themselves into prosperity? Did any of them have a nearly 10% sales tax?

Solution (for now) => sentence criminals to JAIL instead of probation !!!

Sorry, you're nuts !!! I used to live in Buffalo when the sales tax went from 7% to 8% only temporarily and only to pay the stupid lost lawsuit to Cotrell for backing out of a stadium deal. When exactly did that temporary single penny increase come to an end? I loved growing up in Buffalo. But, do you think I'm going to leave the conservative state of Indiana with a flat 3.4% income tax and 6% sales tax for the possibility of an ever approaching 10% sales tax in Erie County? Get a life! Hey, let's raise property taxes on the inner city residents who already can't afford the tax bill they have today; NOT!!! Did you ever hear of CUT SPENDING ??? GM should immediately be offered no taxes for the next 30 years if they agree to build more plants in WNY. Ditto for any large technology company that can offer jobs to graduates of UB and other schools in the area. Why don't you start a poll and you'll quickly see that it is closer to 90% of folks here who think you're nuts?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050317/D88SNDC80.html

My point was that even a condom really won't prevent the spread of AIDS when it comes down to absolutes. I think the statistics on condoms for birth control shows that they are something like 98% effective. I don't think there are any studies on their real effectiveness for preventing AIDS; but I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 100% effective. So, in the case of birth control and prevention of AIDS, even wearing a condom is a little bit like playing Russian roulette.

A "consumption tax" would cause me to buy a lot less discretionary items. If everybody behaved like that, it would hurt the economy because frugal people like me would buy less to save on taxes. Tax revenues would in turn go down and politicians would claim that the "rate" of the "consumption tax" must go up. Necessity items would likely be exempt since "poorer" folks should not be "punished" for just buying things they "need". Also, in border areas; Canada & Mexico and on Indian Reservations, they'd be able to offer items at a much reduced price since they would likely be exempt from any "consumption taxes". This would also hurt the economy in these border areas because the producers of those products would pretty much be unable to compete. I'm sure there'd be a lot of "black market" items cropping up all over the place too. And buying foreign items over the internet would take off like mad. Start another thread on a "flat tax" and include "excemptions to allow ZERO taxes for ALL income less than twice the poverty level in addition to excemptions for dependents. Make it a law that 2/3 of Senate & Congress are required to change the fixed flat tax percentage rate.

would you have sex with someone if I said, "yeah, she's/he's got AIDS for sure, but she/he is HOT, so here's a condom - she/he is all yours!" ???

I am 43 and I have NEVER smoked pot (and I have never done ANY illegal drugs)!

fas-cism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Fa-sci-sta: a member of an Italian political organization under Mussolini governing Italy 1922-1943 according to the principles of fascism. au-to-crat: 1) a person ruling with unlimited authority. 2) one who has undisputed influence or power. au-toc-ra-cy: 2) government in which one person possesses unlimited power.

I think that most of them are true (except the ones I already listed in my first reply) at least for the majority of those who seem to label themselves as "leaders" of the Democratic Party. Whereas I think your entire list has no basis in fact whatsoever for the majority of those who seem to label themselves as "leaders" of the Republican Party.

I'm a radical right-winger and there are a few items on your list of "platform" issues that I would not solely attribute to DEMS: 5) Anti-smoking in bars. 6) Legalize marijuana 7) Anti-law enforcement for the most part. 8) Militant vegetarians. And a few that might be missing: 11) Freedom FROM Religion 12) Appeasement - let's all get along 13) Only if the U.N. says so... and you're missing a few from your "Leaders" list: 1a) Kennedy 2a) Bill Clinton 3a) McAuliffe 6) Boxer???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6942867/ I think this was discussed before; but the above article is updated today. Can someone please tell me again how the tactics by these female interrogators is torture? "Pentagon officials said yesterday that wearing skimpy clothing or engaging in provocative touching and banter would be inappropriate interrogation techniques." WHY?

Iraq was NOT a "unarmed country". Saddam Hussein had already masacred hundreds of thousands in his own country. The Libs from Clinton to Kennedy in the 1990s claimed he had WMDs and should be dealt with. The weapons inspectors were already hindered by Saddam and kicked out. The US is NOT "occupying" a sovereign nation. But, you are right, they are not a viable thread (anymore). How much do you think the Global War on Terror should cost? How much is too much? There were WMDs. I'd be more worried about where they are now. If there are no Al-queda ties, what is their stake in being there now? The "war on Communism" is worth it. It is not over. Thank God for Reagan; we were able to win one of the battles of the Cold War with the break up of the USSR. Again, what cost is too high to win the Global War on Terror? Yes, we're just in it to make money. Like Reagan before him, GWB said we'll be happy to fight terror along side our friends but we'll go it alone if we have to. You can hardly look to Spain as proof they were right to "pull out". The "exit strategy" is to win the Global War on Terror. If you think this war is about us gettin oil, you are an idiot. If you want to blame someone for that, look no further than the "Oil for Food" scandal in the UN. In the first War in Iraq, the mission was to force them out of Kuwait. Nothing more. The resolutions were put in to place and agreed to by Saddam which also allowed us to go no further at the time. And Israel does not need our protection. We should take some cues from them. How can you bash the only current democracy in that region? GWB only lied if you also believe that Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Albright, etc. ALL lied before him in the 1990s. Yes, more DNC talking points - "this war is about oil"; "this war is revenge for assassination plot against Bush 41". Do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you don't think about outcomes for yourself? The alternative to "peace through strength" is more appeasement that got us Pearl Harbor in 1941, WTC in 1993, USS Cole in 2000, WTC & Pentagon in 2001, etc. You're the one buying the "lies" hook, line, & sinker... (As to the "reasons" for the wars - go read my other posts and the posts of so many others who see the bigger picture in the long term).

I doubt any of the US soldiers in Iraq feel like they have "deserted" their wives and children. What a ridiculously pessimistic view of military service. And none of them are realistically thinking they'll only fight in the battles that "they know the outcome of". You have no idea what the military is all about. You don't get to pick and choose which battle you will volunteer for and which battle you won't. And YES, "getting a loan, some college money, or even 100k a year" DOES obligate them to fulfill the oath they all took. The US was NOT wrong in Viet Nam. Quit dismissing the lives and courage of all those who fought and/or died in that war by saying such things. You clearly don't understand the reasons for the Viet Nam War nor the reasons for the War In Iraq and the Global War on Terror.

Except that we and the administration did NOT act irresponsibly! Neither the 1991 nor the current War in Iraq were irresponsible. My final analysis will always be different than yours.

I read yesterday that a 16-year old girl in Illinois is being charged with 1st degree murder for dismembering another 16-year old girl. And here in Indiana, a 50 year old step "father" of an 18-year old girl shot her twice and killed her.

Priceless !!! They all made me laugh !!!

As I recall, a gallon of milk, for example, has ranged between $1.89 and $2.69 for at least the last five years. I've received a raise in each of the last five years. So, my money is not going down the toilet. The DOW was down in 2000 and 2001 (9/11), but it was up 25% in 2003 and it was up in 2004.

This deserves its own thread. Here's the presidents in my life time with my own opinion of his character and my own opinion of his presidential success: Kennedy - probably of just so-so character mainly only because of the Marylyn Monroe thing. - from my own historical perspective, I consider Kennedy one of the best presidents of the last century. Johnson - probably of good character. Viet Nam War was not good for him. Conspiracies imply crookedness wrt Kennedy & Defense contractors. - I actually don't have an opinion of Johnson that would swing either good or bad. Nixon - had many good traits. but he had an "enemies list" and he was willing to cover up the truth about Watergate. Most would agree that he was not really of good character. - Nixon I remember and there are so many things that I do like about him that regardless of Watergate, I still rank him high on my own "list". But, most would say his presidency was not successful. Ford - probably of good character - unless you want to bash him for the Nixon pardon - with no specifics; possibly just piling on by me, I would not characterize his presidency as successful. Carter - you have to say he was/is of good character - but, his presidency was not successful; whether it was his fault or not Reagan - few honest people would argue the fact that Reagan was of good character. The extreme will point to Iran-Contra as enough to outweigh any good. - a two term president who most should say was successful regardless of the growing deficit. Bush (41) - good character - probably slightly unsuccessful presidency evidenced by loss to Clinton; regardless of Persian Gulf War. Some successes on his watch were initiated by Reagan. Clinton - people will argue about his character. In my eyes, mainly only because of the affairs, I would personally say not of good character. - his presidency will go down in history as one of the most successful. this is regardless of the Impeachment. Many can say that was partisan. GWB (43) - my own opinion is he is of good character. Bush Haters will obviously disagree and will continue to say he is nothing but a liar and a dumb ass. - again, my opinion only, is his presidency is successful. He is a two term president. The Iraqi War is not going great... but Afghanistan is "free" and millions in Iraq can be considered "free" - the election on Jan. 30 will actually be a good PR thing. This one will be most controversial to most. My own biases can be seen in Nixon where I realize he was obviously not a nice man, but I like most of the things he did as president. And in Clinton where my personal opinion of him is that he is a scum bag, but his presidency was one of the best for our country. And Kennedy had some of the same human weaknesses as Clinton, yet I like what he did for taxes and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But, should your opinions be thrust upon MY children? ...and should my opinions be thrust upon your children?

I'm not saying anything about the "video" because I have not seen it... but, why do I or my children have to respect or tolerate the "sexual identity" of others if they are practicing something that I don't agree with? http://www.tolerance.org/101_tools/declaration.html "Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination. To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, or race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."