jimshiz

Is it a fact that it was bipolar or depression or alcoholism that caused him to act the way he did or in this case did he do it just because he is an !@#$? I hope he does not die either; he certainly needs help with his "problems". But he should be institutionalized in prison or a mental hospital and drugs and/or therapy should be mandated.

I'll make it easy for all of you... Your note above is what I think makes you a Liberal. And the thing that makes many of you think that I am nothing more than a WingNut whacko on the far right is that I feel for the officers, but I don't feel much of anything at all for him. Now, I don't hate him or anything. But, I'll go to bat a thousand times out of a thousand for the cops in cases like this.

At least one other person has implied that "the far right" makes up only a portion of the GOP and they are trying to take it over from a "minority position". Your post implies that the GOP is full of whacko "far right". Many Democrats are not as fringe left as the groups who I don't like to align myself with. So, unfortunately, for me it only takes a small number of people or groups to be associated with Democrats to keep me away. I totally disagree with all you "third party" thinkers. Mainly because I don't think any of you can really and accurately define what the "middle" is. There are a lot of issues that are "grey" or "middle" for me. But, there are some where it is simple for me to determine that it is right or wrong - and some of you say that makes me "far right". This is because some of the things you think are in the "middle" for you are actually "far left" for me. MoveOn.org sent out an e-mail thinking they will "take over" in 2006 like the 104th Congress did with the "Contract with America" on 1994. We'll see. GWB was an easy choice for me and I've already said it was nothing about "choosing the lesser of two evils". I consider myself intelligent and I don't just buy sound bytes; but I will sometime retort with a sound byte because it captures the essence of what my argument is. This does not mean I'm just about sound bytes.

"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it!"

Do you really mean to imply that Condi is a "yes man"?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny...egion-apnewyork http://www.countmeblue.com/ http://www.countmered.com/

You need to qualify this so that "good" math teachers and "good" science teachers are "better" compensated. I'm pretty smart at math; but I'm not sure I'd ever make a good math teacher.

I assume that you don't really mean this literally. That would be age discrimination. I'm all for performance based merit reviews. Both young and old teachers can perform poorly as well as perform well. I guess the whole tenure thing and unions stand in the way of performance based merit reviews.

I think the following quote says it all...

Not sure where the best place is to post jobs is... I thought I'd put the word out to anybody who might be interested. I've received calls from head hunters with jobs in Systems Engineering and Software Engineering available in: Syracuse, New York Morristown, New Jersey Santa Rosa, California (I think); Northern California If anybody is really interested, please let me know. However, I left the headhunter names, #s, & e-mail addresses at work, so you'd have to wait until after Christmas and New Years for me to get it. JimKrazy (the neo-con, racist, bigoted, lying, hypocrite, white, Republican, "not" compassionate Conservative, Fundamentalist Christian, heterosexual, anti-abortion, big business, gun owner who is no longer in Vogue)

You truly are disgusting !!!

You're disgusting !!!

I hope you realize that I was simply using the exact same phrase somebody else used for military spending vs. social spending. And NO government should ever be run like a business because business is in it for the money, to make a profit, and nothing else. Government should not be trying to make a "profit".

The idealogical appetite of another large portion of the electorate for more social spending, always more, more, more, is insatiable. Logically, that has to eventually lead to ruin.

His editorial starts out with a false and incorrect premise: "Besides being in Iraq for one year for no reason...". George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief and thanks to his steadfastness and the heroism of the Troops, "WE" are safe in our own land as "WE" meet the enemy in their land.

Quick answers: GHWB did that stupid "raise taxes" deal. And I don't think he took serious how some would hold him to do exactly as he said. There are many things that I did like about GHWB though. And I am not one of those who say he should have gone after Saddam Hussein or Baghdad in 1991 because I understood the limitations of the U.N. resolutions and what getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait left for us to do - not much. For GWB, I like the "cowboy attitude" that so many others knock. I loved the "Bring 'em on" statement that most people used as a big negative against GWB. I don't even think he came close to lying about WMDs as others do. My impression is that he does exactly what he says he's going to do. Now, of course there are times when that does not exactly happen. And I know spending is "out of control". There is waste on the social spending as well as the intelligence & military spending. I essentially agree with him on taxes, war on terror, religious issues, and abortion. I did not vote against Kerry to only be stuck with my vote for GWB; but voting against Kerry was a plus to me. So, it is just my impression that I like GWB "better" than GHWB.

I ranked GWB Jr. above GHWB Sr. as well... And regardless of what some people say, going to war against Iraq was/is the right thing to do. Going to war against Syria and Yemen would also be understandable. But, I'm just a neocon...

Sorry - I'll re-phrase - he is one of the best Republican Presidents along with Ronald Reagan. He was certainly better than his father - George H. W. Bush (41). He was better than Nixon and all but Carter was probably better than Ford. I don't know much about Ike. But, I think I would have liked him. I may as well list all the Presidents since I've been alive from best to worst: Ronald Reagan George W. Bush (43) Richard Nixon George H.W. Bush (41) John F. Kennedy Bill Clinton Lyndon Johnson Gerald Ford Jimmy Carter This could change if I thought about it more, but the top two are certainties for me.

I work for a Defense Contractor and the people I work with are neither "fat" nor "dumb". We Thank God that we can do our part as engineers and managers to contribute to the best military in the entire world. We take pride in the fact that our systems were used to allow us to overrun the enemy with so few casualties as compared to wars in the past. We work our butts off and we don't have any "sweetheart deals". As for the schools in Texas, if they are "cheating", then those responsible for the "cheating" are in the wrong and NOBODY else. If "No Child Left Behind" is "broke", then "mend it, don't end it".

I voted FOR George W. Bush. He is the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan. I can not think of a Democrat who I would ever vote for over George W. Bush. I liked Kennedy, Truman, & FDR. But, if I was able to vote, I still would have voted for Nixon over Kennedy even knowing about the Watergate "scandal" and the Marylyn Monroe B.S. I would NEVER be for an Amendment that would allow Schwarzenegger to run. But, if he were allowed, he would NOT be my first choice to run - neither would Rudy.

That was a cheap shot !!! just kidding...

Good point !!! If "Intelligent Design" should not be taught in public schools because it is not science, then what subject is it that tries to teach our kids that being a freak that would lead to the end of civilization if everybody did it is just another life style choice?

NEOCON !!!

I don't know the answers either, but the scenario you proposed is pretty disgusting. What Ford did to determine that lawsuits would cost less than fixing their product is disgusting too. When you make a moral judgment, you CAN'T let monetary value cloud the decision of right and wrong. On the other hand, I would hope that most people would agree that someone stupid enough to put hot coffee between their legs got what they deserved and they certainly did not deserve a $ amount equal to what McDonald's made in a day. And I also kind of agree that the first people to be successful against someone who has injured many should not be awarded more money than a human possibly needs. The first Menendez jury and the OJ criminal jury were two sets of completely stupid people. But, that does not mean the solution is to get rid of the jury system. At the same time, we should not be "inventing" federal laws so that people who get off on technicalities can be brought up again on stupid federal laws - this is in essense double jeapordy and should not be allowed. I also don't think it is right that the lawyers who were finally successful against the tobacco companies got so much money and the people who were actually injured did not get what they deserved. But, I am also against price caps. There is NO silver bullet here. There are lots of problems. But, we must be careful about how we go about solving the problem. We really have to get at what the "root cause" is. Sometimes it is not obvious. If GWB recommends "caps", he will be labelled as against the "little guy". If he recommends fee structures, he will be labelled as "against the market system". The bottom line is that there are problems, not a crisis, and the problems can be fixed.

Does anybody want to argue the substance of the original post? I already said I had a problem with the one about the "age of the earth/world", so I left it out of the quote above. But, please tell me what is wrong with any of the three proposals above! These are not wacky right wing proposals. They are mainstream!