Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[ScareCrow57]

well, jose padilla wasn't ripped from his home but he was held without charges, and tortured. we would never know who was ripped away from their home because the government doesn't have to acknowledge having anyone.

the war on terror is like the war on drugs, unwinnable. terrorism is a tactic, and one can't have a war against a tactic. it's kind of like saying a war on shock and awe.

I see, so are you suggesting we just do nothing. Let the thugs beat us up?

Sorry I have a little more pride than that, I will stand up to those who you support and fight them to the end. For in the end, good must prevail.

Your last paragraph (so to speak) has to be the most retarded thing I have ever seen. We can't win - so don't even try.

[Tomcat1066]

people do want to be rewarded for good work, but the free market produces an uneven playing field. the free market rewards corporations who pay the average laborer the lowest amount. that's why jobs were shipped to mexico and then to china because the chinese will do it at a cheaper rate than the mexicans. that's why when i call tech support for my computer i'm talking to a person in india. why pay someone here $20,000 a year to do a job someone in india will do for $4000 a year. there's a great documentary about the effects of the free market called life&debt. no system is perfect, especially ours.

And many of those same companies are starting to move their industries back to the US. Why? Quality is important to many of them, and the US worker provides it more than workers in many other nations, especially developing nations.

The free market economy that you have such an issue with is the same economy that made the modern age we live in possible. Without the potential for profit, the personal computer wouldn't be sitting on your desk. The assembly line method would never have been created to mass produce cars. And, many of the innovations that keep firefighters safe would never have been created either. It is the desire for reward that drives people to innovate. Is the playing field level? Maybe not as level as it once was, but it's still level. Build a better mouse trap, and the world will still beat a path to your door.

capitalism doesn't equal the free market economy as proposed by milton friedman, the one we follow. what's wrong with a fair market economy?

What's wrong with it is in determining what is "fair". Fair for whom? I invent a product that no one else has. I decide to sell it. A competitor decides that it's unfair that I alone get to sell my new product. "Fair Market" economy is usually a euphemism for some form of socialist economy.

i'm not lamenting, and didn't ask for anyone's sympathy. i was just explaining my situation. it's always easy to criticize someone when not walking in their shoes.

And the question asked is important for us to try and understand what walking in your shoes is like. Knowing what your degree is in would help us understand what you're trying to say after all. I mean, your situation would mean different things if you studied Indonesian Property Management, as opposed to Nursing, for example.

like yourself, moving isn't always an option, or financially feasable. what cake am i trying to have and eat too? a job?

You want to live in an area where you obviously can't find a job, but you don't want to move. So, you want to have your cake (a job) and eat it too (live in your current city) despite the obstacles in your way. Yeah, lots of people manage it, but not everyone can.

i'm not trying to change your opinion, just explain mine. i haven't given up on my job search, and i said that i wasn't able to get an interview in the private sector. the city has given me an interview and i have a second one coming up. in today's economy it's hard for anyone to find a job. but that move where there's work is a simplified solution. if i don't have a job in the state i'm moving to how will i afford housing and food for my kids? i've applied to jobs in other states too, by the way, but i prefer to stay where i'm at if i can.

So now you say you've applied for jobs in other states? OK, fine. Good for you. Frankly, if you have the education you claim, then I find it hard to believe you can't find a job anywhere. And, for the record, I have little reason to doubt you. But you were indicating that you were against moving, and made no reference to applying out of state at any time that I can recall.

I wish you luck with the job hunt. Of course, I'm still curious what your master's degree is in.

Oh yeah, this quote you said earlier you agreed with?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

You are aware where it comes from originally, right?

[jsin925]

I see, so are you suggesting we just do nothing. Let the thugs beat us up?

Sorry I have a little more pride than that, I will stand up to those who you support and fight them to the end. For in the end, good must prevail.

Your last paragraph (so to speak) has to be the most retarded thing I have ever seen. We can't win - so don't even try.

did i ever suggest doing nothing? no, i said it's unwinnable as a war, which it is. terrorism is a tactic. in palestine they use terrorism as a tactic. the ira used terrorism as a tactic. the basque used terrorism as a tactic. shock and awe was a tactic and it didn't work.

you sound like a comic book, "For in the end, good must prevail." next you'll be calling people evildoers like my 9 yr old when he writes his stories. those cats struck the world trade center in '93 and waited 8 yrs until they struck again. they developed their tactics over time. it might be another 8 years until they strike again. who is the enemy? i read a book (i forget what it was called) about special ops in afghanistan, and they said they don't know who they're fighting, who the enemy is or where they are exactly located. the majority of hijackers were from saudi arabia, so why not go to war with saudi arabia?

interpol would probably do a better job. i don't have any answers, but i know things are bad.

the american government puts bad people on our payroll like sadaam hussein and bin laden. hussein was cool when he was fighting with iran, and bin laden was cool when he was fighting the russians. we helped put the taliban in power and now they're bad. these people have always been bad, but if they're on our side they're cool. stalin was bad but he was cool during world war two. and don't say the rhetoric about my enemy's enemy is my friend crap either. that's bull**** when you just end up fighting the guy in the end.

i've never been to war, maybe you have, but my brother fought in the first gulf war, and he's not down with war. did you watch the winter soldiers hearings? a lot of people who fought over there don't see the point. why are we in iraq in the first place?

[ChiefKN]

the american government puts bad people on our payroll like sadaam hussein and bin laden.

Yea, and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama.

[Jasper 45]

well, jose padilla wasn't ripped from his home but he was held without charges, and tortured.

Where was he captured from, again?

the war on terror is like the war on drugs, unwinnable. terrorism is a tactic, and one can't have a war against a tactic. it's kind of like saying a war on shock and awe.

Wrong.
Dealing with terror as a "law enforcement" issue worked even less. Terrorism is an act of war, as such it should be treated as such. It is possible to cripple terror groups, eliminate their funding, dry up their infrastructure, and cause countries to not want to harbor terror groups.
Active military operations are the only way to deal with terror groups, be it with direct force or thru covert operations. History has proven that.

But yeah, I get it. We're much better off to try and talk, placate, and let these animals run roughshod over us.

[Jasper 45]

bin laden was cool when he was fighting the russians. we helped put the taliban in power and now they're bad. these people have always been bad, but if they're on our side they're cool.

Bin Laden declared war on us when the Saudis asked us for help in removing Iraq from Kuwait, rather than him.
Terrorism was treated largely as an issue for law enforcement all thru the '90's, when there was a stark increase in terror attacks. Trying to arrest and prosecute these savages does not work
.
Bin Laden was never a "cool cat", but war does bring about allies that other wise would never be thought of. The Soviets in Afghanistan were a larger threat at that time, to world stability. You need to look at the current events of the day. We were never "allied" with Bin Laden, the CIA just helped them stay in business.

As far as Stalin, we should have kicked his behind back to Moscow. To me, the biggest drubbing a group of people have taken are the Polish. They were invaded and occupied by Germany until 1945, and then allowed to stay under oppression for the next 50 years by the Soviets. We stood by and watched as they were never truly liberated, actually we allowed them to be occupied.

History has proven that invading the Soviet Union probably would not have been a good idea. We had a common enemy with Stalin, but to call us an ally of the USSR is a stretch. We never engaged in open hostilities with them during WWII, we provided equipment, but to compare them to the UK is a bit of a stretch.

[jsin925]

And many of those same companies are starting to move their industries back to the US. Why? Quality is important to many of them, and the US worker provides it more than workers in many other nations, especially developing nations.

The free market economy that you have such an issue with is the same economy that made the modern age we live in possible. Without the potential for profit, the personal computer wouldn't be sitting on your desk. The assembly line method would never have been created to mass produce cars. And, many of the innovations that keep firefighters safe would never have been created either. It is the desire for reward that drives people to innovate. Is the playing field level? Maybe not as level as it once was, but it's still level. Build a better mouse trap, and the world will still beat a path to your door.

it's also the same economy that put pinochet in power, and the reason why south america is moving away from it. what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. brazil and venezeula have paid off their national debt. can america say the same?

What's wrong with it is in determining what is "fair". Fair for whom? I invent a product that no one else has. I decide to sell it. A competitor decides that it's unfair that I alone get to sell my new product. "Fair Market" economy is usually a euphemism for some form of socialist economy.

have you ever bought fair trade coffee, or chocolate? no socialism involved, all capitalism.

And the question asked is important for us to try and understand what walking in your shoes is like. Knowing what your degree is in would help us understand what you're trying to say after all. I mean, your situation would mean different things if you studied Indonesian Property Management, as opposed to Nursing, for example.

if i apply for jobs in my field where i live, there are obviously jobs in my field where i live. my point is that the economy sucks right now. it's more about who you know and not what you know (in the private sector). i have a friend who has an mba and he can't find a full time job. he works three part-time jobs, one delivering subs. regardless of what my major was, the answer you all would give would be to move. if it were that easy, don't you think i would have done that. i have a son who is type 1 diabetic so my wife and i can't go anytime without health insurance. you all want to be judgemental, and offer up tough love solutions.

You want to live in an area where you obviously can't find a job, but you don't want to move. So, you want to have your cake (a job) and eat it too (live in your current city) despite the obstacles in your way. Yeah, lots of people manage it, but not everyone can.

listen, i've applied to other jobs outside of the field i've studied in, like the fire dept. being a firefighter was always one of my dreams as a kid, and i had a lot of dreams that i have tried to attain. i don't have a defeatist attitude and i believe i can make it here, where i live.

So now you say you've applied for jobs in other states? OK, fine. Good for you. Frankly, if you have the education you claim, then I find it hard to believe you can't find a job anywhere. And, for the record, I have little reason to doubt you. But you were indicating that you were against moving, and made no reference to applying out of state at any time that I can recall.

I wish you luck with the job hunt. Of course, I'm still curious what your master's degree is in.

well, i do have the education i claim (with great references too), and i am having trouble finding a job (in the private sector) in the field i studied regardless of what you believe. i teach in my field and i am totally aware of the pitfalls and setbacks that come with it. i just can't believe how judgemental you all are. a guy is having trouble finding a job and it's my fault. i'm not against moving, if i have a job lined up. otherwise moving would be stupid.

Oh yeah, this quote you said earlier you agreed with?

You are aware where it comes from originally, right?

not at all. it could be from hilter or milton friedman. that's why i said it sounds good, because i have no idea of its origin. please enlighten me. do you know the origin of judge not lest ye be judged?

[scfire86]

Help me out, do you really mean GSP and not GDP? If so, what is GSP because I can find it anywhere in this context. NY is also heavy agriculture and tourism. Unfortunately, tourism relies on people having disposable income. As the government takes more of that disposable income tourism drops.
It also hurts the agriculture. Instead of buying the expensive wine people but the cheap wine. Instead of real maple syrup they buy imitation. However, to accurately measure how well an economy does one must normalize the data. For instance A household of 10 people earning $200,000 is not as good as a household of 2 earning $100,000.

GSP stands for Gross State Product. It is the total amount of goods and services produced in that state. A State's version of the GNP. Do yourself a favor and stop thinking about how DE is a more significant economic force than CA. It isn't close.

Personally, I don't care about any other country. I only care about my country and what they are doing to me.

What makes you believe I don't?

Governments are worse, they don't have bankruptcies, they have deficits. And I can sho3w huge examples of governments mis-managing their money. Unfortunately, they get away with it by raising more taxes.

And what's your point? As I pointed out the government is us.

There is nothing wrong with supporting basic government operations. Unfortunately, our current status has a lot of extra baggage. We pay for the health care of illegal aliens. And if we are going to do that, then why not pay for the health care of everyone in the world. Our social programs are out of control. I have no problem helping someone who is down on their luck. But we have created a system where by it is passed down from generation to generation. Millions of people in this country accept it as a way of life.

See above post.

We have a world class military. We don't need it. Clinton got that half right, if only he had finished the job. We do not need to be the worlds military. We had no business going into the former Yugoslav republic, Bosnia, Kosovo, and to some extent Iraq. We went to Kuwait as they asked for help. I'm good with that. And as part of the surrender Saddam agreed to certain conditions, which he did not stick too. Talk wasn't working. Oil for food flopped miserably. We had to do something. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. Once that was done we leave. Let them fight their own battles.

I guess there is a point in there somewhere, what I have no idea. How was removing Saddam the right thing to do? In retrospect this foreign policy decision has been a disaster.

As for the delinquent taxes. The reason we have a low rate is the IRS just takes all of your stuff. In my personal situation I had a time where I became unemployed and need to survive. I took my 401k rather than run top the local welfare office. In retrospect, I should have ran to the welfare office. They raped me with taxes, followed by penalties and interest. Tried to do the right thing and got screwed for it. And now I'm back on my feet, but can't get ahead, because they take 43% of my check. And I'm sorry, but when half of the work I do goes to support the government I think we have a problem. That means that half I support the notion of a communist system, that in which you have no freedom and the government provides for you.

Welcome to America. I pay the same percent in taxes. It's not like they're only picking on you. I've never had any problems with the Feds. I don't know what you do for a living but that is a choice you made.

[jsin925]

Bin Laden declared war on us when the Saudis asked us for help in removing Iraq from Kuwait, rather than him.
Terrorism was treated largely as an issue for law enforcement all thru the '90's, when there was a stark increase in terror attacks. Trying to arrest and prosecute these savages does not work
.
Bin Laden was never a "cool cat", but war does bring about allies that other wise would never be thought of. The Soviets in Afghanistan were a larger threat at that time, to world stability. You need to look at the current events of the day. We were never "allied" with Bin Laden, the CIA just helped them stay in business.

As far as Stalin, we should have kicked his behind back to Moscow. To me, the biggest drubbing a group of people have taken are the Polish. They were invaded and occupied by Germany until 1945, and then allowed to stay under oppression for the next 50 years by the Soviets. We stood by and watched as they were never truly liberated, actually we allowed them to be occupied.

History has proven that invading the Soviet Union probably would not have been a good idea. We had a common enemy with Stalin, but to call us an ally of the USSR is a stretch. We never engaged in open hostilities with them during WWII, we provided equipment, but to compare them to the UK is a bit of a stretch.

bin laden is a psychopath, i agree. i disagree that the soviets in afghanistan were a threat to world stability, but that's just my opinion. never being allied with bin laden but giving him money and arms to fight the soviets might be a semantical argument. were we allied with the hmong when we gave them money and arms to fight the communists in laos during the secret war?

isn't there a picture of roosevelt, churchill, and stalin hanging out kicking (excuse my use of slang) logistics.

i think all of eastern europe got a raw deal after the war. i'm not familiar with the plight of the polish, but i believe you.

i don't like to call people savages, although people do commit savage acts (ted bundy, jeffery dahmer, the hutus against the tutsis in rwanda, milosevic, etc). we're deemed savages by some. we are just more efficient i guess, but i wouldn't say we are savages. in war people do savage things. such is the nature of war, that's why it sucks. bin laden's crew are well educated, crazy, psycho [email protected]#kers who will stop at nothing. i have no idea how to go about defeating them, but i know iraq and afghanistan isn't the answer. history will tell.

[jsin925]

Yea, and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama.

what, no repubicans on the list. i'm sure there are some republicans you can put up there too.

[jsin925]

Where was he captured from, again?

i believe it was at the airport, but i could be wrong.

Wrong.
Dealing with terror as a "law enforcement" issue worked even less. Terrorism is an act of war, as such it should be treated as such. It is possible to cripple terror groups, eliminate their funding, dry up their infrastructure, and cause countries to not want to harbor terror groups.
Active military operations are the only way to deal with terror groups, be it with direct force or thru covert operations. History has proven that.

But yeah, I get it. We're much better off to try and talk, placate, and let these animals run roughshod over us.

it worked fine for tim mcveigh.

where in history has military operations worked against terrorism?

why is it that because i disagree with our strategy one makes the assumption that i believe we should do nothing?

[Jasper 45]

were we allied with the hmong when we gave them money and arms to fight the communists in laos during the secret war?

It's probably semantics, but in my opinion you look at the overall picture of the relationship. Bin Laden was never trust worthy, and any who dealt with him knew that.
Each situation needs to be looked at individually.

isn't there a picture of roosevelt, churchill, and stalin hanging out kicking (excuse my use of slang) logistics.

The question to ask would have been about who trusted Stalin, and who wanted to establish a lasting relationship with the Soviets post WWII. Germany was a much larger threat to world peace than 1930's USSR. They were a military might that barring a leader who was nuts, very well could have dominated much of the world.

There was also a reason why many of the German scientists were running to our troops rather than the Soviets.
I find it hard to believe that any of the western European leadership, or Roosevelt actually thought the Soviets to be a friend.

i think all of eastern europe got a raw deal after the war. i'm not familiar with the plight of the polish, but i believe you.

You're right, the whole of eastern Europe did. It was just that Poland was invaded very early on, as was France. One lived under oppression for fifty years, the other likes to forget that they were liberated.

i don't like to call people savages

I don't either, thats why I reserve it's use for those who deserve it, such as terrorist and those who support them. Terrorists and those who support them are savages.

i have no idea how to go about defeating them, but i know iraq and afghanistan isn't the answer. history will tell.

Both were havens for terror groups, providing money, logistics, as well as safe havens for terror groups. Both were open about.
You go about defeating them by killing those who choose that path faster than they can kill us. Then you give the people who live in those countries hope, and a way to get ahead. They get caught up in this crap because they have nothing else to live for, and they become easy prey.

But you are right, history will tell.

[Jasper 45]

it worked fine for tim mcveigh.

where in history has military operations worked against terrorism?

why is it that because i disagree with our strategy one makes the assumption that i believe we should do nothing?

McVeigh was a domestic case, in which our law enforcement actually has jurisdiction. That attack was entirely on our soil, we controlled all aspects of the investigation, the manhunt, and the arrest.
The FBI has no jurisdiction outside of our Nation.

Actually, using the military worked pretty well in the '80's. Once the military was shaped up following Carter, and years of neglect, President Reagen chose to use the military in this role.
As you may recall, there were a series of terror attacks all thru the early to mid 1980's. Several GI's were killed in a Berlin disco bombing, Leon Klinghoffer was killed on the Achille Lauro after he was thrown overboard in his wheel chair by Abu Abbas, and US Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered on a TWA plane that was hijacked.



All had some degree of support,approval or involvement by Libya's government and Moammar al-Ghadafi.
He established himself as a state-sponsor of terror and was the subject of a 1986 air strike by US military forces. What have you heard from Colonel Ghadafi since?

The military is also better trained, better equipped and more able to take down these savages wherever they are. Most of the Achille Lauro hijackers were essentially taken into custody by US Navy F-14's, to ensure they were truly brought to justice.
US special forces, as well as the military are in a position to deal with these situations, and these savages appropriately.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

i never asked you all to judge me, nor are you all in a position to judge me. your judgements hold no validity with me, and i'm not playing your gotcha game, as bush would say.

I'll take that as meaning you got your Masters in some field that is high in demand like Humanities, Philosophy, Foreign Studies, Ethnic Studies or some other field that companies are beating the door down to hire candidates with. But it's the US economic system's fault you can't get a job. I understand EXACTLY where you are coming from. EXACTLY.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Alright my friend, I watched. It's 8 minutes of my life I want back.

She is misrepresenting the law, plain and simple. It actually makes me mad that she uses her RN credentials to do this.

But let's go with it... lets say big brother was warehousing DNA.

Why? What would they gain ? What black helicopter conspiracy are you all suggesting?

Now, let's talk of the gains... the research into better, more accurate screening...

The diseases that are not routinely caught upon screening now, may be caught in the future.

Do you know that hospitals are currently warehousing your private medical information?

Sorry, this is alarmist conspiracy nutjob stuff.

That would be the low-bid hospital.