john5746

Very true, but government makes it possible for the rich to become rich without "taking it like a thug" Bill Gates has received far more benifit from the American government than I have. He can and should pay a higher percentage of his wealth towards government expenses. An equal percentage tax is not "fair". You suggested it is only a democrat idea... The free market doesn't take into account costs to the environment, costs in terms of wars, etc. Taxes would help to reflect some of the real costs. A small tax hike on the fuel, with tax incentives on fuel efficient systems, alternative fuels, etc. can help reduce consumption, which in turn reduce these other costs.

A subsidy for colleges as well. I would think either party would be interested in helping the middle class?

The military component will win, and?

Everyone is conecntrating on Obama's personality because he doesn't have much of a history and his positions on various topics are not well known. As his positions become more clear, we will see how he pans out. I think he has a big advantage just being black. He has that category, whereas Hillary does not have women as a given. I think Obama should at least serve one term as Senator, but then again many youngsters have done some amazing things in the private sector, so why not government?

Yeah, I know of a specific company that sold out, but honestly, they had bigger problems than SOX. I think it just adds on to the cost of doing business. If businesses are already struggling with healthcare costs and environmental regulations, etc, then this will just add to it.

Glad he is dead. Hope the next leader of Iraq isn't as bad or worse. It is sad that so many must die because of A-holes like him.

Or enough legislation to run smaller businesses to the brink.

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/202700/3/ Basically, the bible is a prop, not required at all. Maybe we should require muslim immigrants to swear on the Koran to be loyal to the US?

Ditto Pangloss. If she ran to the principle because you asked her an assignment related question, then she is weird and you need to find someone else to ask. Otherwise, just ask assignment related questions. Teachers do not need to be friends, so keep it business related. As you say, you have much more to lose by not talking to her than she does.

Too bad he is in hell, "There are billions and billions of hot coals down here!"

Skin color is a visible attribute, place of origin is not. If you have blue eyes and are offended that someone refers to you as a blue-eyed person, then you have a problem.

Screw all y'all. y'all - you all Southern(U.S) english all y'all - you all!!

I think this is one argument for supporting affirmitive action. If we change the scenario to two people interviewing, all things being equal, will a white person be more likely to hire a white person? A male hire a male? Multiply this over the aggregate and it is reasonable to see that a corrective action may be required. Applying it on the individual level however ends up with a more explicit form of racism. I don't agree with this assertion. As a male, I don't have the instinct to rape someone. I would be more promiscous than I am, but rape requires hatred, IMO. I don't hate every attractive female that I come across. This was a sexist remark and deeply offended me. My lawyer will contact you soon

- Politics (international and US-domestic) International - would have better relations with most countries, possibly better intelligence sharing. Saddam and Libya would still be problems, but we may have eventually worked with Iran to take out the Taliban more effectively. Domestic - Bush would have concentrated on domestic issues more and would have more support due to higher approval numbers. May have possibly gotten tax cuts changed to permanent and maybe immigration issue addressed. SSI still would have stalled. - Economics - Deficits would be less, economy would have been a little stronger. - Military/Defense - Rumsfeld would have worked on reducing the size of the military complex, making a leaner, meaner terrorist fighting machine. More focus on intelligence, fast special ops forces, less general ground troops. - Social/Misc - I think Bush overall would have had more "political capital" to spend and sway the moderate democrats as well as his own party to compromise on certain issues. I still think he may have been perceived as a failure, since his administration just doesn't seem to have been able to reach compromises on anything, even with his own party. - Impact on other major issues/events - more focus domestically would have heled with Katrina and with homeland security. Katrina still would have been a mess, but better support afterwards.

I think most of the people in that region were glad to see Saddam taken out. They blamed all their problems on him. Now, they blame their problems on the US.

I know what you mean as far as race as a whole, but individually, I think any type of change like that has huge effects that may take any of us out of existence. So that question would probably be equally compelling to any American of any race.

Dak seems to be arguing the other side. He isn't necessarily saying he agrees with his arguments, but he is doing a pretty good job of it. One thing we need to consider is that other minorities can be hurt by this as well. The main target group should be the poor, not race. It startes to make me wonder if certain groups will never be able to perform as well as others. If asians > whites > blacks on SAT's no matter what, then do we need to just always lower the bar by race? SAT is just one measurement anyway and is becoming less important a measure for schools. Culture is an important issue. The African American culture is a problem, addressed by Bill Cosby and others. A big part of this problem can be traced back to American affluence and the welfare state.

He said you exaggerated, not that you are wrong about the statement above. I have worked in small companies and you see very quickly that medical insurance premiums take over any wage increase very easily, except managers. It is obvious to me that this cannot continue, I am just unsure as to the answer. In America at least, I think public health would be much better served by trying to concentrate on general health, like diet, exercise, weight management, smoking, etc. Americans are sicker than others so they should have more costs. The big money is not in prevention, but in technology and pills. We may just have to target lifestyle changes to insurance rates. If you are overweight, lose it or pay $$. Just expanding insurance to cover everyone with no incentive to change habits won't work, IMO.

Well, something will have to give. Cost increases can't keep outpacing income increases. Education and Medical fields keep doing this year after year.

You can also: Get P Diddy and Brad Pitt to convince everyone that buying Pharm stocks is 'cool' Allow foreign competition to enter Invest part of Social Security in the Pharm stocks

Good one! - You believe in the literal account of Genesis, but are educated enough to know it isn't true. - You believe there cannot be truth, without believing in a lie.

This is important. We need to get back to real men as President. Reagan chopped wood, Clinton and Kennedy... used their wood! Bush goes to sleep before 10, doesn't drink and he looked like he was going to cry during that speech about working together. This is why he is anxious to use the military - to compensate.

As usual, Bush waited until the Hurricane came and went before doing anything. Democracy in action I guess.

Cmon guys, he is obviously being pessimistic! You know, looking at the glass as 98% empty, instead of 2% full

I liked this one from the Good Advice thread in General Discussions.