EBSB52

Nice list, but, "Ronald Reagan?" He couldn't even change his diaper for the latter half of his presidency. He was the continuing author to American FAscism; he took over where Hoover left off - how is he great?

Yes and your point is? We can't keep up the pyramid scheme known as social security and you want to credit the creator as being great? My point is that we have probably more homeless people than most other developed countries. We have more people w/o medical insurance, some 43 million. Yet we have more millionaires/billionaires than other countries too. It speaks volumes of a country howthey treat their poor. We can't keep up the pyramid scheme known as social security and you want to credit the creator as being great? And whos' the deceitfull benefactor with this pyramid scheme? The poor, the disabled, the elderly? How dare them want their scant sustenance, I say soilent green with them. I can't understand why we have such high rates of violence and theft when we are such a greed-based society. We'll just build more prisons becuase these people must be mad. Explain your metaphor of pyramid scheme please. As for keeping it up, Socialism is far older than gross Capitalism, so I would be so quick to say we can't maintainb SOcialism in the world.

What few we have definately do. If your child needs dialysis for all his/her life, I want taxpayers to pay for it, how about you? See, all these conservatives against social programs change their tune when it comes to them, but fuck everyone else.

Do you know the history of the GOP? Its pretty intersting actually...and back then they were the "progressive/liberal" party, wanting to change everything. The Dems were the conservative party. Actually the history of both parties is very very interesting. Oh I know, ur right. Southern Dems left the Dems in the 60's when LBJ signed some affirmative action-type legislation. The parties have flip-flopped.

No offense to your choice, I am just curious as to your logic... Becuase he called that guy a "Damned dirty ape" and it was cool.

Under his watch America stood by while their friends were invaded (1939-41) He knew what he should have done but let the polls dissuade him. Amazing.... how can anyone slam the US for their action in WWII? We were golden. I guess you klike the handling of the Iraq war? As for jumoing in at a hearts beat, what if yiour friends ar ethe ones stirring the pot? What if helping your friends means ignoring your country that is in bad shape to fight a meaningless war? Let's see, are we going after China for fucking with Taiwan? Naw, JDumbya's balls aren't that big.

FDR did some great things, but I'd say laying the groundwork for the modern welfare state is the,... What's the word that means the opposite of great? But I'm sure his intentions were good. What's funny is that the US has the fewest social programs out there as compared to most of the rest of the world, yet the conservative approach is to decry thema nd claim we are a Socialist country every time someone mentions a guy like FDR or a food stamp program.

Huh? Quite a few presidents were reelected during war - FDR in 44, Nixon in 72, Bush in 2004. I'm going to submit that American history is sufficiently long now that there isn't going to be a singular choice. The top 10 or 20 aren't distinguishable, and many of them have serious flaws. I think the the founding fathers have to rank pretty high for accomplishing a difficult task, and in doing some created one of the longest standing current governments. I've got to slam Eli Whitney from the list though - his cotton gin is thought to have made slavery profitable enough to continue the practice until the Civil War. Let's not compare a Viet Nam or Iraq War with the likes of WWII or the Civil War.

Ewwww, gross.... tell me ur kiddin I thought it was gonna be Michael Moore

I'm with ya..... and then who's trying to undo the new deal?????

So you're saying he laid the foundation for the Republican Party? JUst as Jefferson did for the Dems - manwhore

More rubbish, I've highlighted the relevant part of the text. It's pretty sad that a bunch of politically motivated people including you Bill stick their nose in a family's grief, and misrepresent the facts to score political points against a politician you hate because his brother is the President. You've accused Bush of breaking the law and even your own quote demonstrates he's attempted no such thing. What standards do you hold yourself to Bill? Why are your baseless and exploitive accusations moral when Bush's legal conduct isn't? I bet you objected to the Senate Dems filibustering Bush's nominees, right? Wrinkled on yoiur side, worls good - wrinkle the other way, sucks. I'm just astounded that none of the conservatives will answer why they want to support death warrants and then interfere in the Schiavo case, while at the same time be highly angered with gay marriage, yet revoke Terri's husband's right to make the decision in his realtionship that is supposed to be supreme.

Yep, the system sucks. Why is it that some Americans get so pissed when someone suggests it si a POS? If those people really felt confident that it is a great place they would just shrug it and feel good they have a great country, or that they think they do. One of the reasons I'm critical of the US is that it is advertised that we defend individual rights, due process, equal protection,etc. when in reality it is a highly classist country that falls short of its claims. At least the Arabs hold public executions and show you what a bunch of A'holes most if them are. We pretend we are the beacon of person liberty and protection, and then incarcerate at record numbers and killed kids up until a month ago. America is a big facade.

In a general legislative intent diagnosis, it is obvious that these kinds of laws, helmet laws, seat belt laws, insurance laws are an example of Fascism. They are so because it's about the legislative intent, not the actuaul good or not for society. To say that insurance laws are a positive thing is use 'ends justify the means' logic. The insurance companies buy politicians to put in place these laws for their fiscal advantage. These laws took place and grew steam during the Reagan years, right when Fascism really took a stronghold in the US. As for right to die or not, that's more of a brain child of the religious right; some people don't have the right to die, other must die - their form of being the judger they claim not to be. The fiscal right, the original intent of the GOP way back when, facilitates the religious right to keep them in their voting pool. SO here we have the system that kinda sucks a lot - no way to stop it.

"Just put the bead of that M60 right on his fagotty little ascot, if he blinks, cut him in half.. we are never OUT GUNNED!" Remember, we are 5% of the world's population. If wee stpe out of line as Germany, Japan, and Italy did in the 30's-40's, the rest of the world will, let's say, make an adjustment. Then all the John Wayne-type rhetoric in the world won't help. 5%, but obviously our military mite is disproportionately greater by far, but if Russia, China and India decided it was time to snuff the giant, they could. Let's keep things in a realistic perspective.

Many departments require a four year. They tend to be small cities and very large towns. They are the places with enough budget to be selective, and a small enough body requirement to be selective. Other departments require only a HS diploma or GED. Also, while you may look on two year degrees as low education, there's a reason the majority of the population calls it "higher education" when you go to college. Yes, there are higher degrees, and yes there are programs that some people find more difficult. "People in academia" tend to live in another world. You should know that, you're still going for your degree. Remember, in the real world, low education is highschool or less. Besides, since when does having a piece of paper on the wall mean you'll be aable to handle difficult, fluid situations in teh best way? I'll have the links in a little while. Many departments require a four year. They tend to be small cities and very large towns. They are the places with enough budget to be selective, and a small enough body requirement to be selective. Other departments require only a HS diploma or GED. OK, I was under the impression that a 2-year would get into virtually anywhere. Also, while you may look on two year degrees as low education,... Actually not exactly. my AA in Justice took me 3 years while working, so I won't undermine the amount of work required. I wasn't trying to be an academic elitist, but in the grand scheme of things, a 2-year in Justice is about as weak as it gets. I think I can say that w/o repercussion because I went that route. The transition from AA to BS was huge, probably 3 or 4 times the work. No more mult-guess tests where the instructor gives away the answers the class before the test, and upper division classes are a bitch compared to 100 and 200 level. ...and yes there are programs that some people find more difficult. Most are more difficult I hate to say. I was reminded of that many times. At ASU, the justice dept was under the college of public programs, which is the easier program. "People in academia" tend to live in another world. You should know that,... Sometimes, but generally when you get to university and you're talking tenured professors that is real true. At CC I find that isn't really true, which is why I would take classes from PhD students (that hold Masters) instead of PhD's. you're still going for your degree. Actually I have a BS in Justice and am working on an ADN, which is an Associates in Nursing. In reality it is a hard as some BS degrees, as there are no electives and the curriculum includes microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology 1 and 2, Chemistry and other toughies. I'm not claiming I have superior education as in a physics type education. Remember, in the real world, low education is highschool or less. I think that's all subjective as well as dynamic, in that it continually changes. I would say your assessment was true 20-30 years ago, but with more people in college, 1 in 5 has a Bach degree nowadays. Besides, since when does having a piece of paper on the wall mean you'll be aable to handle difficult, fluid situations in teh best way? The piece of paper represents a series of classes that hopefully teach critical thinking, so the inclination is that it will most likely lead to the better handling of matters. You can't teach judgment to people that don't want to learn it, as it's not an academic function, so there might be quite a bit lost in the treanslation through college in that regard - so I agree there.

Nearly all of your posts in SC on police-related issues would show otherwise. Should I post the link to the thread where you referred to all cops as pigs no less than 17 times? I won't disagree with you there. I think corporate america has way too much influence in the government. http://www.arlingtonpd.org/index.asp?nextpg=recruiting/require.asp There's one for now. I don't have a whole lot of time to look them up, but I'll put more up later if you so desire. Look, everyone here is acting responsibly but you. Kennedy and I are being constructive, I won't enterain you blowing things. The greenies steped in and laid down the law, everyone seems to be playing ball, but you seem to want to stir it - I'm not playin' If you wish to communicate in those terms then initiate by PMing me.

Good intuition. The president has a 58k tax lein from Ohio, a 40k fed tax lein just recintly acquired, and a 10k+ state tax lein as I recall. They have been sued to the end of time by many people, current suits pending. They are being sued for being 6 months in arrears by the owner of their hangar too. These guys have a history of discredibility and bouncing checks. I will post sites to this tomorrow. Thanks for the reply.

I don't knwo of any that require a BS/BA to go to teh academy. They might be out there, but if a guy has an associates he can get in somewhere. There are some that only require high school?

I know what you're saying and it is a good point. To sum it up with one word I would say: Predictability. I can predict what my acft are going to do, but people are much different and intuition is much more imptorant. The point I'm trying to make is, people who have jobs that require dealing with human factor are much less likely to point fingers until they know all facts. I'm sure you'll find that out when you start in the medical field. All we've seen here is a news report, that alone does not constitute fact. Hell, I know that now. The criticism I have with the way cops are treated as far as their discretionary action go, they are absolved by the authorities and rack it up to a bad decision, but good faith when that is often not the truth.

Every police department in my area requires at least a 2-year degree, and most require a 4 year degree. Get your facts straight before you start your police-hating messages again. DOn't start your crap and then cry foul. I don't hate cops, it's the courts that direct them and the corporations run the courts and government in general. Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria. Arizona requires a 2-year degree in justice, which is one of the easiest degrees to get - I have a BS in justice from ASU in 2002. SO to say a 2-year justice degree and think it's not low education means to me that you have zero education. I don't say that to denograte you, but that people in academia know that an associates degree in an easy area is not much. Guys like Kallend have PhD's in physics, which basically makes him a genius.... if he read the AS in Justice not being of low education he would surely laugh.

Oh brother. I have no motive to twist objective facts. I just want to see the feeling of other people on the issue. I must admit that I suspect the reason for your posting this is that you lost!? Maybe I'm whining, maybe I'm bragging - I just want an opinon from other people...geez. I'll wait to comment on the last remark until after I get a few more replies. If you would, take the facts as I report them and disect them. I didn't assert emotion or misconstrue anything, I just want to see what opinion the club has with the facts as presented. LIke I just wrote, the facts were primarily uncontroverted in court. There were issues like, did I quit on May 13th, 2003 or May 14th? Basically meaningless, biut they were trying to establish taht I didn't give them time to fix the last problem. The judge moved on becuase he cared not about that mini issue. The core of the facts of the case were uncontroverted by both sides, so all that is left is deciding if the above facts constitute a good cause quit.

Surprisingly enough both sides were pretty much honest. Of course a 56 page trascript of a DES hearing I submitted into evidence helped. I gave the entirety of both sides of what was said in court. WHat I didn't include were things like me illustrating their answer had falicies in it. In their answer they claimed there was nothing about a threat to kill my coworker or take me to the parking lot, but that was debunked in court, the other side wouldn't concede. As far as my sie beiong believable or theirs, there weren't a lot of controvertable issues. There were several sub-issues about small details, but they openly admitted the threats and the checks, but thought a check that didn't clear through their own bank wasn't a bouncer, and 2 co-workers trhat don't get along, according to them, and a threat is dropped is a joking matter. So the actual facts weren't really in dispute, just that they thought it was no biggie and not grounds for me quitting under duress. When in doubt, I've got to go with the threat possibly being real and not kidding,... If they ever have a shooting at their workplace they are in deep shit. ... and the intent to sign off as being strong even without actual words to that effect. Sociologists say that comunication is 92% nonverbal, so if you count verbal communication taht is highly suggestive I don't think you need a direct verbatim request to qualify. I can say volumes with a single look, and I can veil threats by talking around just as anyone can. I could say, "Go ahead and don't sign off that annual and see what happens." I really haven't said I would do anything, I said to see what happens. I think we can all read between the lines. Thanks for the reply, I will post the results for anyone that cares sometime tomorrow.

You're kind of missing the point. Your view is tainted, and that's to be expected and even OK. I think what was meant was "without hearing the other side of the story from the other side . . . ." - Jim I'm not missing any point, I am expressing the objective facts from both sides as far as the substance of each side's argument goes. I used to brief cases in a very limited way for several classes. 1. Facts 2. Issues 3. Ruling 4. Rationale There are several different versions of the above, which is how to separate the elements of a case, but that sums it up. I gave the facts and touched on te issues. Again, I posted an objective summary of the arguments from both sides - it was a very simple case is regard to facts from both sides.

Arguments from other side: 1) Employer had an employee that threatened to kill another employee, I brought this up in a meeting, the offending employee admitted this and then wanted to "take me to the parking lot." The employer wanted to retain offending employee but was required to fire him for his acts; employer rehired him after I quit. I asserted that there was extreme bias against me, harrassment due to me objecting to his return, which was justified by his rehiring after I quit. Even though myself and the agressive employee didn't get along well and the agressive employee and the person whom he threatened to kill didn't get along - were in no way friends - the argument from the employer was that he admitted he heard the agressive employee admit he made the threat and the employer directly heard the agressive employee ask to take me to the parking lot, the employer claimed it was all a joke. I asked the employer if it's ever ok to threaten to kill or beat up other employees, especially if the employees in question don't get along well, and he replied by saying it is ok as long as it's a joke. The employer continued by saying that nothing had happened so there ws no real threat. (this is ends justify the means logic) The employer alos said it was a couple months after I quit that they hired the guy back. I had no way of impeaching or affirming that - not that it matters. 2) Employer paid me with 4 out of 10 NSF checks. Only 1 went through my bank account that bounced, the rest went through their bank and I was required to return to the bank several times to see if the money was ever deposited until I could cash it. According the Arizona Administrative Codes, I can quit under good cause for the above actions. The employer said, upon my cross examination, that it is not a check that is NSF if you merely go to their bank to cash it and the clerk tells you there are insufficient funds to pay out on it. He said the only type of check that is really NSF is one that goes through your account and bounces. With that, he said that inly 1 check went through my account, so only 1 check bounced. 3) This prompted me to immediately quit: I'm an aircraft mechanic IA, which means I can return to service aircraft after major repair or alteration, as well as perform an annual inspection. My boss, who let his IA expire, severly leaned on me to sign off that annual when I did not actually inspect it. I proved he did so by him saying, "Fine, I won't sign off anything of yours either." This is a violation that could render an airman's license revoked. I immediately quit after this. The director of maintenance was the defendant here. He pretty much acknowledged my claims, but said that he didn't actually ask me to illegally sign off the inspections in so many words, so he is responsible for nothing. I asserted that his position in the company over me in conjunction with his demeanor and threatening not to sign off my work illustartes he did want me to sign off the inspection, which would have been illegal. He maintained he didn't actually ask me to sign it off in those words, so he did nothing wrong. To further expound, I sued 4 people (corporations are considered people for this context) 1. Corporation 2. President 3. Vice president 4. Director of Maintenance They could be civilly exonerated, individually found responsible, or joint and severally be found responsible.