DaVinci

I think if you are going to blame this on Bush, you should explain Clintons job with the Dot com. Also, if you are going to blame this on Bush you should also credit him with doing as much as he has since 2001. Personally I tend to think the economy will have rises and falls that are normal with an average as an upswing no matter who is in office. It should be noted that the US stocks fell 4%, but since just July they have gone up 18%. I don't think Clinton had much to do with the dotcom bust, nor Bush the great recovery. But I would LOVE to see those that wish to blame a *possible* (but likely) recession on Bush explain the recession under Clinton. So to answer your question in one word....Yes.

I guess you would like cops and firemen to strike? How about ATC?

OK if you think the Prez has that much power...Care to explain how Clinton caused the Dotcom bust and the drop in the economy then?

Due to all you have done...I would listen and respect your opinion on the environment. But it is hard to listen to guy that does not practice what they say others should do. I for one wish I had the know how to equip my house like you did. Maybe my next house I will do better.

Exactly. My fear is that another Amendment would be easier to twist, not harder. I think the intent of the 2nd is pretty clear. An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them.

Of course there is debate...But most of it comes from people who really WANT it to say something other than what it says.

So could a Union....That why when a vote is called for the GOVERNMENT steps in and oversees the whole thing. From the UE website http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/org_steps.html Have you ever worked in a Union shop? Ever been involved in a Union trying to get your shop to become Union? It seems like you never have.

Sorry you are wrong. You wanna avoid the FACT that the Dems killed the earlier bill...Fine., But that is your normal motive, you avoid anything that hurts your position....Ya know like Clinton saying he would Veto a bill with the SAME tax cuts that the current bill includes. Who did it is important....You are free to ignore it if you like, but the earlier bill was killed by the Dems. Yep, just like the title of this post. How about SF? http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=176738 AZ? We even talked about it on here concerning AZ http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2664632#2664632 "New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona" (The Arizona Republic) Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school. "I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' " Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high. More Marshall Vest, director of economic and business research at the UA, said that on the state level, businesses that pay minimum wage, like fast food restaurants, will likely need to increase their prices to pay the higher wages. http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/01/11/News/New-Min.Wage.May.Increase.Food.Prices.In.Student.Union-2625984-page2.shtml Yet the SAME thing now is fine...See how the Dems played politics (repubs do it also, but don't claim the Dems didn't)? Back then it was a bad idea, now they will play ball....They could have done it 10 years ago. In the mean time they gave themselves 30 grand in raises. I answered it and you ignored it....It is now. So care to claim only 3 republicans in the senate? See how that goes against your tittle to this thread?

So you are OK with those fat cats, but not others. Good evaluations will take care of the difference between knowledge and ability. In a world where you cannot rate on performance you get a bunch of folks that feel entitled to the pay. I think pay for performance is much better than pay "just cause".

Because people will try and read into it what they want. It says in very simple english that an armed populace is necessary to have a free state so the right to have weapons will not be changed. People who dislike guns will try to make it read only if you are in a militia....That it only applies certain arms...ect. Just like others will read it as to permit military grade weapons....since it is about a militia. I think the founding fathers were smart enough to know that any government can become corrupt. They were in the middle of an armed revolt against a Government that did not represent them. I think they intended to allow the Nation to have weapons incase the need came again. They also intended to allow people to have weapons to aid in the fight that was coming. But people who dislike weapons will claim that is far from the case. I dont really understand their views to be honest. Just like they wrote in the 8th. They left the amount of "Excessive" out. And there has been tons of debate about "cruel and unusual". The founding fathers were smart enough not to paint themselves into a corner on many issues. But the rights are still there. Cruel punishments are not allowed and people should be allowed to have Arms. The definitions of "cruel" and "Arms" can be changed. Once stocks were fine, now they are considered cruel.

GQ said basicly that if approched by a cop you should not act like a crook. A very good idea. YOU choose to debate him over that. Given the choice of listening to a guy that is trained to carry a gun, and a guy that teaches physics...He wins.

I see back to your normal games. First you call me a liar, then claim I just had my feelings hurt and take a stab at my manhood. You called them all liars. Nice try at a back peddle. I provide proof of your false claims and exagerations. While you make slams on me personally. You say that anytime you cannot back a claim with anything more than retoric. Companies can have workers without Unions. Unions need companies and workers. Your data only includes right to work states and does not seperate between Union and Non Union cases amd salary. So frankly you are not able to make any real comparisions.

Clinton and the Left could have gotten the Min wage bill passed. They didn't back then but now are willing to make the SAME concessions. Dance all you want, those are the facts. It DID become 3081. You say things like "probably" and expect people to take those as fact. The Repubs wanted to increase Min wage, but without killing small business, or hurting the lowest earners..Like what is happening now in AZ where people are getting fired since small companies cannot afford to keep them. Speculation, unless your name is Bill C. Like it or not the FACT is Clinton killed the bill by saying he would veto it. He could have passed it and the little folks would have gotten rasies. NOW which goes against your rant of Repubs hating the little guy...Unless you want to claim only 3 Republicans in the Senate? Again...FACT 1997 Clinton could have rasied Min wage...He choose to kill it. Dems choose to kill it. Now they are willing to do it....Why the sudden change?

It is what this thread was about and you sure seem to have an opinion. Double standards must be a hobby of yours.

Just like you keep running from the fact that in was the Dems that prevented the Min wage law from being passed years ago but keep including it as a bad thing Repubs did?

One person's view does not make anything right or wrong on most issues. And really, what is the difference between allowing people to own guns and not allowing the Gov to prevent people from having them? The way the Constitution is written people have the right "to keep and bear arms" and the right should not be taken away. I don't see how it really makes a difference? Allowed to have vs not allowed to prevent from having?

It is already there.

It is about being polite and not agravating the situation. If the police are talking to you it means something is already wrong. They deal with problem after problem on a daily basis and the last thing they need is someone thinking they have the right to yell or treat the police like crap making sudden moves. YOU don't have to do what they say. But I will. Also if you get in trouble don't expect sympathy from me if you are causing problems and refusing to follow the cops directions.

The cop screwed up by not showing up with his lights..But I cannot blame him for taking the shot if he thought he was in danger. I don't see where you think he should be fired? Do you know something more than what we have seen so far?

Simple...In this situation NO ONE saw it was a cop. A guy sitting in his house heard a load noise at 8:30 PM and he lives in the country. So he grabbed a gun and went to look. A Cop *at the wrong address* is investigating a 911 hang up. So both the cop and the guy thought something was up. Both were armed and it clearly was a violent situation since one guy got shot. You even admitted that this guy didn't know it was a cop: His statement is not irrelevant. There are plenty of cases where cops are in plain sight and people react in less than ideal ways. But in this case both parites thought they were in violent situations. I think he knows more about these than you...Unless you were that bouncer in "Roadhouse" If you knew it was a cop. If you heard strange noises it sure could be. And what is wrong with making sure the cop can see your hands and not making any sudden moves around police? It is just flat out polite and smart. Just like if you are pulled over it would be smart to: 1. Pull over far enough do the cop is not exposed to traffic. 2. Turn the dome light on, turn off the radio and have your hands on the wheel in clear view. 3. When asked to get your ID tell them where you are looking and ask if it is OK to go to the glove box. Show them some kindness and you may not get a ticket. Depends on how they came in...did they knock with a fist, or a battering ram? If a cop comes to my house they will find me making slow movements with my hands in clear sight. Before I reach for anything I will tell them what I am doing and ask if it is OK. Having pulled security the last thing you want to encounter is a guy making fast moves and trying to hide his hands....Those things get people shot.

You just keep proving my point. I AGREED that the tilte was misleading. I agreed that Pelosi herself never demanded the big jet. But you and others sure do have a double standard. Here is some more proof. I have never said anything other than she should get the same plane to reduce waste...You and others said she should get the bigger plane due to her position. Then there is the rsst of your post: Just like you just did....This is fun. Keep digging boys, you aint to China yet!

As are yours. He is trained to deal with violent situations...You are not. This is a violent situation, he knows more about them and has trained them more than you. So I would think HE knows more about these kind of situations than you. You think this homeowner was trained to have adversarial relationships? GQ has some valid points...Before I say the cop or the guy is totally at fault, I will wait for more info. But the cop was at the wrong address. It seems pretty clear the cop did not show up with lights or with sirens. The guy did not call out that he was armed. In a tactical situation it is not always a great idea to let the bad guy know where you are. The cop gets paid to take those kinds of chances, the homeowner does not.

Your welcome And while I agree the title of the thread, and the main reason for the thread was wrong. It does show how you and others have a double standard when it comes to spending tax payers money. One side = bad Your side = good.

How about the same as the Average income in the US? Thats about 45 grand a year. Also they should not get a super cool retirement package. They should have to use SS. I also think there should be term limits. Now, same question to you. How much should the get paid in your opinion? Do you think it is fait that over the last 9 years they have given themselves raises that almost equal the average persons income?

This for you, means a lot