Trent

Perhaps you're responding to the wrong person. That's not what I'm talking about. Oh, hello again!

Don't presume that I don't have friends in Afghanistan and Iraq. And again, what does that have to do with what I said about fact that terrorists over there are killing their own people more often than our troops? Perhaps you're mistaking me with Josh... Captain Hill, just in case you want to go down that alley. Is that acceptable to YOU? Do you think it's acceptable to the dead or their families? Muslim or not, I'll bet it isn't. Oh I understand their motivation that they think it's worth killing 100 of their own people to get at one troop... I just, like many many other people, think it is barbaric and unacceptable behavior. Since you're the authority here, tell us just how you will "understand" your way to ending the Iraqi... or entire middle east problem. I never claimed to know more about their mindset than anyone. I see what they're doing, I see that apparently to them (and some people here) that is perfectly okay. It doesn't take me understanding someone's entire culture and background to know what is wrong. If only we could have spent more time "understanding" the nazis, maybe we could have avoided fighting and killing by letting them do their thing, within boundaries, of course. Oh, hello again!

You just ASSumed something that I never said. Point out to me where I claimed I knew their motivations? Right, didn't happen. Check your bullshit with someone else. And just after you clue me in that I don't know anything about anything... you grace us with your 100% accurate knowledge of the situation. Awesome. Ohhhhh, is that what I was doing when I merely pointed out that people like you don't seem to grasp that these beloved "freedom fighters" of yours are killing their own people? Oh I forget, that's okay because Allah told them it was cool. Oh, hello again!

Ignore what I said, but you know it's true. My brush would seem no broader than yours in saying that these people who are killing MORE IRAQIS THAN US TROOPS are somehow, in some demented mental rationalization, "freedom fighters". Oh, hello again!

Then tell us about midgets and porn... Oh, hello again!

To all of you who'd like to think of the "terrorists in their own country" as freedom fighters: GQ_jumper said it best already... these people you admire for "defending their country against a US invasion" have killed WAY more of their own people, civilians, contractors, and police than they have killed the great satan US's troops. Your viewing them as defenders of ANYTHING is despicable, and if at some level you don't see that, it's more than a little sick. It's also funny to hear the same group of people here calling these terrorists "freedom fighters", bitch about the displaying of anything relating to God in our own government. You do realize that if these jack-offs had their way, anyone in Iraq that didn't believe as they do would be killed, right? On one side, you hate the inclusion of God in society and on the other, you try to glorify people who you (WRONGLY) think are "freedom fighters" when they'd do much worse than we could imagine to any "unbelievers". The hypocrisy is ludicrous. Oh, hello again!

Okay Bill, go ahead and talk like the Professor here around as many vets as you can find... if they get angry at all you can always come back with, "But, but, but I know a guy who was there and said some stuff like that!" I doubt some of them will listen. But have fun with it. Oh, hello again!

The rest of this thread aside... I find it disgusting that you just belittled the people that served in Vietnam in that manner. Are the medals awarded in Vietnam less meaningful because you disagreed with the war? I honestly hope that you never have the gall to say something like that with a Vietnam veteran in your presence. Oh, hello again!

I think that site actually dispels the myth that liberals are the elitist-intellectuals that people say they are... just look at some of the pictures! Really, I think the world could give a shit if Jane from Rhode Island is sorry. Kerry lost. More people voted for Bush, Bush got more electoral votes. Apparently American democracy isn't good enough for these people. You're right though... it serves no purpose other than to keep everyone divided... I have a feeling that this kinda shit will go on until a democrat is elected... then it'll start all over again. Oh, hello again!

So why on earth would someone who took a job as an interim measure to put food on their table tell their prospective new employer that they made as little as they did? Are you saying that someone who leaves a job to persue other interests that don't pay well cannot go back to earning nearly what they did when they left? I know more than a few people who've done this and are making more than ever now. Granted, if their idiots like the guy you knew, they're not going to get it. But to expect that they have no chance of at least earning average industry pay doesn't seem plausible. Oh, hello again!

I've worked at several financial and consulting companies and not in any interviews ever was I asked what I earned before. I was asked what I'd like to earn. If they're going to take your word for it, give yourself a raise! Oh, hello again!

No job ever asked me how much I earned at my previous job. I worked full-time as a student and got a HUGE pay increase when I graduated. If you take a pay cut within the same company... maybe, but not if you find a new job. Oh, hello again!

I do not live on the dropzone, rent a house, own a car, and manage to eat occasionally. All on a pittance. It can be done. As for people not wanting to work... well then that just shoots the whole unemployment argument that some have in the foot. So you're saying that some people choose to be unemployed? Remember that. Also, there are a lot of people who WOULD work if they had the opportunity. I bet an IT person would take a lower paying call center job until he could find something better to do. I bet a homeless man would clean toilets for less than $5.15 an hour. I bet broke, poor people would work on farms if those jobs weren't filled with illegals. I also bet that if someone's welfare check was tied to their willingness to work... they'd be willing to work. Why would it be slave labor if the welfare office asks people to EARN their money by working for $4/hr and supplementing them the $1.15 extra to bring them up to what they usually receive on the first and fifteenth for doing no work at all? Oh, hello again!

Unless, instead of welfare, people are given these jobs to help supplement their public dependency. But, of course, we just might not have enough willing workers here to do it. Oh, hello again!

True, over the long long term. However, if there are people NOT working earning 0 dollars... it would be better for them to work earning $4 an hour, right? Also, the market did not determine the minimum wage, people did. If people are willing to work at lower than $5.15 an hour, there will be jobs for them. If the job is such that no one will work at $4/hr, then they'll have to raise the pay. It could work if there is a group of people who want to work and aren't making anything today. In reality, it might have to be coupled with linking low-paying jobs to the welfare system, so at a very minimum... people are paying part of their own way. Granted, these folks won't be buying houses and cars right away, but you CAN survive on a very small income in the US... but you have to go to the right places. Trust me, I work on a dropzone... and I'm surviving. Oh, hello again!

One way to help stop the outsourcing may not be too popular, but just may work... would be to make it profitable for companies to let our (US) uneducated and unskilled people do the work. How? Eliminate minimum wage and let the market handle the rest. As for the educated foreigners working cheaply... giving incentives for US registered companies to bring jobs back, and penalizing the outsourcing of new jobs might work... but that might only be short-term. Oh, hello again!

Well that would indicate that he knowingly occupied some space that he knew wasn't HIS, but he could've still thought he was on public land. Either way, I'm not trying to justify any one side with my post, just answering the question someone asked. Oh, hello again!

I don't get it either. The one representative wanting to add the provision not allowing states to issue driver's licenses to illegals, while not a bad idea, has NOTHING to do with the bill at all. If he feels that strongly about it, he should introduce a new bill to do just that, instead of holding up valuable legislation to get his rider attached. You're right, that is shitty. Oh, hello again!

Ummm... so you're saying that Gutierrez was a good CEO, right? He did what he had to do to keep the company profitable, making it a better company in the long run. I wonder... does Kellog now provide MORE jobs since that layoff and closing? Well, when you find the CEO that hasn't had to make the decision to lay people off because he's perfect, or even when you find the CEO that hasn't fired ANYONE. Let Bush know. We wouldn't want someone who eliminated even 1 job working for us, would we? I never said I supported Bush's decision in this situation, did I Bill? I think he hired someone that we all know little about. I'll wait and see what Gutierrez does in his new role before I accuse Bush of... well... whatever it is that you're trying to use this appointment to accuse him of. But keep getting your political views from all the anti-Bush newsletters, thinking that you're making up your own arguments. It makes it much easier to debate you. Oh, hello again!

Bill, name one CEO who hasn't had to have layoffs at their company. And don't give me some bullshit 5 employee company as an example. Any good CEO, if faced with a enterprise-wide crisis where the only solution is eliminating costly and inefficient divisions would have to do it. Like it or not. That's their job. I didn't hear you crying when financial firms were laying off people every month in numbers as high as 5,000. But 550 is way more important since you think it makes Bush look like he made a bad choice, right? For you to apply this to how his duties in office will look is silly. You just took the anti-Bush newsletter argument against Gutierrez because that is what you do. Predictable. Oh, hello again!

Just to respond to this SPECIFIC question. Yes, it is possible. In Texas, "No Tresspassing" signs must be posted OR fenceposts along a property line must be marked by purple paint, which also means "No Tresspassing". If the land wasn't marked, or he didn't know the less obvious markings... he could've easily not known he was tresspassing. Oh, hello again!

Of course it was a joke. Countries that I've had to get Visas for required a straight face every time. I guess when the US does it, it's more unacceptable though. Here's an idea... if a smile will screw up their "facial recognition algorithms", then smile at your monitored events, or wear glasses, or the glasses with the Groucho nose. If you still don't want to be recognized... you can avoid it. Oh, hello again!

That TV Show sucked, I can't beleive you actually watched it! But what does that have to do with non-smiling visa pics? Oh, hello again!

Just a general question here: Could someone please explain to me how I am having religion shoved down my throat by the religious right? I just can't seem to find any examples in my daily life here. Before you go off saying, "That's because you're ONE of them!" Keep in mind that I haven't been to church in over 12 years and don't actively participate in any religious groups. I just don't see it. And to talk about the article, this shit is getting ridiculous. I remember in my HS World History class, we learned about Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. I guess real diversity in learning is dead. Oh, hello again!

What right did we have to rid the world of Naziism and to push our western democratic values on the Germans? What right did we have standing up to the communist USSR? What right did the North have impressing their federal and anti-slavery views upon the South? At some point someone said, "What's happening is wrong and we have to do something about it." There were many people in each case that did not want us interfering, but most people will agree that it was the right thing to do. Remaining in Iraq at this point does not have anything to do with trying to put our morals on the Iraqis. There are millions of Iraqis who want to elect their leaders. Don't think arab states want democracy? Ask the Iranian students and the millions that voted in Afghanistan. And for Bill.... So are you standing up for the heinous immoral acts under the Saddam regime? Or are you saying that you commend the US for standing up for the Iraqis that wanted to be rid of their brutal dictator? Oh, hello again!