NCclimber

LOL That is soooo wrong. And soooo funny. Thanks for sharing. Funniest post I've read in a while. Did you get a picture?

Let's not overlook the smoking gun, who said: Anyone doubt this guy prefers a strong US presence in the Middle East??? Is opposed to our leaving Iraq? I wonder if he would have still come forward if Baker's recommendations had been to increase our troop levels over there. Not really. Give this a few days... the liberal blogs and forums will be screaming for Karl Rove's head, yet again.

You mean like teachers talking in class? Remember when Jeff Spicoli "explained" to Mr. Hand the whole "my time... your time... our time" dynamic.

Is there? I am very aware of organized efforts pro Christmas, but not so aware of organized efforts to eliminate Christmas. If you did some research, you might see that there are regular efforts to restrict/suppress public celebrations of Christmas in this country. "The educated ones know this, and the ignorant ones are, well, ignorant. We shouldn't let our lives revolve around ignorance, should we?" Thanks, Kallend.

True. Technically, "all of medical science can be labeled "playing God", but I think term (mostly) applies to actions that are outside what is considered acceptable behavior by the mainstream of society. I'd say it's a safe bet that genetically engineering babies is outside what is considerd acceptable.

And it's all tax-free!

Here. I'll help. Not widespread at all. In fact, workhouses (outside of prison programs) were practically non-existent in the US. NO. YES. The exception. How am I doing?

How 'bout it, professor? Before these baby steps in social responsibility the poor just starved. Rather like they do now in third world countries. Nice. Now, how about actually answering the questions.

Dodgeball! What fun!

How 'bout it, professor?

Only if it's refundable (w/ interest) when it's shipped back into the country.

They're doing a bang up job on protecting the rights of sexual predators.

I see the writer works for the AP. The future of journalism looks bleak.

The question remains - how widespread were these workhouses, soup kitchens and hoovervilles throughout our history? Were they commonplace in all eras? Or quite rare outside of the Great Depression? Are we talking about the norm or the exception? You know, occasionally we hear about (sex) slavery in this country, but I think most Americans think slavery ended with the Civil War.

It is about all of it since corporate America is made up of companies that support the industries and by most accepted economic standards $5 billion is not small. And the $5 billion only represents the direct sales and not the companies or industry economic impact as a whole. THere's a huge difference between industries with sales of $5 billion and companies with the same. The former are relatively insignificant, while the latter are quite siginificant. Interchanging one for the other is like comparing bushels from an apple tree to a single apple. Guns cause cancer and other health issues? I seem to forget, which constitutional amendment was it that addresses the tobacco industry?

As would many of the vets who supported the war. Then again, support for the war in Iraq is pretty low right now. I don't think it's a matter of whether or not we support it, but rather how best to remedy the situation.

This is a matter of the anti-gun advocates not being interested in compromise. As a result, the pro-gun people are going to fight all efforts to restrict gun control. Just look at how the rights of tobacco smokers have changed over the last 40 years, to see what the pro-gun people fear.

Bwahhhhhhhhhh, why, because you say so? sub-billion dollar companies make up over 90% of "corporate America" and as such they ARE the majority. Take away 90% of corporate America and see what happens. Oh. So now it's about companies... not industries? Nice segue. Here's a little refresher ***Actually, it's not that big, compared with corporate America. A few years ago it was said that civilian gun sales in the U.S. amounted to $5 billion per year. That's from all gun makers, combined. That's also the same gross sales as the garbage company I used to work for (BFI). Compared with most big companies, all the firearms makers, even combined as an industry, don't amount to much.

Really, you better check where your information came from because if you took away all of the sub-$5 billion industries in America there would be no "corporate America" left Really?

You seem to be getting ahead of yourself. Wouldn't the public outcry you speak of, be just as loud against any effort to actually reinstate the draft?

Using industry standards. Anything in any gray area gets lumped in with the high risk group. Then that portion of their account will take a hit.

The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? If the government allowed people to opt out of Social Security and put that money in a 401k or some similar vehicle, then certain restrictions should be implemented, to limit the risk to those accounts. For example - require 30% to be invested in interest bearing/bond vehicles, set a limit of 10% in stocks that are considered high risk as well as a 10% limit on an individual stock. Some people might say this is still keeping the government in our private business. As far as I'm concerned, if the govt. is giving us preferential treatment with a tax-exempt/deferred status, then it should have a (limited) say in the matter.

Because there are enough wealthy Americans (at this time) to subsidize everyone else.

How we would have benefitted if Dick Feynman, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann had been drafted and set to the front in WWII. How did we benefit by sending Henry Moseley to the front with a rifle in his hand in WWI? Henry Moseley enlisted. I know - not relevant. Oh. I thought this was about mandatory draft. Are you saying we should prohibit certain people from volunteering, if we "as a society" think they could make a greater contribution elsewhere?

True to a point, but only to a point. I don't think it's all about class envy. I think a lot of it is making a particular point that if certain chickenhawk Senators, Congressmen, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides and Presidents knew that committing this country to armed conflict would result in a near certainty that their own children or grandchildren would serve in a combat zone, maybe they'd think twice about sending SOMEONE ELSE'S 18 year old children into harm's way. Near certainty? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Why should they? Is there some reason why they should be held to a different standard, in volunteering to join the military, than everyone else?