NCclimber

What average? Two year? Five year? Fifty Year?

It seems like you have a tendancy to use these dishonest, inflammatory stereotypes, potrying conservatives as unthinking, obedient drones. Such tactics (typically) say more about the speaker than the target. You seem to exhibit the "toe the party line" (and completely miss the other guy's POV) mentality. Irony? Hypocrisy? Both? Who knows????

Since the OP asked ""Who IS middle class, and what makes you that?", my comments are directly addressing her question.

LOL, Nigel. I don't know if that last part was intentional, but (generally speaking) you described a key difference between the conservative mindset (to have a better lifestyle/income they need to work harder and or obtain better eduction) and that of liberals (see others wealth as unfair and believe that the wealth should be "shared" more equally) Either way, it's a great post.

That would explain Bush's abysmally low numbers and the '06 election.

Does this have anything (relevant) to do with the subject of the OP?

Most of the population growth is occurring in Third World or Emerging Economies. Tax breaks aren't really an option. I doubt we could promote education and birth control to stop growth in those areas.

Did you know that words (or even terms) can have different definitions? The term "middle class" in OP was obviously about financial well-being. Perhaps you could comment on the topic addressed in the OP.

Good one, Bill. This story looks like a creative and blatantly dishonest case of "connect the dots".

How'd you get that? According to this story, the tazer had little effect. On another point - he's got a fractured pelvis. I don't think that's a life threatening injury. Sounds like he dove out the window, flipped over and landed on his ass.

Nice dodge. Not a dodge. Go back a read what I wrote. My point should be obvious. You gonna keep making that "Victory at Sea" comparison, two days and many criticisms later? Maybe you could just include it in every post, from now on. And yes, this is quite different from "Victory at Sea", which was made 55 years ago. However, there have been numerous programs in recent times that give realistic, complete depictions of WWII. Ever heard of The History Channel?

Leave it to you to see only the screw-ups. You must miss out on alot with that mindset. Hoping it'll turn out different this time? Well, last night Utah, Juno, Sword and Gold beaches received about 60 seconds each, while the screw ups at Omaha took about 1/3 of the program. One third of the program was about the screw ups at Omaha? What episode were you watching? I saw the one about the D-Day invasion. It seemed like an honest representation of what occurred, including the screw ups. It certainly didn't seem like 1/3rd was about the screw ups. OK, what do YOU think the ratio was of program time spent on successes at (Utah + Sword + Juno + Gold) to the program time spent showing sinking landing craft at Omaha, landing craft released too far from the beach at Omaha, troops wading neck high in the ocean at Omaha, hiding behind Nazi beach defenses because the bombers missed their targets at Omaha, piles of bodies at Omaha, failed glider landings, lost paratroops, etc.? I'm not inclined to quantify what portion of the program was about screw ups. I thought the series was quite compelling. Definitely a "warts and all" representation. As far as I'm concerned, this was a massive endeavor, in which some pretty massive screw ups were inevitable. That the were inevitable doesn't excuse them, but I understand they go with the territory. They're part of warfare. Judging by your posts, you seem to think the screwups were the most compelling part of this series. They seem to be the focus of your interest,... instead of the brutality of war or the sacrifice made by 100s of thousands of American soldiers. I'd offer more, but I 'm sure that'd get me a warning.

Please do not include me in with any of the NEO-CON Chickenhawks who slobber all over themselves in support of this fiasco... You know... I was thinking your post sounded particularly NEO-CONish, too. How ironic.

What a load of crap. Go back and look at the last two pages. Mixed in with missing the point and changing the subject numerous times, you made a few statements about getting back to the OP topic. They ring pretty hollow. Here's some free advice - if you really want to get a discussion back on topic, don't fuel off topic subjects. It's basic stuff, but I'd thought I'd offer it, just in case... Based on your posting history, that advice will come back to haunt you.

What a load of crap. Go back and look at the last two pages. Mixed in with missing the point and changing the subject numerous times, you made a few statements about getting back to the OP topic. They ring pretty hollow. Here's some free advice - if you really want to get a discussion back on topic, don't fuel off topic subjects. It's basic stuff, but I'd thought I'd offer it, just in case... Based on your posting history, that advice will come back to haunt you.

Or do nothing at all... except telling all the whiners to get over themselves!

Of course, this is all just a sidebar issue to the NCAA strong-arming schools into doing away with mascots that may be deemed political incorrect. Do you think that practice smacks of McCarthyism?

So, all the alum, particularly those making frequent and/or significant contributions to the school, don't have a say?

What a load of crap. Go back and look at the last two pages. Mixed in with missing the point and changing the subject numerous times, you made a few statements about getting back to the OP topic. They ring pretty hollow. Here's some free advice - if you really want to get a discussion back on topic, don't fuel off topic subjects. It's basic stuff, but I'd thought I'd offer it, just in case...

Leave it to you to see only the screw-ups. You must miss out on alot with that mindset. Hoping it'll turn out different this time? Well, last night Utah, Juno, Sword and Gold beaches received about 60 seconds each, while the screw ups at Omaha took about 1/3 of the program. One third of the program was about the screw ups at Omaha? What episode were you watching? I saw the one about the D-Day invasion. It seemed like an honest representation of what occurred, including the screw ups. It certainly didn't seem like 1/3rd was about the screw ups.

I don't know, why? To me, either situation is pretty sleazy. Also, saying it's okay for your guy to act in a sleazy manner because the opposition seems to be doing it, is pretty low brow. Ummm - who is this "your guy"? I don't have a guy. I'm objecting to the government's gag (read the thread title). By asking "Why is it OK if Exxon pays scientists to write articles debunking GW, but not OK if Soros funds a scientist to present the opposite view?"? How does this apply to governmental gag orders? Try to keep up.

Yeah, I'll take that bet! But considering you wrote "CO2... warms planets progressively more as the concentration goes up", when the truth is the effect of rising CO2 concentrations dimish as they go up, you'd better clarify exactly what you mean. Are you saying that CO2 levels will rise every year and annual global temps will also rise every year? Or are you saying CO2 levels and global temps in 2017 will be higher than current levels? I want to clarify this because I'm not interested in (10 years down the road) you giving cherry picked examples where your prediction came true and you claiming you were right, even though you were wrong looking at this globally.

I don't know, why? To me, either situation is pretty sleazy. Also, saying it's okay for your guy to act in a sleazy manner because the opposition seems to be doing it, is pretty low brow.

He got fired from a job he'd had for nearly 30 years, for a single gaffe, that he did just about all he could to apologize for. It's about the reaction, by both the race baiters and his employer, in response to his action. Seems pretty extreme to me. You think students, who might be there for four years, should be able to do away with the "Nittany Lions" or the "Fighting Irish"? But that's not really the point. It's about the NCAA, bowing to splinter Native American special interests and forcing colleges to get rid of mascots with a Native American theme. THe NCAA is labelling teams that don't comply as racially, culturally and ethically "hostile" or "abusive" and it's banning them from post season play. The policy has been comply now, then sue us to reclaim the right for your mascot.

I'm guessing some think they can be more effective fighting the system from the inside. Don't you just love the fact that THEY throw out a "whisle blower" out as a hero who shows how corrupt the administration is by trying to silence him. Then, the facts come out that he did over 15 interviews AND THEN, it becomes known that he recieved over $750K and was coached for his tv tech so he could bread into the interview circut and YOU are distracting the thread!!! Oh shit, this is good stuff The Crux of the matter.