Lucky...

Not really. If you don't believe in a god of some sort, you're an atheist. A-theism=without god. That's all there is to it. No, Bill's right. Athiests believe there is definately not a god, agnostics are in the middle, so athiesm is not a passive roll, it's proactively aginst the idea of a god.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see, the average atheist tends to believe in things that can be proven, so it isn't really so much about belief as it is about verifiable evidence for this wacky group of radical realists. Altho I usewd to consider myself an athiest, I am now agnostic, I do agree with science and evidence. But I use the word, "proof" very carefully and consider it a fool's word. Science doesn't use it, as they will have to eat crow if they use it enough. They leave the word for fallacious institutions like the church and court system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The best part of this belief system is that it allows for change in the face of new evidence. Agreed, which is why the use of, "proof" is so inapplicable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, the idea is not to believe in anything for which there is no direct evidence, and to disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence. No. The idea is to discount that which has been disproven, leave everything else up for grabs.

Bill, Do you even know the definition of the word 'homophobic'? The true definition, not the one that has been distorted. If you denonce gay marriage, overtly and openly and want to once again desicate the sacred document called the US COnstitution with an amendment that disallows that, then I think you've moved into homophobia. Remember the last time the moralist nuts got ahold of the US Const? Yea, prohibition, a behavior that needs to be controlled outside the US Const. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia - unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. - Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. - Behavior based on such a feeling. - irrational fear of, aversion to, or discriminationagainst homosexuality or homosexuals Homophobic? Yes, I would say so based on the definition.

>>>>>>>>>>>Remember, "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." ~ G. Gordon Liddy You post this quote and then advocate Republican politics? WOW!!!

And Obama stole the flag and made it a different picture on his plane, what a big jerk, we should all base our political opinions on slogans, and chain emails, and who says cooler stuff, and who has flag lapel pins, and who's a muslim. Oh yeah.....Obama has made a failed attempt to steal both my whiteness and my blackness, and thats just going too far, let's start a thread about it to complain. ....or talk about how desperate McSame is it try to assimilate to Obama........

Animal abuse rules!!!!!

Bump so warped can reply.

The economy was in a downturn well before Bush took office, but that never stopped a single liberal friend I have from labeling it the "Bush recession" on or about Jan 22, 2001. Show me the indicators that establish a Clinton recession. First you have to establush there was a recession at all, then you have to link it to Clinton in some way; I'm not sure you can do either, as teh last recession was in 90.

So that's where the 23% comes from. More $$$ than all the other nations of the Earth combined. And 911 still happens..... money not well spent.

IOW's, military spending, direct and indirect via other support svs is HUGE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let me help you - China. They don't pay their soldiers. They don't need the tech edge. They have numbers. Their doctrine is in terms of human waves. You don't need to help me, I knew who you were referring to. That's the new Axis of Evil, after the other axis took a shit and revealed they were never a threat after the Bay of Pigs. So we still spend 7 or 8 times of what they do? That's my point. And human waves, that is so WWII; do you really think it would work today? Let's get real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The military doesn't deal in reasonable. Any military's mission is to attain victory over its enemy. Of course, if you were in the military, you would know that. Yes, and I understand the brainwashing you are undergoing, I resisted. Apparently you can't understand that we are our own worst enemy with the military spending the neo-cons are engaging in. We are fiscally destroying ourselves and lookign stupid all the while. I mean, can you imagine what other countries think when we spend several times that of #2 and match teh rest of teh world in spending, then 911 happens? It was a roughshod, pathetic plan by unarmed boobs and tehy pulled it off. What do we do now, double teh spending of the rest of the world?

Right - we could cut military spending by 2/3 and STILL have the world's largest military. Okay, since we don't have the world's largest military already, I'd like to know what new math you're using. So, in terms of size of the Army only, we're number six, behind China, India, DPRK, ROK, and Pakistan. When you include all personnel, we're number three behind China and Russia...barely ahead of India. Explain how we would have the world's largest military, by cutting spending? Also, how do we maintain readiness, maintenance, and oh yeah, pay? I assume spending 23% of our federal budget, and as much as every other nation in the world combined is just fine with you, then. I wonder why Canada and Sweden haven't been overrun when they spend so little. Comparing militaries just on the basis of number of legs is really doing a dis-service to American service personnel. ---------------------------------------------------------- 23%? the number on 2007 military spending was 9% were did you get 23%? Maybe you should have paid more attention to your math TEACHER. ---------------------------------------------------------- The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2] $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology $23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government I think it says 9% Right, increase from 2006, not total expenditure, as you claimed.

You might want to check when that last recession ended... ...man, I'm just knocking them out of the park tonight... >>>>>>>>>>...man, I'm just knocking them out of the park tonight... In your own mind you're the Barry Bonds of yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>You might want to check when that last recession ended... I keep asking people to post evidence of the so-called Clinton recession. All I get are guys who are legends in their own mind.

Want to revise this? Who's number two in spending? Not the UK. Not France. Not Germany...keep trying. You also made my point, the US military's technological edge is what makes as formidable as it is. I know you willing to give that up though, so don't worry about re-explaining it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Want to revise this? Who's number two in spending? Not the UK. Not France. Not Germany...keep trying. Oh, is someone now in #2, someone else who we are what 7 or 8 times in spending over? Hmmm, kinda makes my piont, we don't need to spend 2,3, or 8 times over anyone, esp spending money that will be generated in 150 years frrom now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You also made my point, the US military's technological edge is what makes as formidable as it is. I know you willing to give that up though, so don't worry about re-explaining it. It's not giving it up, it's about downsizing it and maintaining a resonable edge.

I don't find myself in agreement with your posts often, but here I agree 100%. Higher taxes are the last thing that this country needs right now with the cost of almost every aspect of life going through the roof. Clinton did it with the last Bush recession and it worked.

That's your plan with the McSame crap. That's me with the McSame crap. That's just sarcasm, but let's see if it's applicable. Is McCane the same as Bush and the neo-cons? He voted 90% with Bush, he has the same platform as the neo-cons, where is the difference? Is it a lie? Can you establish that he is different?

Right - we could cut military spending by 2/3 and STILL have the world's largest military. Okay, since we don't have the world's largest military already, I'd like to know what new math you're using. So, in terms of size of the Army only, we're number six, behind China, India, DPRK, ROK, and Pakistan. When you include all personnel, we're number three behind China and Russia...barely ahead of India. Explain how we would have the world's largest military, by cutting spending? Also, how do we maintain readiness, maintenance, and oh yeah, pay? Largest in terms of spending. We spend 8 times that of #2, Britain. Having 300,00 troops isn't neccessarily a great thing over having higher technology. The more troops does not eqqula greater sucess.

It was marginally funny when alw wrote it.... not at all by the time you got to it..... get faster next time.

Kinda like what Clinton did..... how did that work out?

Right - we could cut military spending by 2/3 and STILL have the world's largest military. We could decrease it into 1/7th of what it is and still have the most spendy military.

The question was rhetorical, meaning you can't criticize much when your party has run teh debt thru the roof. Clinton almost leveled teh debt off, then your boy came and hammered it.

Not saying that is Obama as you are referencing, but Bush was far worse than that example and that didn't stop you for voting for him.

Whatever, that was Obama's constant chant and McSame felt it was working, so he jumped onto it..... immitation is the purest form of flattery.

He's stolen Obama's, "Enough is enough" expression. How pathetic, show's desperation.

Reading/listening to neo-con double-speak is like reading/listening to children in so many ways. You really can't get angry, even tho at first you tend to get frustrated. They don't reference much, they rely on what someone down the street said, they rely on popularity, and when they get stuck they don't want to play anymore. Dems will talk your ears off with facts and reference until you want to them to shut up, but that is preferential to relying on skewed or outright incorrect so-called facts. Take the poster claiming Obama was a US Senator for 2 years only when he has been for almost 4. And then he says that is all the experience that Obama has at all, when Obama was a Constitutional law teacher for years, a state senator for 7 years and so many other accomplishments. We'll see what he does when he reads this, probably runs...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Record Surplus when Clinton left office, record deficit and getting worst with GWB. He has also spent and borrowed more money then any president in history. Right, we can post data from gov offices to indicate the annual deficit that Clinton inherited at 290B/yr and left with 236B/yr/. We can also indicate the debt increase to be ~250B/yr when Clinton took office and left at 33B his last year. We can also refer to the US currency exchange rate to be $1US = $1.55 Canadian as Clinton lleft, it is now ~ even. The numbers aren't there for them, but ideologues are like that; facts are a hurdle to be avoided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rep. bitch about raising taxes and the money spending democrats, but it has been the opposite for decades so why the blind loyalty? Yep. And with social programs vs corporate welfare, their process has never worked going way back. Hoover tried corporate welfare and it didn't work, Reagan tried it and the other 2 neo-cons with the exception that GHWB moved away from it at the end of his presidency, a little too late tho. Conventional welfare acts as a constant stimulus, as the recipients spend it immediately, whereas corp welfare is stashed away and teh corp decides when to spend and they usually spend it when the economy needs it the least, save it when the economy needs it the most.