Lucky...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/14/oj.simpson.advance/index.html?eref=rss_crime I like his chances, that is, chances of being convicted

Leave it to SNL.....to tell the truth via comedy

Can we please have a big, NO SHIT?

>>>>>>>>>>>>LMAO. Ya see? You guys can't even figure out who's messin with who this week ON THIS FORUM! It's not a you guys thing, 1 guy skim-read you issuing a PA and jumped. >>>>>>>>>>>>How are you going to figure out who perpetrated 911 in 2001? We don't have to, we're just gonna go blow up everything until we're broke, like Republicans. That is, until the world is sick of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now, now, boys, you two stop attacking each other! You are on the same side of this seven year old "issue." Uh, I'm not attacking him. 7 year issue? HArdly, the American ignorance/arrogance is slightly more than that, probably 100's of years off it leading to recent lame security. We thought we could contiue to fuck with teh world w/o repraisal.

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities). And see, you not only misunderstand my point, but make the same fatal error in logic that I was stating I wouldn't. I wasn't referring to geographic areas, as most crime is inner-city, I was referring to crime in general and it's relation to the amount of welfare programs available, that is, non-corporate welfare. During the Clinton admin it was very low, then it raised and lowered when Bush was in, then raised again. I don't have a crime rate chart and don't care to look one up, but in general, there is no constant correlation between crime rate and welfare programs. That's honest, I would like to say that there is a correlation that repeats itself, but just as I can't say there is, you cannot say there isn't. The physical geographical part of the city is irrelevant, I was talking overall crime rate and its correlation to welfare, so your assertion isn't in accord with my point. I would say that inner-city crime is higher than suburban crime on a constant basis as an assumption, but have never looked up the numbers.

Yea but at the soldier level, we aren't critical, just at the admin level.

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have any problems with saying that the surge isn't working when violence rises - only when violence falls. And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis. You can say that 50k troops = some peace, therefore 100,00 troops = more peace, and 150,000 troops = success. Management of these troops has a lot to do with it, but the intangible is that we need to reply on the reaction of the insurgents. Their supply, their agenda, their recruitment and many, many things control the amount of resistance, not just how many bodies we throw over there. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous to think we can scare Arab terrorist groups into submission, just plain pathetic and that's what Bush has tried.

McSame being ahead in the polls is a week old, welcome to September 6th. Here's one I like to use: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ McSame had a large convention bump and now it's sunsiding. I think the debates will really hurt McSame tho, he is gonna have a hard time seperating himself from the party and the president with whom he voted 95%. And Biden is going to make Palin look like a contestant in a high school debate. Of course we're using the standard of experience with that, that the Repubs refer to. So enjoy your maybe 1% lead for now.

What positions have you changed as a result here? Who else have you changed here? I disagree, people are formed genetically and socially by their environment at a very young age, if they change, it probably isn't by a posting board. I was changed by my learnings in college, but other than that I was not changed by the military, other than learning some discipline, but a job in the civilian world might have done that instead. I think differences in posting boards make people more resolute with their current opinions and values. For example, fiscal Repubs become more resolute even tho you can show them data that the last 3 presidents have had the debt climb uncontrollably, while the 1 Dem inbetween them started to fix the problem, at least as far as major data shows. They will not address this, they just run away and become more determined that they are right. If people do change, esp as adults, for 1 they have to want to, but it is probably by something more interpersonal than a posting board. I like reading your posts, but as most, they are biased. To be critical, the underlying message is, 'do for yourself or go die in the gutter; and employers are so victimized.' And I'm sure my posts have the ring of pro-socialization and cops are scum. Well, the truth is usually found in the middle somewhere and these are no different. I just had an experience with a cop to make me think they are great and I'm sure you have the occassional experience with an employee that makes you scrap your opinion of how employers are gods, employees parasites. But as for a posting board changing a person's ideology................

It was lame when Clinton said it, as was the impeachment, but, "is" can have several usages. IS can be operative as a directive, inquisitive, conjunctive, etc. But let's be real, he was trying to avoid the truth, just as fascist ronnie and many other politicians. Just can't see the worth of examining someone's sex life, but it makes sense here, as some will think my military term was so important that it trumps important thread issues.

And they say the RW is racist? I won't hear of it.

Who the hell are you? Can anyone here vouch for you? You have no information on your profile. IF what you say is true and you are a veteran, I have never known a veteran to spew anti American hate and bullshit like you do. Many disagree with current policy and that's fine, but given your level of bullshit it makes it hard for many of us to believe you. Edited to add. Well, I just looked at the entire thread for the first time, and it seems I'm not the first to question your authenticity. Apologies for the redundancy. For Rhys.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Personaly I don't give a shit if anyone makes a personal attack at me. Uh, Tankbuster, in post 78 called you a fucking idiot, I was merely spinning it around on him. I personally agree with your points in this thread, completely. (other than your attacks on me!) Then you join the attack on me with the concern over my military record..... here, I'll do it for you....

after you said how many middle class homeless do you know? here Or to put it another way: More than half of US households have NO equity investments at all, and over 66% have no equity investments other than a retirement plan. Seems to support what he wrote. Right, and many poor have a few thousand dollars in thier 401 that they end up using for a house, medical, college or just an emergency. Stock market increases help the upper classes, esp on an individual basis, I think we all know that to be true.

I wrote: Uh, the investors grow. How many poor/middle class play the stocks a lot vs how many upper class? That just supports class seperation. And then: I don't know where you would find data indicating the demographic of stock investors, but if you want to believe it's the homeless guy down the block, who am I stop you from doing so? bodypilot90 response: >>>>>>>>>how many middle class homeless do you know? It makes no sense that you can't understand the meaning and have to try to contort it to something it's not. Let's break it down in sequence: - Uh, the investors grow. (in all economies) - How many poor/middle class play the stocks a lot vs how many upper class? - That just supports class seperation. - I don't know where you would find data indicating the demographic of stock investors, - but if you want to believe it's the homeless guy down the block, who am I stop you from doing so? The key is the last assertion where I claim that it is not the homeless guy down the block who is investing in stocks; how can you contort that into some assertion that I'm saying the middle class is homeless? Also, early on I assert where I ask how many poor/middle class play stocks a lot. Byu a lot I mean how many have substantial portfolios. So if a guy has 4k in his 401K, and it increases 10%, you consider that the same as a rich guy that has 10M in there and gains a million. Stock gains DON'T help the poor and slightly help the middle class on an individual basis; that is my point that you unsuccessfully skewed. Lastly, why am I surprised that there is no citation to your quote? Post one.

nice

I don't need to, you're the one that keeps bringing up "I served one term"...so I called you out, and you dance...not unexpected, as this is the Internet... I served 1 term, told you it was an Hon disch and I have full VA benes, what's the deal? Do you want my MOS/AFSC or what? It is such an insignificant fact that I served a term, but it beats dealing with the issues in the thread I guess.

Yeah, you "win." I should have known better than to tangle with the "Unknown Comic." Edited to Add: Lest you guys lose respect for me, I didn't go to PM with this dude(tte). I couldn't bear the thought of it laughing at me. Whatever you say, ma'am.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm waiting for someone to suggest that we tax the poor. Who is in favor of that? I would suggest you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps we should tax the poor like we tax the rich - then well see hpw many complaints we get from people arguing that the poor are being treated unfairly. This argument would then be ended. Wait, I know, let's tax the piss out of the rich, it'sd more fun to talk about and hear the whining.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The tax structure in this country favors the poor, with the lowest two quintiles having negative real income tax rates due to refundable tax credits while the wealthy pay up to 43%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When it comes to capital gains, the poor are exempt... (that's because they don't have shit) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The poor's favorable treatment carries forward into retirement, where they get a better return on their investment in Social Security. All of a sudden I feel lucky to not have any of that pesky capital to have to contend with. In fact, can I send you what little I have so I'm no longer burdoned?

I agree in general, altho there is a trend that the rich gravitate to teh R. I would say D = inclusion, R = exclusion.

What led you to this conclusion? Nothing of military service is worthy of pride? I've had some shitty jobs and they've all had some level of pride. was there something specific that happened? Just curious OMG, you need to emasculate him for not loving every second and connecting it to pride. We can't keep our lock-stepping going w/o some form of crucifixion.

Dude! I think you're right! That would explain a lot actually. Nope, I would post a pic of my junk if I didn't think you would like it so much.

I served in both regular Army and Army Reserves. I don't see anything about military service worthy of pride. I used to believe my service was something to be proud of, but the older I get, the better I understand why it wasn't. Of all the jobs I've held in life, soldiering was the least honorable, IMO. I don't hold military service against people, but I don't think it merits any extra respect or appreciation, either. I agree. I look at at my sacrifice and the discipline I exhibited, but other than that the pride issue somewhat vague. I didn't write the direction that we took, I was just a passenger on the big ride. I will say that I really was dissappointed we never went to war while I was in, but in retro I'm relieved that I didn't as I wouldn't want to live with the guilt of being part of a political mess generted for profit, Imperialism,etc by our neo-cons. With that said, I wish I was part of teh greatest generation, they really had something to be prideful of. And again, the troops in all wars are heroes, they didn;t get to chose the war they fought within and the sacrifice/risk is the same, even if teh mission is shit.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, I don't think it is a guy. Women seem to be the only apologists who constantly defend Clinton in unrelated arguments. No, I have junk, I just checked, again. >>>>>>>>>>>>It's one of those pointless and misleading timewasters that cause people to constantly restate the obvious facts. I wrote about Clinton's BJ and subsequesnt lie, what did I ommit or misstate? He was impeached for lying to congress and obstruction of justice, as I wrote, BJ and subsequent lie. BTW, same thing your Scooter Libby did, was convicted not in a political forum with MUCH lower standards of proof and admissability rules, but Clinton was not convicted and Libby was......then of course the courteous commutation; full pardon comming to a theatre near you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps she is a vet. There are people who are unsuccessful and bitter every venue. No, I'm a very good military vet; I've had a lot of practice and no shitbag to answer to . Pls, keep making this about me, I don't get this kind of attention at home or at work.