Lucky...

Pretty tough talk for someone who just got a job as a grants specialist for the mayor. OMG, that' MF funny. Ms., "I hate big gov" is part of the machine she denounces. Well, I've always said that we are all hypocrites.

I don't really care if she is or is not the most qualified person. I don't like her for the duel monarchy aspect of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. That's simply too much power in the hands of too few families in too short of a period of time. I wish it would have stopped with the 43rd President, but I'm willing to let it stop with the 44th. I am a lifetime, dyed in the wool, multi-generational Democrat and I won't vote for her in the primary. I simply can't do that. I see your point and I will vote for Edwards in the primary, but what if she wins the Pri, will you vote in the enemy? Republicans like Ron Paul supporters, shall we call them closet Repubs, should reg Dem and vote in Obama in the primaries, as the racist yellow dogs would go Nazi (Reoub) in the general if he wins the primary.

I've fucked around on my GF of 17 years, she got over it . At least that way she didn't have to fuck me, she should have sent the girl a card. I know I did. Here I find myself reading postings from so-called intelects, lawyers, law school attendees, other professionals and all they have to qualify a potential president is how she eacyed to her hubby fucking around, or if she's a bitch or not. So much for intellectual people. In case you forgot, she is currently a Senator, so perhaps you could try the scientific model and actually evaluate her performance, voting record, etc.

Yea, seriously, nevermind her voting record, let's examine her sex life when deciding if she would make a good president. Oh, BTW, MENSA called, they said you can keep your reasoning.

I think out of all the candidates, Ron Paul comes closest. Corps cheat the fuck out of the people with what little gov intervention we have, what, do you really think that w/o any gov that they would fly straight? You gotta be shittin me.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more, just leave it to corporations and they will take care of us as they have. You know, takecare of our pensions, our wages, our pathetic medical care, everything. Uh, counselor to be, can't you see that w/o government intervention the corps would impoverish the poor? Or is it that you can see that and find it ideal?

>>>>>>>>>I know there are a lot of people who have problems with Hillary. I'm one of them, but I am having difficulty really enunciating them. Same with Bill, couldn't refute the gains the counry made, so you defer to irrelevancies. >>>>>>>>>>>One of the problems I have is that I think I disagree fundamentally with her political viewpoint. Well yea, one hand you are the guy who says, "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" to the homeless child, onthe otehr hand she is the one raising taxes to give him/her a home..... I fully understand, that child's sperm / egg origin should have been more personally responsible upon conception. >>>>>>>>>>But my best friends are pinko socialists. Strange bedfellows, a hardcore Republican and pinko socialists. >>>>>>>>>>>I do think that if I ever met her in person, though, I wouldn't like her one bit. Yea, she just reeks of raised taxs to pay for everyone's medical care. >>>>>>>>>>Part of it is the inescapeable notion that I have that she just is not a genuine individual. Obama I like a lot because the dude is pretty real and lacks pretense. He says it like it is. Hillary, on the other hand, is great with general ideas but lacking in details. Thank you, this is my point, you've yet to post substance, just rhetoric and when posted publicly; propaganda. >>>>>>>>>>Also, I get the feeling that Hillary, like Gore, is really convinced that she is smarter and better than anyone out there, and thinks that she knows more than anyone what is best for us. Hmmmm, was FDR likeable? WHO GIVES A FUCK? And you're a lawyer? Oh, wait, yea, lawyers do that, distract from the substance to get carried away on a semantic journey to nowhere. >>>>>>>>>>With her husband, dammit, the guy was likeable. He was the sort of guy who would be self-deprecating and, like Reagan, I just couldn't help but like the guy. At least you have continuity, you continue to post rhetoric w/o substance. Who cares if either was likeable? Let's look at performance, you know the little thing in contracts? Reagan: - Trippled the debt by assuming a slight increase in deficit spending, yet immediately turning it into 250B per year. - Busted unions and employees ability to freely organize and contract. - Left huge unemployment - Cut taxes, esp for rich Clinton: - inherited 250B per year deficit, flatened it and left surplus - inherited 7% unemp and left 4% - gave tax credits for education - allowed gays to remain in the military if they kept quit - brought the world to hate us less Sorry for interjecting substance. >>>>>>>>>>>I really can't explain why I don't like Hillary. If you don't like her, tell us why. AKA, let's bash her for no reason but to agree that we won't for her, since we know she will win the primary and we don't want some GD dem in there giving our money to the poor.

A science teacher taught us about the hypothesis to theroy process, then talked of the way the phenomenon you write about. Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things until all options but 1 are disproven and the last is yet disproven. That's utopian and oversimplified for the scientific model, but you get the gist. So what do we do with things like conservation, gravity, etc? I mean, if we call it fact, proof, etc then the minute something levitates or fails to turn into another element the whole thing falls on its ass accross the board. Religion and so-called justice in the courts don't worry about that, but scienc is more responsible so they call these thngs, "laws." Laws aren't proof, just a way of classifying repeatable events. She said hardcore scientists don't subscribe to laws, they just call gravity and others, theories. This is why I like science, it isn;t there to sell you a bill of shit, like the courts and church, it simply shows you what they've learned thru decades and centuries of experiement and observation. This is also why I think the courts are even sleazier, they PROOVE things beyond a reasonable doubt often using science. When people try to sell you BS they will sometimes use string and unfounded language like, PROOF. Sciance says the probability of X being true are 1,000,000:1, but that isn't proof, still just a string theory. And with the church, they show proof of teh existence of Jesus and God all the time thru that revised book we call the bible, a book written by neither. Who knows who's right in the end, I guess we'll find out then, but what turns me away from religion and onto science is that science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to.

Do we have any real power to do so? Despite JR's assertions to the contrary, I think we do not. Most of the stock is held by other institutions, so individual stockholders have effectively been shut out of the process. And BoDs are notoriously inbred, so we have really bad cases of "you scratch my back..." when it comes to setting executive compensation packages. The power is to not buy stocks from certain corps, altho hard to do. Create your own mutual fund.

What? You could pay them 1/4 of their current salary and have them lining up. KInd of like with lower court, JP's and Muni's, judges make 80k+ and most aren't even lawyers, some have no college, and they are lining up. Point is, overpay unqualified people and they will line up. Thx for being the, uh, devil's advocate.

The board of directors are the people who let him have such a deal. Why don't you complain about them, for not tying the CEO's salary to company performance? Is the BOD appointed/hired by the COE's or his boys? Probably, or they are in bed otherwise.

Right, employees have no rights, what's pathetic is that investors have no rights either.

DUDE everyone in the military hated Clinton because he was doing the right thing in downsizing the military after the collapse of the Soviet Union....I know it sucked.. but I was in the military during and after The South East Asian War Games. I got to experience first hand how wonderful the VA was But Bushie.. is SUPPOSED to be a big supporter of the military.. but I guess that only stretches to the BIG BUCK ITEMS that his supporters in the Mil-Industiral Complex supply or want to research so they can supply it in the future.... cause it sure has not extended to how our troops are supplied or how they have been treated AFTER they went.. and came home broken. If they really gave a shit.. things like this would not be happening to wounded vets... Then again if they really gave a shit about the troops.. they would have actually gone after The people who really attacked us rahter than going after a country that did NOT attack us.. and did not even have the ability to do so.. BUT... the friends of the Administration sure have done quite well.... from our War President The myth is that Clinton cut the military and no one else did. GW Bush cut about the same # of troops in 1/2 the time, so that doubles the rate. When you talk to pathetic Repub drones they can't fathom that the military needed to be downsized about the time when Ronnie trippled the debt. Speaking of the pig Reagan, his pay raises were considerably lower than Clinton's, and he carried the false reputation of a guy who loved the military. These facades run deep and the garbage that continues to perpetuate and support it will find some way to rationalize it.

Man, what nerve did I hit on you? Akarunway asked for an opinion on a specific topic and I gave mine. Nowhere in my reply do I mention Jesus, religion or church, however if you have a discussion on whether or not mankind is inherently evil; I think it is safe to assume some religious beliefs will come into it. Tell me then, do non-human animals have the same ability to make decisons? Oh apparently not per you: "The difference is the human race is the only species who can make choices and fight their natural inclinations." Hmmmm, I wonder where the non-human animals get their inability to decide? Why were they put on this earth? Who put them here? I think I've read enough of your posts to know the answer. BTW, nice way to avoid every issue I posted.

I doubt anyone ever reads the fine print. Seems one should hire an agent before consideration of re-enlistment. What's pathetic is the swearing-in process where a young prospect swears to uphold teh US Constitution when he/she: 1) Likely has but a vague clue as to what it is, if any at all 2) Loses most of those rights in exchange for the UCMJ Gotta cut this short, I hard they're having a fire sale on US flags... gotta beat the rush

BINGO..... and the poor young dummies who buy into it in really good faith.

Right, more correctly: All organisms are born on a mission to survive and reproduce. All natural decisions they make are directly or indirectly related to that motive. All organisms struggle to survive.

Oh here we go....Jesus, Jesus, fuck Jesus . Speciesism: Thinking your species is the best and only relevant species. Amazing at how it comes from the church, I guess that rationalizes the exploitation of billions of animals every year, makes some sleep better. So my dog, when deciding shit and it's hot, cold rainy outside, she doesn't think that shitting inside would be more comfortable, but then would be in trouble? Wild animals make the choice of whether to attack for food, attack something that may injure you could end your life. I would say that insects, which are animals, decide more on respose than careful deliberation, but most more complex animals certainly make choices and fight natural inclinations. OTOH, humans don't do that enough much/most of the time. Everything doesn't have to be about how we're God's fucking children, science plays a huge part, sociology also has a huge influence, religion is just for those who are unwilling to believe in those kinds of elements.

>>>>>>>I may be becoming more of a cynic in my old age. You don't say.

However true, you can't seperate the population and western civilization, as the rest of the world is trying to immitate the poluting aspect of us, so it will come down to more population = polution, less population = less polution.

>>>>>>>>>What I think is selfish are the people who have children and don't make them their priority in life. That's irresponsible, selfish is ignoring the ecology and pumping out a brood of kids, regardless of your fiscal abilities. Of course when you were born the ecology wasn;t screaming as it is now. Remember the days of no smog systems, no brown clouds over most cities.....the product of selfishness.

When you're examoning carrying capacity we are numbers. When the population exceeds the carrying capacity we will encouter some/all of these things: run out of food, not be able to dispose of waste, run out of room, and those kids of things.

Was he Chistian? Sounds like a Christian statement as we are all supposed to bring all the babies for Jesus into the world (puke).

And when people see the population exceeding the carrying capaciy and they individually shrug their shoulders it is foolish and selficsh, IMO. However, having 1 or 2 children isn't bad, having 7 or 8 is pathetic. Don't worry tho. the planet has a way of.....adjusting for such foolishness and selfishness via disease, famine, etc...

>>>>>>>>>>...on my next jump i know ill be making sure to point me toes more as my feet were near me ass... Are you a leprichaun?