Reply #43 By: enigmagnetic - 5/4/2005 3:52:55 PM that the European public supported an American show of force? Sure, Afghanistan. (not Iraq) You make some good points yourself. Many trash Germany for not supporting us in Iraq, but they have provided more troops in Afghanistan then any ot
George W. Bush is hated around the world. Americans are 10 times more disliked now than they were in 10 years ago. Do you guys even travel? Yes, that's one of the many thing I do in my job and vaction in Europe once a years (lately in Germany or Eastern Europe). I also have friends and relatives who I
I mean Slick Willy was disliked but gained way more support internationally than Dubya. Ohh... Good old Bill got about the same support internationally for Bosnia and Serbia. I remember demonstrations in the European streets back then too. (How soon people's memories fade.)<img src="../images
To put things into perspective, you do know that the Amy also missed it's recruiting goals in 1994-96, 98-99 and the first three months of 2000 too, right? (people always love to ignore historical data) There was no war going on at that time. That was also during the draw down time too. The Average turn over cyclic for those enlisting in 97 was 39.6%. The average turn over now is on 22%. I worked for the National Guard from the mid
i don't believe progressives would have a problem with the solution proposed by another republican: paul o'neil Link Good link Kingbee. But here is another good link, to a write up another person has done. http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/22/173612/540
does this make us europe's father or mother? If we are going to go off of their view of the us lately, we are their abusive step father. That would also make them a step child of ours too. But they are just not the Red Headed one
ya catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The problem, is the Democrats have not said what that honey is. So far the only honey is no, no , not at all. Please provide any ideas that the Democrats have made to fix the problem with SS. The last one that I heard was from the Senate Minority l
The following comes from an exceptionally write book called the "The Right Nation", written by two English men Micklethwait and Wooldridge . The Lack of a Hard Right It is also worth adding one final aspect of American conservativism for with even liberal Americans should be grateful: the marginalization of the Far Right. In many
I just got done reading the Article on CNN.com: Link This is what the Democrats have wanted for a long time. More money for the poor upon retirement and capping any extra increase on those who make more money. They just won a battle in the class warfare fight, it was just handed to them on a platter. Why are they fighting this? IMO, it is because hi
Also Neo-Cons are not as far to the Right as you think (almost leftist in some respects). The History of who the orginanal Neo-cons where/are would shock you. I'll see about posting some remarks this weekend on the Neo-Cons.
Reply #28 By: Citizen kingbee - 4/29/2005 1:46:04 AM Right = Less Government Control Left = Total Government Control that makes anarchists rightwingers? Yes, they are the true right wing. Same with the survival nuts too. Ruby Ridge, Tim McVaey, Free Range Ranchers of the west are all
I would say that you're an Independent that leans to the left. Too many want to get trapped into the vote MY party system. You should just prioritize what is most important to you. Then compare the two evils that the parties nominate and deside which will not make you feel dirty voting for.
The problem with those who travel too far Right into Fascism (i.e. Nazi), is that they really end up on the far left (i.e. total Government control). We have had a few discussions back in Oct. about this subject. If you got the time Andrew, go back to the Oct. Bloggs and take some of the "Where are you on the spectrum tests" that bounce around back then. You may be surprised how closes Hitler and Stalin was. It was just the PR, used by bo
Can anybody post a link to the text of the agreement that was signed last year, or any changes to the SSA regulations (I have found none)? I'm just want to read the accual text to see how the mechanics will work.
In order for a person to obtain a work SSN they must have the following: Alien Status: We need to see an unexpired document issued to you by the DHS, such as Form I-551, I-94, I-688B, or I-766. We CANNOT accept a receipt showing you applied for the document. Your documents must show that you are authorized to work in the U.S. If you’re a non-U.S. citizen, we must verify your documents with the DHS before we issue a SSN card. We will i
Again, no one has answered my question. How do you pay a person that has no record of employment? If this is true, then this maybe just another way of throwing a bone to the latino vote. But not really giving anything away. The first company that would admit employing an illegal would be closed down. In the end it could be a good PR move, but cost nothing.
Illegal aliens have SS numbers? Most get paid under the table, using a fault numbers or stolen number. How would an illegal get SS if there is no documentation proving input to the system? I understand those who was here legally then later staying past their time. Just wondering.
I guess the increase in the debt, annual budget deficit, price of gas etc are also wrong. Have I or Island Dog said anything about those numbers? No. The unemployment ra
If you think a trade deficit from $370 billion to $700 billion is good you got it!quote] I'm not arguing with you on the trade deficit, because I feel that if we raise tariffs with our enemies (i.e. China), and keep the same course with our allies, much of that trade deficit will shrink. Knocking two birds out
Average unemployment rate of the last 25 years: 6.2% Unemployment Rate today: 5.2% Average unemployment rate of the whole eight years of the Clinton Era: 5.2% Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Bush Presidency: 5.5% Average unemployment rate of the first four years of Clinton Presidency: 6.0% You love to cherry pick the lowest month of unemployment rate in 35 years 3.7% to compare Bush’s present 5.2% too.
Oh, no. I was in the Boy Scouts when I was twelve. That makes me a flag waving, Bible thumping, homophobe. Well I can say, only one out of three. I'll let you decide which one it is.
The wealthy do not spand all their income and can afford the increase in costs from the surplus of their income over their consumption. But they do spend that money. I don't know to many wealthy people who just lets the money sit in the bank, and doing nothing. They invest that money and make it work.
The Dept of labor reported that Average Weekly wage after inflation was down .5% in the 12 month period ending in March 2005 for blue collar and white collar non-supervisory workers that total 80% of the works force. Which table are you looking at for your info? Because one of the finical new
Col Gene Where are you getting your data from? Must be from the Washington Post. Check this out from the labor department: Link From March of 2004 (101.4) until March of 2005 (105.1) there has been a raise in the "Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
There is no logical reason for voters in Ohio to support the reelection of George Bush since his economic policies, tax policies and his trade policies failed to stem the loss of jobs in Ohio. It may not be logical to you or the DNC, who can't see how people are tired of the 60's additude.(i.e. moral va
PolMach Forums
JoeUser Forums