[quote]The only reason for Cikomyr to ask the question is he can't stand not pigeon holing people. "Victim = Respect" is how he operates. He has to know the "rich" from the "poor" because it helps him decide who deserves his respect and who doesn't.[/quote] That is pure bullshit. You don't know anything about me, except that you feel convenient to slander me because I might hold opinions different than yours.
[quote]What's your point? Does having kids and a wife make me special in some way?[/quote] Actually, no. Because somebody who earns 25K with kids and a single person who earns 25K is two entire different level of living rate. Which is why I asked. Gee, relax man. You sound so aggressive in your posts. [quote]Answer 2: The level to ensure 12-13% are classified poor due to the bell curve. Told ya so![/quote] That.. is... ..... THAT IS S
[quote]Ah gee Dad! Can't a guy have any fun? [/quote] You already do in many other threads. We managed to keep clear of partisanship elements so far!!
[quote]I'm curious, how come when it comes to income tax people like you think those considered should pay little or no taxes but when it comes to sales tax, no one seems to complain. Rich people pay 6.5% sales tax here in Florida just like everyone elses does. How come that's no big deal? How come no one sees that as uneven for the poor? If I can pay 6.5% sales tax for any taxable item just like a rich person does, why can't we all pay the same in income taxes? Why should they pay more incom
How many people in america are considered "poor"? And what is the income level to be considered "poor"?
[quote]With Obama it is partially probably a safe bet (noodle spines are no threat).[/quote] You just couldn't resist going partisan, couldn't you?
[quote]yes they are. Infantry - just as the manager of a company sets the tone of the employment place, so Obama has set the tone for the US Military. And you can blame bush only so long for the economy. This one is Obama's. Putting aside who got us in this mess, Obama has made damn sure he kept us in it.[/quote] WHAT? Your infantry has been reported overextended ever since 2005, with ceiling-busting time served on the field compared to any other NATO country!
[quote] The START treaty, I'm sure will be triumphed as a wonderful thing (still plenty of nukes to vaporize the planet surface), but in reality probably sealed the fate of at least part of our ally Georgia.[/quote] ...? Whot? How comes the START treaty sealed the fate of Georgia? The U.S. already proved to be innefectual in defending this ally, way before Obama got voted in. [quote]Ahmadinejad just publicly insulted Obama, basically calling him wet behind the ears (never thou
The article up-here cites one good victory on Obama's part. The capture of the taliban leadership in Pakistan, and the start of actual standing up of the Pakistani military against the tribal regions housing the Talibans. These are still good and hard victory, both on the diplomatic and the military side. He sent one of the most massive relief force to Haiti after the earthquake, doing more direct and immediate aid the U.S. ever did to another nation in a time of crisis. And a
[quote]It would be advantageous to stop them. But I do not think even the Mexicans are stupid enough to "boost" them. That is just playing Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded.[/quote] If they are the one who would start up the trade again, they would also be the ones in control, and the ones benefiting from such trade. I doubt it would be that risky.
[quote]...but I get why you like it![/quote] I tries to give a comprehensive and.. err.. what's the word..? Unified interpretation of Obama's foreign agenda so far, rather than nitpicking one element after the other. [quote]It has the classic liberal buzz words like "politics of fear" and totally excused by omission left based fear mongering, including race baiting.[/quote] You do know that this so-called "Politic of Fear" was definetly in place (or at least, FELT)&nbs
I.. really liked that article. I put a lot of perspective on the past year, and the failings and successes of the Obama administration, and trying to figure a coherent rationale that motivated the different decisions taken. Obviously, you will probably be dismissing it as a load of crap, since it's not criticising Obama on every topic, eh?
Several weeks before President Barack Obama announced an escalation of the Afghanistan War at West Point, a group of journalists and think-tankers met for dinner at the Washington, D.C., embassy of a NATO ally to debate war strategy. Chatham House rules apply to the dinner, so I'm not allowed to tell you who said what or even what embassy it was, but for all the disagreement among intelligent people about a sensible way forward in Afghanistan -- or out of it -- one clear, declarative, and unc
[quote]That is why the US has to buy them off with more. Like I indicated earlier, the US has more money, and that is what it is going to take.[/quote] But the U.S.'s deal would be a 1-time offer. The deal stops when the Drug Lords are dead/shattered. It's not in their advantage to stop the Drug Lords then. Or to simply boost them again once the US departs, or maybe taking control of the drug trade themselves. After all, there will still be a market.
[quote]...and why attack what you can buy? Cheaply I might add.[/quote] Exactly. So I doubt any real effort will happen from the Mexican political arm.
[quote]Not the entire case, my grandmother, who was Slovak would not teach or allow her kids (my mother and seven others) to learn or speak anything but English. Her belief was "you are an American".[/quote] Well, you have to admit that people who did not integrate in the common american community would have had a somewhat bad time in their new neighbourhood. I think it was more a matter of necessity to get a job and to have friendly neighbours than something else. However, ma
[quote] Today they target the border, but lawlessness does not honor its word.[/quote] Nobody honor its word once it's no longer convenient or against your interest. The USA, Canada, Russia, Iran, Israel, the criminals. Is it convenient for the Drug leadership to attack directly the Mexican political leadership? I doubt it. There is nothing to win there, and much to lose.
[quote]When I say Joint, I mean American Money, equipment, and logistics. Mexican soldiers. So the drug lords will be killing brothers and sisters, not a gringo army.[/quote] So money sent to Mexico, to be used by Mexicans. Do you think it will be in the Mexican gov's advantage to win this struggle, or to make it last as long as possible?
[quote]Will it be done? [/quote] Do they want it to be done? Assimilation of foreign culture in the U.S. happened "so well" (compared to other moments in history where it was tried) because the country of origin was so far away. You were effectively cut off from that culture of origin. Which is why Mexican immigrants are much, much, MUCH less likely to assimilate as American as to remain "Mexican" in their mind and heart. Mexicans village/families who were conquered at Te
[quote]But a joint exercise with tons of moola sent over by Uncle Sam may be the option chosen[/quote] But, as said earlier by Friedman, that will still make the Drug Lords appear as "the Mexican Resistance against U.S. Invasion". Not to forget that you will be spending quite a big amount of $ in Mexico, which ultimately will please the Mexican's Economy. Quite a dilemma..
Hellowa. This is a very interesting point Friedman makes. Like many Americans, I had the conception that the Mexican state was failing because of Cartel pressure, but apparently, the Drug Lords and the Mexican State found some sort of equilibrium that allows them both to thrive, using each other's supports and/or disregard. As long as they don't step on each other's foot, they both win a lot out of that kind of deal. I am really wondering on the kind of policy that could tackl
By George Friedman STRATFOR argued March 13, 2008, that Mexico was nearing the status of a failed state . A failed state is one in which the central government has lost control over significant areas of the country and the state is unable to function. In revisiting this issue, it seems to us that the Mexican government has <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20091214_mexican_drug_
[quote]Did you know the largest population of Poles in one city is not Warsaw, but Chicago?[/quote] Yhea, but Warsaw is still more polish than Chicago, by the simple virtue of cultural purity. Not to forget that the news they watch is actually in Polish, not in english. The U.S. has mainly assimilated immigrants. You have ex-Polish, ex-French, ex-English, ex-Irish. Sure, some of them might still cling to their roots, but they aren't what they used to be. Specially starting fro
[quote]I smell the singed flesh from here. [/quote] I am SO banned from this forum any future game Beta [e digicons]:pout:[/e]
Keeping in my serie of insightful articles regarding China. Again, China's current economical situation is more a matter of weaknesses than strenght. Again, the problem of running their country and keeping the yokel on the young chinese's entrepreunarial drive, forcing them to go through Communist official might prove to be China's undoing.
JoeUser Forums