Dekardkain

Especially those who believe he's some megalomaniac who's trying to become a life-long dictator (everyone by now has seen the people claiming he will fake a terrorist attack, ect. to cancel the elections), have no problem with the fact that Ted Kennedy has been in power since the dawn of time? Or complain that FDR served four terms? Or the multitude of Democratic senators and congressman who will have a seat until they die or retire?

A lot of these same people love to quote Thomas Jefferson, who believed in 'Citizen Legislators' who served for one, maybe two terms, then returned to the farm to give someone new a shot? How can people claim Bush is trying to become a dictator, when historically it's Democrats that hang on to power for the longest period of time?

Realize that they're griping about it on a Yahoo!© server, using an Intel© powered computer, running a Microsoft© operating system, on a Comcast© connection, while sipping a drink made by Coca Cola©? Granted, some people might have to replace Microsoft© with Apple©, or various other changes, but the point is the same. Just what would your lives be like without all of these 'evil', greedy, corporations?

After the events of the last few years, increasing tensions all over the Middle East, Venezuela threatening to hike up their oil prices, and continued complaints over our reliance on foreign oil, why are we STILL not drilling in ANWR?

The reasons for not drilling in the first place weren't ever properly clarified or supported. Was it the wildlife? That doesn't make much sense, considering that previous pipelines actually increased animal populations (as they congregate around the warm pipes and thus mate more frequently). Was it not worth the effort for what we can extract? Then why are our companies the ones the Russians are hiring to drill their oil in arctic environments?

Isn't it hypocritical to keep banging the 'foreign oil' drum while we still refuse to take even the most remedial steps to alleviate the problem?

Everyone remember your early education about the American Government? One of the first things they cover in a Civics class is the idea of Rights and Responsibilities. Most rights have corresponding responsibilities, IE. you have the right to life, thus you can't murder someone as that is violating their right to life.

Understanding these simple principles, how is the current state of abortion law acceptable when it comes to MEN? I am not talking about a woman's rights here, I am talking about the double standard that men are placed in when it comes to rights vs. responsibilities. A man has no RIGHT to that child, and can't force a woman to carry his child to term. So how can it possibly be Constitutional to charge him 18 years of child support if the situation is reversed?

Legally, it's taxation without representation, and the last time that happened we fought a war over it. I don't want to get bogged down in moral arguments, I am asking if you think it is legally justifiable.

In today's America, where many Southern Democrats are more conservative than their Northern Republican counterparts (and vise versa), have the two major parties lost their identities as a cohesive group? Do you think we would be better off with a more European system, that includes many parties and represents a wider range of the political spectrum?

Looking at the current debate on Global Warming, and the fact that environmental advocates are trying to 'save us all', isn't ironic that so many in the same movement are consistently and blatantly anti-human?

Most people cite the 'Global Cooling' scare a few decades ago, which wasn't really supported by scientists to begin with, and was a total flop. But the idea that these people can't and won't do significant damage to human beings is naive considering the evidence. Have we all forgotten about DDT?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3785

Averaging 1-2 million Malaria deaths a year, these people are DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of more than 70 million human beings. And what was their reaction?

Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

"People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any."

Do people understand how ignorant they sound when they claim this war was started for oil? I let it slide for a long time because I thought that most people were laughing it off as nonsense, but more and more people are parroting the phrase on these forums lately, so it needs to be addressed.

Can anyone who believes this tripe explain to me why we would pick Iraq if we wanted oil? Canada has more reserves than we could ever hope to gain from Iraq, they have virtually no military, no religious extremists, and are RIGHT NEXT DOOR. We import more oil from Canada than all of the Middle East combined. We could have finished up in two weeks, and started running pipelines the next day directly down into our refineries, and not be worrying about people trying to blow up our soldiers. Doesn't make much sense does it?

I constantly hear people who are against the war saying that fighting them there doesn't make us any safer. Alright, lets pretend that's the truth for a second and ask ourselves the follow-up question. If we pulled all of our troops out so they would be here to 'protect us', how exactly would that help?

We're not fighting an army that's going to invade us. We're fighting terrorists that are going to attack and retreat. What would these troops be doing here to protect us exactly? Patrolling the streets armed with assault rifles? I'm sure liberals would LOVE that right? Putting missile batteries on top of tall buildings to shoot down a renegade plane? On the border shooting anyone who tries to cross?

How exactly do you expect our army to protect us from this kind of threat? Or is keeping them tied up in the Iraq and Afghanistan really the only thing we can do?

I am going to throw my prediction for '08 out now, and I am interested to hear everyone else's. I firmly believe that either Obama or Clinton will end up representing the Democratic party in the election (despite the fact that Edwards probably has the best chance of actually winning outside designated Blue Zones).

I believe either one will lead in the polls all the way to election day, simply because it's politically correct to say you're voting for them. I think a lot of people might actually believe they're going to vote for them as they head for the booths. But can anyone else honestly believe that most of America won't collectively 'flinch' at the last minute? I think Democrats are banking on Bush hatred to carry them into the White House, forgetting how polarizing their own candidates are. I believe people would rather vote for a Republican they know little about than a Democrat they have a knee-jerk reaction to. Anyone else have any predictions?

Anyone else think Gore and the Man Made Global Warming crowd realize they're about as much good for the planet as a hysterical, screaming passenger is for a sinking ship?

Most people realize the world is getting warmer, but many dispute the cause. Gore and his cronies parrot this 'man made' crap, scoffing at any other possibility. With Martian icecaps melting, and the temperature of all celestial bodies in the area warming up, don't they realize how useless this makes them? It's not man made, which means we can't stop it by changing what we do. Shouldn't we be treating it like an impending asteroid? "There's nothing we can do but prepare for the effects, ride it out, and this too shall pass." If we keep focusing on cutting carbon, all we're doing is hurting ourselves for no good reason when we could be preparing for the inevitable. Right now, we're doing nothing to prepare, and crippling the developing world in the process. Not exactly the most effective approach?

Midwest-erners are more likely to volunteer their time than are people elsewhere in the United States, according to a government study released Monday. Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas, Las Vegas had the lowest volunteer rate, 14.4 percent. Nationally, 26.7 percent of adults in 2006 said they had volunteered in the previous year. That compares with 28.8 percent in 2005 and 20.4 percent in 1989.

The percentage of people age 16 and older in the 50 largest metropolitan areas who volunteered in 2006:

1. Minneapolis-St. Paul, 40.5

2. Salt Lake City, 38.4

3. Austin, Texas, 38.1

4. Omaha, Neb., 37.8

5. Seattle, 36.3

California doesn't hit the list until San Fransisco at 23rd, with 'enlightened' cities like New York and Miami coming in at 48th and 49th. Not exactly a strong representation of Blue State values eh?

Why do nearly all advocates of global warming act like they have a corner on the scientific argument while ignoring an entire branch of science? Archaeologists and Anthropologists I've met in the course of my studies by and large discredit the idea of man made global warming because they have seen direct evidence to the contrary. Very recently (within the last 2000 years) we have seen global climate changes that DWARF what we're seeing these days, and this was all well before we were pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. It's actually colder now than it was even during the era of the Roman Empire, where we've found evidence of grapes (a warm climate crop) being grown as far north as Scotland. Is it wise to base your science on computer models when there is concrete evidence out there being dug up every day?

It's obvious to anyone on here that I'm a conservative. But even I will admit that while I rarely agreed with him, Bill Clinton was most likely the finest politician I've ever seen (I will admit that my first presidential vote was for him his second term). He always seemed to go with the consensus, keeping him right down the middle on most issues (and thus with a pretty high approval rate). Even when you disagreed with him, he had that way of telling you exactly what you wanted to hear to make you feel better about it.

The people backing him were also some of the most politically savvy in American history, and managed to get him through numerous scandals with little to no real damage. Most of this team is still in place, and working with Hillary now. My question is, while Obama seems to be winning over large sections of young, energetic Democrats, does anyone really believe he has a chance at survival when the Clinton machine gets into full swing and barrels down on him?

As a soldier who did 2 tours in Iraq, I know first hand how frustrating it can be serving in a nation who's language you don't speak. It also brought up a question about WW II I had never considered. At the height of their conquest, the Germans controlled areas that spoke Dutch, French, Russian, Slavic, Greek, ect. Did they have a policy of employing collaborators for translation (who might be secretly lying to them to help their people), or did they try to train their own guys to speak all of these languages? Just wondering, because it seems like a pretty big problem, especially considering they were administrating the govt. in so many of these places.

Has anyone noticed that the same people who want to 'solve' our problems with the Middle East by making ourselves less dependent on foreign oil are the same people who oppose conservatives every time we try to drill? We have massive untapped oil reserves in this country, most of which remains unexploited to this day. Are a couple of Caribou really worth funneling more cash into Saudi pockets?

I've never supported national healthcare - but something came to mind as I was debating it earlier. Considering that most (something like 70-80%) new medicines and treatments are pioneered in the US, shouldn't the idea of us switching over scare the hell out of them? These drug companies charge an arm and a leg because the vast majority of their money goes into research and development for new drugs. You know they will never make this kind of money in a socialized system, with the govt. footing the bill. The first place that will feel the pinch and will undoubtedly be downsized will be the research teams working on drugs that may not even pan out for the company (or they could save millions of lives). Anyone else think this could set medicine the world over back decades?