?

We have a President, Great Britain a Prime Minister, Italy and Russia have both, why? Can't be simple as our Vice President, a position Joe Biden is eminently qualified for, a position that John Adams, our first called the most pointless political position ever created.

So, what's the point of both? Who's really in charge? How does it all work?

Was Gingrich planning all along to lay back and wait for the opposition to shoot themselves in the foot before stepping up, or were Perry and Cain's problems just a lucky break?

No longer in school getting a free education, no longer playing ball for their school or in the NBA.

Question: Did they have time between the draft and the lockout to sign a contract and receive a bonus, or are they just out in the cold without a bank account?

Article in today's Washington Times points out that through Sec. State Clinton, Obama is pushing a "fight, talk and build" approach in negotiating with the Haqqani Network to see if the terrorist group will negotiate in good faith. Afghan leaders say the Haqqani have ties to the Pakistani military and the US is wasting its time in attempting to negotiate. They point out that the attacks by the Haqqani on the US Embassy and the NATO base happened after negotiations began.

So, is this a good idea or is the Obama administration just spinning its wheels?

our political leaders want to involve us in wars?

On this page I keep seeing references to Obama's wars, Bush's wars, WWII got us out of the depression. Other than WWII, where do we glean this information? If, for example, country A attacks country B, why do we feel the need to be involved? If the populous of country C decides to overthrow the sitting government, who says we need to help? Are the bomb and gun manufacturers exerting force, the builders of planes and helicopters, suppliers of any war needs? If so, why not just supply the combatants, why put our boys in harms way?

In other words, are Obama or members of Congress really concerned about the profits of war or do they have a desire for global domination? And how do we know?

I asked a simple football question and it was deleted because someone reported it, I filled out the appeal thing but was wondering how it works. My question "If you owned the Colts and ended up with the first draft pick, what would you do?" How is that offensive? Does someone actually read my appeal? If I'm reprimanded for a question someone doesn't like, does he pay a penalty for reporting abuse for something that is obviously not abusive? Maybe he was a Colt fan that took offense that someone would suggest the Colts would have that bad of a season, is that an acceptable reason to report abuse?

According to Buffet those people and corporations earning 8+ digit annual incomes aren't paying enough.

In the past every change in the tax codes was done with Spackle and paste creating thousands of pages of code. Should they throw it all out and start over or stick with the patch and fix approach?

Of course not! Nobody would!

So, why do I continually see people complaining that Warren Buffet isn't taking it on himself to send the government half of what he makes? His pointing out that the system is flawed is reasonably remarkable for someone in his position, taking advantage of the flaws helps drive home the point.

What's your opinion?

Been some wacky stuff going on lately, but I don't think it happened in 2011.

Seems that's all we ever have to choose from. Perhaps someone enjoyed success in business and banking. Your thoughts?

Jordan issued an apology on tweeter to the stadium workers who lost their jobs due to the lock-out.

Surprised we don't hear more of that?

I can't for the life of me recall an instance when they fixed something without breaking something else. Can someone show an example when it didn't work that way? Truly curious.

Would it be good or bad?

What improvements or drawbacks would it create?

What needs to be done to get there?

Judge Blackburn ruled that the law contained portions that contradicted federal law, she blocked those leaving about 85% of the new intact. The laws vary from state to state, Alabama and Arizona have the toughest to California, where if you can elude the boarder guards you have access to all things available to the citizenry and some that aren't.

Where do you stand, should this be a federal thing only? If so, should we expect the feds to actually do something? Is total amnesty the answer? What do you think the solution is?

If so, who? What did they say?

Trying to increase my understanding of how this page works.

I believe when I add someone to my contacts they are sent a message as I have received a couple myself. If I add a contact, find I have no interest in their questions

and block them, are they notified of the block?

When a question is resolved a comment icon is added to the action bar, if you leave a comment there does go to the original asker, or is it posted somewhere else?

Thanks,trying to add to my understanding without offending.

Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw have remarkable numbers, on a playoff team they'd be shoe ins.

Will they, and should they be penalized because their teammates aren't as good as those on teams heading into the post season?

Front page, LA Times, Jury rules against 10 Muslim students.

According to the story, the students disrupted the speech the University of Irvine had asked the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, to make. While we've all seen speakers shouted down were exceptions made due to ethnicity. If the disruptor's would have been, Irish for example, would they have been charged?

The real question should be: Does my right to freedom of speech allow me to take that same right away from another?

Curious as to your thoughts.

If so

How long has it been around?

What comprises it?

And more importantly, like all previous empires, will it collapse?

if yes

Is it inevitable?

Are there any steps to be taken to avoid it?

I always thought that what you gave to charity was treated as non-income, in other words if you donate 100,000 that is simply deducted from your income and you paid taxes on the balance. With Obama's wanting to change it I suspect I was wrong in the first place, so, is it like if you give enough it has a larger effect on your taxes than the amount given?