magekillr

Then clearly you read my post in the wrong manner because such a generalization doesn't exist. If you're referring to the title, it's just that these terrorists HAPPEN to be American, thus "American Terrorists", not, "All Americans Are Terrorists". Moreover, this is also about that movie that is being sent around in people's mailboxes. My next door neighbor has already received two copies of them...

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/conten ... 7&cxcat=16 What the hell is wrong with this damn country? We're GASSING Muslims during their holy holiday? Children even1?!?! Wachovia abandons ship today, Texas acquitted a man of murdering a 13 year old who stole twinkies from his trailer, and now Ohio is gassing Mosques. I am thoroughly disgusted. It is bad enough that anti-Muslim propaganda and fear mongering material like "Obsession" are being distributed in swing states....but to actually launch an attack on innocent Muslim children? I...*sigh* "Obsession": [hide=][/hide] EDIT: Yes I'll admit that was poor wording. My mistake, I apologize. Sorry, I wrote this while studying at like 3:00 a.m. last night, and the whole situation just frustrates me that such acts are committed in America that I was kind of irrational...

No thanks, only idiots believe that our problems lie at the Federal Reserve and don't understand what "deflation" is. Canada has a nearly identical system as we do, and they have no issues.

If we had a spending freeze it would only take a few years until we had a surplus instead of these massive deficits. You're out of your [bleep]ing mind, and so is John McCain; not even Ron "Get Rid of Most of the Federal Government and End All Spending" Paul is that insane. You don't have a total spending freeze, even people who aren't Keynesian Economists know that. Just as a rule you don't stop buying everything except bread in hard financial times, you buy durable goods. This man is not just an idiot or insane anymore...he's dangerous.

Few things about the debate: I thought Lehrer was brilliant. I don't see how you thought this was a poorly moderated debate Ginger, I thought it was refreshing because he allowed and DIRECTED them to talk to each other, rather than to him, AND he pressed his questions if they didn't answer. Anyway, if this debate doesn't convince you to vote for Obama or do everything in your power to stop John McCain, nothing will. I wonder if the clip I am referring to is on youtube yet, or is at all, but the most telling part of the debate was this question: Lehrer asked the candidates to talk about what priorities the financial crisis would prompt them to put on hold. They both used a lot of dumb flowery language about what they WOULDN'T cut. Lehrer kept at it. Eventually, he got McCain to say that aside from defense, veterans spending, and like one other thing that I can't remember off of the top of my head, that we should consider a total budget freeze. I mean....WTF! Total budget freeze? Are you INSANE!?! This isn't like Ron Paul, who proposed specific measures against specific federal departments...this is a total budget freeze. Basically, he wants us to go into wartime mode because of this financial crisis. It's bread lines, instead of trying to get people to take positive action. What a complete tool bag.

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll: Ah, the "the USSR wasn't really marxist/socialist/communist" argument. I like how you put the "/'s" there as if to indicate that there's no/slight differences between them. You dare disagree with His Holiness?

yeah, just look at north korea, 1917-1991 russia etc :roll:

I wasn't referring to what she said about the border, I was referring to her response as a whole; she was so damn clueless about what she was talking about. Oh Big Ed Schultz:

Or the Russia-Alaskan Border? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n Hey, I'll admit that Biden made a mistake. I'm aware of what he meant, or tried to say (and I'm sure you do too), but I won't spin it: he [bleep]ed up. However, there's a difference between [bleep]ing up, and just being a complete moron.

Hmm... Sounds a lot like Obama's health care plan... :roll: Except, there is still private enterprise primarily running the show. There's roughly 45 million uninsured at the moment. That means there's already roughly 255 million insured through private lenders and Medicare/Caid. He's not privatizing medicine (god I wish he would), and he's not getting rid of private insurers. Anyway, even if he was a socialist, I'd only support him even more lol.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you America's possible next Vice President, and quite possibly the next President: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Yx-RhHb4g No wonder McCain is shielding her from the media; what an unintelligent and anti-woman woman. COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more. PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. arah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case. Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest? Palin: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made. I mean...she asked her a different question, and Palin gives the same answer verbatim. ---------------------------------------------- edit: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 3720080925 China's banks no longer lending US banks money?

Snipersas, I think you're eating American Ronald Reagan Propaganda about nationalized health care lol.

If Obama supported Universal Health Care, I more than likely would have picked him as my first choice for President. Obama does not wish to bring Unviersal Health care...jesus christ people have such a twisted view. If Obama's form of health insurance was "universal" and covered everyone, then I'd pour a bunch of salt on a piece of paper, squeeze lemon juice on it, record myself eating it, and post it on here.

Also a note Ginger, national polls are not good indicators for American elections because our states actually choose the President (I know you're aware of this). A national poll could have Obama 51%, and McCain 49%...yet Obama could win in a landslide. He's polling excellently in Virginia and Colorado, and he only needs one of them to win the election.

McCain has "suspended his campaign" and is asking Obama to do the same. He is also asking to "delay" the debates. McCain is sweating like no tomorrow, and as he very much should be. Excuse me John, 3 days ago you said the economy was strong, and now you want to discuss a crisis? If you can't juggle financial crisis and your campaign, how can you be President? Because a president never has to deal with foreign policy and economic issues at the same time? Fuh pete's sake. If he can't handle both, he can't handle being president. This is obviously nothing more than a political gamble, something McCain likes to take part in quite frequently it seems. Also, what does "suspending" even mean? Are you closing your offices? Are your workers "off" temporarily?

Are you including their tax plans inside of their economic plans?

Replace please :)

Could be, but remember, they controlled for what types of jobs they have and if they are working in a "female" or a "male" type of job. They also controlled for hours worked and whether they had a stay-at-home spouse. The problem with this conjecture is that most people do not know whether their jobs are paying them equally or unequally (hence the dearth of lawsuits on pay discrimination).

I want to know why foreign leaders even agreed to meet with her in the first place. Moreover, sorry, but foreign policy expertise and judgment isn't contagious.

I would disagree with this assertion because over time the disparities are growing smaller. One could just as easily argue that high income earners can generally be seen as coming from "old money" conservative families, or come from families with conservative views which in the past have allowed them into higher tiers of business, and thus create better opportunities for their children. It's like that study that said that taller people earn more money than short people, but conveniently forgot the reasons why the majority of tall people are tall - they are in wealthy countries and could afford better nutrition and health services. Generally, people who take up libertarian views do so because they perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage, whereas conservatives hold their values because they have the resources to be content with their station in life. I talked to Beth about your assertion, and here's a summary of what she had to say about this: Her adviser actually authored the height study that you're talking about, but your theory isn't quite as sound as you make it out to be. The height study examined 3 American data sets and one from Great Britain, so it's within-American changes. Now with this study, they tracked individuals themselves when they were 17-22, not just whether people started out more traditional or not. So within an individual, his/her income varied as his/her attitudes varied. She also acknowledges that some of it could be from old money. They controlled for whether one's mother worked outside of the home, and their parent's education, but they did not control for "old money". The issue here is that, regardless of one's job, they see this difference occurring. She claims that it could perhaps be because super-conservative men are better negotiators for better salaries, or that, as I assume she thinks, it could be because men who "buck the system" in terms of not acting as "traditional" men should are penalized in the workplace and traditional women are taken advantage of. They do not know the cause as of yet, and don't claim to know....but the correlation is there as of this time, and it's very apparent.

I would disagree with this assertion because over time the disparities are growing smaller. I was shocked at that large of a disparity with THIS correlation. I didn't expect men who hold sexist views towards women to be making as much as $12,000 more than their male counterparts working towards equality.

Yes yes, of course. I was being very general. Thanks for the calculator though, and I'm right around the caloric count that I should be at (2,300 to 3,000). I'm aware that they're kids, that's why I suggested more calories actually. Metabolisms, in general, are faster when you're younger. At least, my metabolism was faster when I was 18 (now I'm 20). So I would have taken in more calories when I was younger. That's also why I tried mentioning body type too. Anyway....good of you to clarify what I was saying anyway.

No, I know her :?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7625173.stm So, this was a study conducted by a friend of mine at the University of Florida. It's getting quite a lot of attention, so I thought I would share, and possibly get your opinions. Here is the video on Fox News: Woo! Go Beth! Here is another link: http://www.livescience.com/culture/0809 ... l-men.html And then here is the actual study: http://www.bethlivingston.net/Nice_v5%20s1.pdf I'm really not sure what conclusions to draw from this, but I was SHOCKED at the wage disparity!

If you're getting a proper intake of calories, I don't see why you should not include 30 mins of cardio 4 days a week. If you're a young person, let's say 16-18, I'd say you should be taking in 3,000-3,200 calories. This is of course assuming you're fairly lean as it is, and you're not trying to lose a lot of fat/weight. I take in 2,300-3,000 calories everyday, with a ratio of 40/30/30 (protein/carbs/fats), do cardio 4 days a week, and it's just fine. People seriously neglect cardio, especially men. Men also neglect their legs and lower body... I mean, I guess if you're going to be entering contests your plan is going to be different, but for a fairly everyday look great lean/muscular/strong person, cardio for 30 minutes 4 days a week is not going to kill your muscle building...IF you're taking in the proper amount of nutrition. Your muscles eat themselves if you're not getting enough...thus the term 'catabolic state'.