robert213
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Events
Store
Bug Tracker
Posts posted by robert213
-
-
As of Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._election,_2008
[edit]Democratic PartyMain article: Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates
Official candidates who have filed with the FEC for the Democratic Party:
* Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (Campaign Site)
* Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (Campaign Site)
* Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (Campaign Site)
* Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska (Campaign Site)
* Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (Campaign Site)
* Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa (Campaign Site)
Candidates who have formed exploratory committees:
* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (Exploratory Committee)
* Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (Exploratory Committee)
* Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Exploratory Committee)
Candidates who have expressed serious interest:
* Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas (WesPAC - Securing America)[6]
* Reverend Al Sharpton of New York [7]
[edit] Republican Party
Main article: Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates
Official candidates who have filed with the FEC for the Republican Party:
* Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (Campaign site)
* John H. Cox of Illinois (Campaign Site)
* Representative Duncan Hunter of California (Campaign Site)
* Michael Charles Smith of Oregon (Campaign Site)
Candidates who have formed exploratory committees:
* Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia[8]
* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York (Exploratory Committee)[9]
* Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (Exploratory Committee)[10]
* Senator John McCain of Arizona (Exploratory Committee)
* Representative Ron Paul of Texas (Exploratory Committee)
* Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (Exploratory Committee)
* Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado (Exploratory Committee)
* Former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin (Exploratory Committee)
Candidates who have expressed serious interest:
* Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (Winning the Future)[11]
* Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (Sandhills PAC)
Details here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_...atic_candidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_...ican_candidates
At this time, I am investigating...
Mitt Romney - former Governor of Massachusetts
Accomplishments: worked with Massachusetts Democrats to pass a healthcare plan for all citizens of Massachusetts, which to require individuals to purchase private, market-based insurance plans to have healthcare
Mike Pence, U.S. congressman from Indiana would make an excellent vice-president.
I would seriously consider Condoleezza Rice, but she has declined to run.
-
Clearly Starfish wants to change the US into a totalitarian dictatorship where anyone who disagrees with his views are branded criminals and either locked up or executed.I think it would be called a manifesto.
I find it amusing that those individuals who promote socialist ideals, feebly attempt to link those who fight socialism to leaders who were known for their socialist beliefs. Ironic, isn't it???
-
What you are reading is a mischaracterizaton to make one think that they have tax relief because the government is charging corporations this tax. The corporations do not pay it they never have, the consumers of their products do. That is you and me, we are paying the corporate tax in addition to our own tax. Any increase of tax base placed upon a corporation has to be passed down in a price increase to the consumer as a higher priced goods. This means higher gasoline prices at the pump, higher prices at the WallyWorld, higher prices at the bells, whistles friendly neighborhood ice cream truck. Corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes. When a politician says he is going to raise the tax on corporations what he is telling you is that HE IS RAISING YOUR TAXES. You are being fleeced!
To say this another way...
Yes, Corporations actually pay all kinds of taxes to the local, state and federal governments -- property taxes, federal excise tax on each gallon of gas at the pump, and income tax on corporate earnings.
However, Corporations view taxes as a cost of doing business -- tax expense. All tax expenses are passed on to the consumer in the form as higher prices for goods and services.
Some tax expenses are direct costs and can be easily seen by the consumer.
For example:
Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline --------------------- 18.4 Cents/Gallon
(14 cents Trust Fund plus 4.4 cents General Fund)
California Use Tax on Gasonline -------------------- 18 Cents/Gallon
Total --------------------------------------------------- 36.4
Therefore, supposing that Exxon or Chevron (Texaco) sets their price for a gallon of gas at $2.00, the consumer pays $2.36. If the federal government passed a law to increase the Federal Excise Tax by 5 cents to 23.4 cents/gallon, then the consumer would immediately pay $2.41 the next day.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/fuel_tax_rates.html
Some tax expenses are indirect costs and are more difficult to see by the consumer.
For example:
If the federal government passed a law to increase the rate of tax on corporate earnings, then the consumer would see delayed price increases -- as corporations periodically re-calculate their prices to adjust for this new increased tax expense.
===============================
Related Thought:
Mininum Wage
Employee wages are a direct cost. When the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour, you will immediately see higher prices on everything from the price of a hamburger from McDonalds, the price of your favorite pair of jeans from Wal-mart, to the price of a tank of gas for your car.
==============================
Another related thought:
Federal and State Unemployment Taxes have a ceiling of $7,000. Most Mininum Wage jobs are part-time and rarely reach this cap. Including FICA and Unemployment taxes, the real cost becomes something like $8.50 per hour
==============================
Another related thought:
As corporations raise their prices to compensate for higher costs, it is magnified by increase in taxes collected from state sales tax.
==============================
Last related thought:
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/minimum_wage
The effects of minimum wage laws, both positive and negative, may be increased by 'knock-on effects', with increased wages for workers already earning above the minimum wage. For example, some labor union contracts are based on a fixed percentage or dollar amount above the minimum wage. Certain public grants or taxes are based on a multiple of the minimum wage. (For example, a worker may have an exemption if his earnings are below 2.5 minimum wages.)More info at:
-
Texaco made a record profit in the trillions, and do they get taked that much, NOOOO!!! I that fair? I think not.
Measured by only sales revenue, Exxon/Mobil is the largest company in the world at 328 billion in global annual sales revenue.
Wal-Mart Stores is the second largest at 312 billion.
GM is the fifth largest at 192 billion.
Ford is the seventh largest at 178 billion.
DaimlerChrysler is the eigth largest at 177 billion.
Toyota Motor is the ninth largest at 173 billion.
General Electric is the eleventh largest at 149 billion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
In 2005...
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes... $59.9 Billion
Interest Expense...............................$496 Million
Income Before Taxes.........................$59.4 Billion
Income Taxes Paid.............................$23.3 Billion
or 39%
Exxon/Mobil paid $23.3 Billion in Taxes. Seems more than fair to me!!!
Texaco merged with Chevron in 2001
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CVX&annual
In 2005...
Earnings Before Interest And Taxes... $25.7 Billion
Interest Expense...............................$482 Million
Income Before Taxes.........................$25.2 Billion
Income Taxes Paid.............................$11.0 Billion
or 44%
Chevron (including Texaco brand) paid $11.0 Billion in Taxes. Seems more than fair to me!!!
In addition to taxes paid on corporate profits, these figures also include excise and duty taxes.
Federal Income Taxes Withheld (payroll taxes) would be charged to each employee's Federal Tax Return. These numbers are handled as part of an employee's total gross wages and would be listed under Operating Expenses.
The employer's share of payments to FICA (Medicare, Social Security) and Federal/State Unemployment Insurance premiums would be listed under Operating Expenses, as well.
Make note, Exxon/Mobil and Chevron enable their respective employees to pay federal income taxes above and beyond the $23.3 and $11.0 Billion figures shown above.
-
4) If you're an idealogical, head stuck in the rear person about gays, you need to open your eyes and mind and be aware of them for who they are, not their sexual orrientation.
And did anyone notice that for the first time in U.S. History, the percentage of households being composed of traditional married couples has dropped below 50 percent?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/us/15cen...p;ex=1318564800
To Be Married Means to Be OutnumberedPublished: October 15, 2006
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.
The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.
“It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to,” said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.”
While the number of single young adults and elderly widows are both growing, Professor Coontz said, “we have an anachronistic view as to what extent you can use marriage to organize the distribution and redistribution of benefits.”
Couples decide to live together for many reasons, but real estate can be as compelling as romance.
“Owning three toothbrushes and finding that they are always at the wrong house when you are getting ready to go to bed wears on you,” said Amanda Hawn, a 28-year-old writer who set up housekeeping near San Francisco with her boyfriend, Nate Larsen, a real estate analyst, after shuttling between his apartment and one she shared with a friend. “Moving in together has simplified life,” Ms. Hawn said.
The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (More than one in four households consisted of people living alone).
And the numbers of unmarried couples are growing. Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National brokeback and Lesbian Task Force, said brokeback couples were undercounted because many brokeback people were reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation. But he said that inhibition seemed to be fading.
“I would say the increase is due to people feeling more comfortable disclosing that they are brokeback or lesbian and living with a partner,” he said.
The survey did not ask about sexual orientation, but its questionnaire was designed to distinguish partners from roommates. A partner was defined as “an adult who is unrelated to the householder, but shares living quarters and has a close personal relationship with the householder.”
Some of the biggest gains in unmarried couples were recorded in unexpected places. In the rural Midwest, the number of households made up of male partners rose 77 percent since 2000.
The survey revealed wide disparities in household composition by place. The proportion of married couples ranged from more than 69 percent in Utah County, Utah, which includes Provo, to 26 percent in Manhattan, which has a smaller share of married couples than almost anyplace in the country. But Manhattan registered a 1.2 percent increase in married couples since 2000, in contrast to the rest of New York City and many other places.
Among counties, the highest proportion of unmarried opposite-sex partners was in Mendocino, Calif., where they made up nearly 11 percent of all households.
The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households. In Manhattan, they made up 1 percent of households. Hampshire County, Mass., home to Northampton, had the highest proportion of female couples, at 1.7 percent. Some of the highest numbers of unmarried couples were recorded in the South, which as defined by the census, has the largest population of any region.
(Page 2 of 2)
David Blankenhorn, president of the marriage advocacy group the Institute for American Values, said married couples had become a minority largely because of the growing number of households made up of people who planned to marry or who used to be married.
Steve Watters, the director of young adults for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said that the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.
“It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there,” Mr. Watters said. “The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They’re also finding they’ve gotten so good at being single it’s hard to be at one with another person.”
But Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, said her research — unaffiliated with the Census Bureau — found that the desire for strong family bonds, and especially marriage, was constant.
“Even cohabiting young adults tell us that they are doing so because it would be unwise to marry without first living together in a society marked by high levels of divorce,” Ms. Smock said.
A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with brokeback and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.
Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple.
“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.”
If anything, she added, “not having the false security of wedding rings makes us work even a little harder.”
With more competition from other ways of living, the proportion of married couples has been shrinking for decades. In 1930, they accounted for about 84 percent of households. By 1990 the proportion of married couples had declined to about 56 percent.
Married couples have not been a majority of households headed by adults younger than 25 since the 1970’s, but among those aged 25 to 34 the proportion slipped below 50 percent for the first time within the past five years. (Among Americans aged 35 to 64, married couples still make up a majority of all households.)
“It’s partially fueled by women in the work force; they don’t necessarily have to marry to be economically secure,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College of the City University of New York, who conducted the census analysis for The New York Times. “You used to get married to have sex. Now one of the major reasons to get married is to have children, and the attractiveness of having children has declined for many people because of the cost.”
William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, attributed the accelerated trend to the lifestyles of baby boomers.
“It’s the legacy of the boomers that have finally caused this tipping point,” Dr. Frey said. “Certainly later generations have followed in boomer footsteps, with high levels of living together before marriage, and more flexible lifestyles. But the boomers were the trailblazers, once again, rebelling against a norm their parents epitomized.
“This would seem to close the book on the Ozzie and Harriet era that characterized much of the last century,” he said.
-
1) I don't like illegal immagrants and not all democrats support it
You may not like illegal immigrants. Your congressman may not like illegal immigrants. However, GW Bush is a very compassionate person and favors amnesty. It has been the conservative Republican senate that has prevented it thus far. Your party understands that the Hispanic community contributes a significate number of votes on each election day. We will see amnesty for illegal immigrants by the end of 2007.
Besides, didn't the problem illegal immigration escalate during the Clinton Administration in the first place?
2) That has been happening more over the past six years than ever beforeYes, and the problem with terrorism continued to grow in the six years before GW Bush took office.
1993 - The attack of the parking garage of WTC in NYC.
1996 - The attack of Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
1998 - The attack of US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenja.
1998 - The attack of US Embassy in Dares Salaam, Tanzania
2000 - The attack of USS Cole near Aden, Yemen
Yes, and the problem with terrorism will continue to grow after GW Bush leaves office. The terrorists don't hate GW Bush personally. They hate the United States as a whole. They hate GW Bush in the same manner as they hate our flag -- both are recognizable symbols of the U.S.
The similarities of the philosophy of your political party and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain frightens me.
http://www.english-zone.com/esl-jokes/brown.html
3) How do you expect to pay for the war with low taxes. Their tactics don't work because the big companies just invest and the money does not go to anything but the stock-market. We need to tax the top 1%, not everyone. So, unless you're a multi-billionare and you want your children to pay for the war, don't complain about it.Studies have revealed that GW Bush Tax Cuts DO work.
-- more tax revenue is being collected
-- the wealthy are enduring more of the tax burden
-- everyone (large income or small) is benefiting
They work because the wealthy have less incentive to play games sheltering their income and have placed lower emphasis on tax effect in their investment strategy.
Remember,
-- the top 50% of people reporting an income pay 96% of federal income taxes
-- the top 25% pay 83%
-- the top 10% pay 65%
-- the top 1% pay 35%
http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/hot_issue/share/
Remember,
Social Security is 12.4%, and Medicare is 2.9%
You are responsible for half; your employer the other half
Federal Unemployment is .8% of 1st $7,000 -- paid by employer
State Income Rate varies by state. Indiana is 3.4%
State Unemployment varies by state. Indiana is 2.7% of 1st $7,000 -- paid by employer
Sales Tax varies by state. Indiana (Indianapolis) is 7%
If you have a $20,000 salary, then you and your employer have paid a combined $4,655.66 -- an amazing 23%, before including any Federal income taxes.
-
Am I the only one that remembers the good ole days of double-digit inflation (Home Mortgages at interest rates over 12%) and double-digit unemployment?
Those were just some of the consequences of the actions of the Carter administration.
Right now, the current inflation rate is between 2 and 3 percent...
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflati...ntInflation.asp
and the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/employment.html
Oh And BTW...
the Dow Jones Index is running at record highs -- over 12,000.
I am going to crawl in a hole for 2 years and then pray that I'm not the only one left that is not Muslim and doesn't speak Spanish when I come back out!!!
-
11-04-2006, 03:17 PM
jameskbachman_guest
It is not Mr. Rumsfeld who must go, but rather the failed strategy of training Iraqis to take over for U.S. troops. In some areas of the country, such as Kurdistan, the local militia is sufficient to defend the people. In others, the militias will have to have at it until a peace agreement is reached. In other areas, the training strategy may be working. It is counterproductive, at any rate, to keep expending lives and money on police and military who are not loyal to a unified Iraqi government, as the article implies.
James K. Bachmann
--------------------------------------------------------
11-04-2006, 03:27 PM
M Short
30 plus yrs ago, I was a VP in the NY Times organization. Today, The Gannett Publishing organization makes the NY Times look like the John Birch Society.
Guest # 9 has it right. Read him again and again.
USA Today and the Gannett org are shameless. And remember they own The AF Times, The Army Times, The Armed Forces Journal, The Defense News, The Federal Times, The Marine Corps Times, The Military City, The Navy Times and the Nursing Spectrum.
Members of the US Military, you are being brainwashed by your own media.
-------------------------------------------------------
11-04-2006, 03:28 PM
Unregistered
I cannot believe how blatantly political this editorial is. To take a pot shot at the SECDEF this close to the Nov 7th election is clearly motivated by partisan politics. Notice how all the Bush haters post their cheers to this editorial. It is absolutely tasteless.
I will never purchase another times paper so long as I live. I recommend that anyone who believes we should win this war should do the same. I think there is a time and place to have an honest debate about how much the SECDEF has mismanaged, if at all. However, it should not happen less than a week from an election and not without some representation from the other side. Clearly the military times is a partisan paper and has lost all credibility as an objective source of news for military members.
-
From http://www.militarycity.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=549
Old 11-04-2006, 01:40 PM
Robert Alan_guest
I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least.
So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's.
And if they were so convinced that they are right, then why do they not have the courage to stand up and let us, soldiers and citizens alike, know just who they are? Why do they hide behind a cloak of anonimity?
They are in no danger of being court-martialed, demoted, losing their pension, or being punished in any other way, are they? No, of course not. Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards.
If they had the courage of their convictions, they would come out of their closet, and say what they think in public, for all of us to see.
If I can do it, (and I often do), then why can't they? Are they afraid of being ridiculed, and ostracized by their buddies? Probably.
Now that I had had my say about the retired cowards, er, generals, on to the media.
The mainstream media has, since President Bush took office, accused him of just about everything except child molesting, and rape. And the Gannett group, which publishes the Army Times, is no different. In fact, after the New York Times, Gannett papers are among the most critical of everything the president says, or does.
This hatchet job on Mr. Rumsfield is just another effort by the media to chip away at President Bush, and the GOP in general. It is, simply put, politically motivated.
This editorial is, IMO, a misrepresentation of the truth.
It seems to me that what Gen. Abizaid was doing was pointing out a possibility, not a forecast of things to come.Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”If I were to say, "I believe that the rising hatred of Islam in this country is probably as bad as I've seen it... and that if not stopped, it is possible that the US could move towards mass killings of muslims."
That viewpoint is no more, or less legitimate, or accurate than the generals view of Iraq. Of course, his statement was edited, and I have to wonder just what the writer of this editorial left out.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."Losing control"? I think not. America is one of the very few nations where a military leader can disagree with political policy and not have his head handed to him. I suggest that the writer go back to the late 1970's and see what the generals then thought publicly of Jimmy Carter. Or what they thought publicly of LBJ, and Robert McNamara. Or even further back, to Truman, and FDR.
There is ample historical precedent of generals openly disagreeing with official policy. In spite of that, they did their jobs anyway. Which is what the generals today are doing. Their jobs.
I defend Mr. Rumsfield not from partisanship, but because I believe that he is honestly trying to do the best possible job, under the worst possible circumstances. The media, the far left, and the Democrats have harped on him since day one. Not only is this not "fair", it's ethically wrong.
President Bush has stood by him, as well he should, knowing that it is unlikely that there is anyone else who could do the job half as well.
I have a child serving in Iraq, and if I thought for one minute that there was anyone who would make a better SecDef that Donald Rumsfield, I too would be demanding that he step down.
The sad part of this is, we are now victims of our own success. Since the end of the Vietnam war, the US has won every conflict it has been involved in. Our victories were quick, and the cost in lives was small.
Now, the public, and many in the media, as well as our politicians, have come to expect that this will be true of all conflicts. And when it does not go according to their wishes, they howl like banshees, demanding someone's head on a platter.
This is wrong. I believe that the Army Times Publishing Co., the Gannett Group, and the convieniently anonymous author of this "editorial" owes Mr. Rumsfield an apology.
They all were, and are, quite wrong.
------------------------------------------------
11-04-2006, 01:48 PM
mad_cow_guest
A grand total of one military leader was quoted in this editorial and he did not call for Secretray Rumsfeld to be fired. Is this all you've got?
Using the military and the war in Iraq to make a political statement is beneath contempt.
This is an election Hit Piece. Period.
----------------------------------------------------
1-04-2006, 01:59 PM
mad_cow_guest
Where did you get your facts? How do you know "almost no one serving in the military does"? What did you do, take a poll?I don't see how you can support Rumsfeld when almost no one serving in the military does?Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think our men and women in the military need or want you to speak for them.
-------------------------------------------------------
11-04-2006, 02:06 PM
Robert Alan_guest
Originally Posted by FotFI think you are missing a point of the article. The war has failed. The leadership's failed plan caused it to fail. This point is not contended by anyone in the military. I don't see how you can support Rumsfeld when almost no one serving in the military does? Perhaps you are blinded by the desire to believe that your son's military service was not wasted.
No, I don't believe that I have missed the point of the article at all. The war has not failed. Not yet anyway. That won't happen until the democrats regain power in congress, or the White House. THEN it will fail.
Your statement that "This point is not contended by anyone in the military" is not only ridiculous in the extreme, it is not even remotely true.
THe vast majority of those now serving in the military support Mr. Rumsfield. Where you ever got the silly notion that they don't is beyond understanding. I suggest that you try reading something else besides the NYT, or watching CNN.
My daughter's service in Iraq has not been, nor is it being wasted. She was wounded on her first tour, and after rehab, returned to Iraq, voluntarily, because she believes in the job that we are doing there. And if you will notice, there are more than a few of our people signing up for additional tours in Iraq voluntarily.
That bespeaks of how important they think the job in Iraq is.
What will cause their service to be wasted would be to pull out of Iraq, before the job is done.
Then, and only then, will there be any valid comparison to Vietnam. Now there was a wasted effort.
---------------------------------------------------
-
no offense to anyone here, but i've read the quran and the bible, and i was really in surprise as to how any intelligent and positively educated individual with a free mind could actually believe in all that bs... the keyword here is " a free mind " of course.
Please be more specific. What did you find that was not true?
-
See, that's what I don't understand. Why would a christian nation create a separation of church and state if it was so intent on staying a christian country? That that it even follows its own rules.
Please excuse the source that I used to support my answer. I don't have time to "google" more respected link...
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/cu.../religions.html
History of dogma in BritainBritain used to be a Catholic Country until Henry the VIII broke away from the Catholic Church after it refused to agree to him divorcing his first wife. Henry made himself head of the Church of England. When Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558, Britain became a Protestant country by law with the Sovereign declared Head of the Church of England.
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/monarchs.htm
In other words, the official endorsed denomination in the Christian faith of Britain used to be the Roman Catholic church. This was dictated by the King (or Queen).
This was true until 1509, when Henry the VIII established the Church of England. So out with the Roman Catholic church and in with one of the dominations of the Protestant Church.
So, the folks who wrote our constitution made provisions to insure that our government could never mandate that one denomination in the Christian faith (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc) could receive preferential treatment from the federal government over the others.
In other words, when a Roman Catholic president is elected, he can't mandate that the citizens of the U.S. follow Roman Catholic rituals and then again, when a Church of England president is elected, he can't mandate that the citizens of the U.S. follow Church of England traditions, and so on and so forth...
Let me state this another way...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_faith
These countries have official state endorsed religions, whereas, the United States does not.
The following states recognize some form of Christianity as their official dogma (by denomination):Roman Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize Catholicism as their official dogma:
* Argentina
* Bolivia
* Costa Rica
* El Salvador
* Haiti
* Liechtenstein
* Malta
* Monaco
* Some cantons of Switzerland
* Vatican City
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their official dogma:
* Cyprus
* Greece
* Finland
Lutheran
Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their official dogma:
* Denmark
* Iceland
* Norway
* Finland
Anglican
Jurisdictions that recognise an Anglican church as their state dogma:
* England - Church of England
-
For those who wish to ask, seek, and knock
and discover that the New Testament is a bit too difficult to read...
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...26468&itm=3
Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel
# Hardcover ISBN: 0310226465
# Paperback ISBN: 0310209307
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...52883&itm=2
Mere Christianity
by C. S. Lewis
# Hardcover ISBN: 0060652888
# Paperback ISBN: 0060652926
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...52890&itm=2
Screwtape Letters
by C. S. Lewis
# Hardcover ISBN: 0060652896
# Paperback ISBN: 0060652934
or buy both books in
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...06087&itm=2
The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics
by C. S. Lewis
# Hardcover ISBN: 0060506083
# Paperback ISBN: 0061208493
Matthew 7:7-8 (New International Version)
Ask, Seek, Knock
7. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
8. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
-
Hey, its ok, you're obviously a huge fan of this compilation of short stories by different authors. Just try not to take it so seriously. Enjoy your Sunday book club meetings. Just don't take it so seriously that you follow the historic trend to demonize those who's belief system differs from your own. We don't need another set of Inquisitions or Crusades. Remember when they used to kill arabs in the name of God? Remember? oh stuff...
You won't find any Inquistions or Crusades here. I have never attended any seminaries. I am not trying to become another Billy Graham. I am just an old cranky guy, who is now learning that the whole "Jesus is a myth" thing is -- well, a myth.
I am just defending my original statement -- nothing more...
Jesus Christ was a real person, not some fictional character in some fable. He made some outrageous claims that are written about in the New Testament.Someday, when our life on earth is complete, all of us will meet Him. All I am saying is that it would be a good idea to know a little bit about Him when that time comes.
-
Sorry man, but when our life on earth is complete, our brains will not be functioning therefore all of our senses and consciousness will cease to exist, and our sense of being will be nonexistent.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context
Matthew 3:1-12 (New International Version)John the Baptist Prepares the Way
1In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." 3This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "[a]
11"I baptize you with[footnote b] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context
Matthew 4:12-18 (New International Version)Jesus Begins to Preach
12When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. 13Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
15"Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned."[a]
17From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context
Matthew 10:1-7 (New International Version)Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
1He called his twelve disciples to him...
go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context
Matthew 6:19-21 (New International Version)Treasures in Heaven
19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
-
Editted while in the process of answering the previous question...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
Josephus (c. A.D. 37 – c. 100), was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.Josephus offers information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-biblical account of the post-exilic period of the Maccabees. He makes references to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a highly disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_J...onium_Flavianum
The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
This passage is highly disputed because of its reference as "He (i.e. Jesus) was [the] Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day" -- How can a Jewish historian be so bold to state that Jesus was the Messiah and give a valid account of His Resurrection, thus betraying his own Jewish faith? Although his statements about Jesus being the Messiah and Jesus rising from the dead are in dispute, the fact of Jesus' existence has never been contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seutonius
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69/75 - after 130), also known as Suetonius, was a prominent Roman historian and biographer.He is mainly remembered as the author of The Twelve Caesars (also known as Lives of the Caesars)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Twelve_Caesars
Suetonius made a reference in this work to "Chrestus", which may refer to "Christ". During the book on Nero, Suetonius mentions a sect known as the Christians. See Historicity of Jesus.How could there be a sect known as "the Christians", if Jesus Christ never existed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The majority of scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee (then part of Iudaea) who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority has argued that Jesus is merely a mythological figure.[2] Questions relevant to the matter include: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or even inventions.More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_and_...ground_of_Jesus
The majority of scholars of history agree that Jesus existed. A small minority still argues that Jesus is merely a mythological figure.
To resolve the existence of Jesus in my mind, I look at our own calendar. It is measured by the year A.D. -- Anno_Domini "In the Year of the Lord". I don't know who came up with the whole B.C. and A.D. concept. But, it would sound pretty silly to me if we lived "In the Year of Santa Claus" or "In the Year of the Tooth Fairy" or whatever mythological character you wish to use. The people who initiated the B.C. and A.D. timeline not only believed that Jesus was a real person, but believed that his existence was significate enough to chronicle time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
The designation is used to number years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. More descriptively, years may be also specified as 'Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi' ('In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ'). 'Anno Domini' dating was first adopted in Western Europe, during the eighth century.The numbering of years per the Christian era is currently dominant in many places around the world, in both commercial and scientific use. For decades, it has been the global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union. This is due to the prevalence of Christianity in the Western world, the great influence of the Western world on science, technology and commerce, as well as the fact that the solar Gregorian calendar has, for a long time, been considered to be astronomically correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Sergeyevich_Merezhovsky
Dmitry Sergeyevich Merezhkovsky Дмитрий Сергеевич Мережковский (August 14, 1865, St Petersburg-December 9, 1941, Paris) was one of the earliest and most eminent ideologues of Russian Symbolism.After 1900 he and Zinaida, along with Dmitry Filosofov and Vasily Rozanov, were promoting a new religious consciousness through the group Bogoiskateli, or God-seekers... [e.g.] a group of "spiritual Christians"
One of his most recited quotes:
It would never enter anyone's head to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question, the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived. -
Seriously, how hard could it have been during the time of Jesus C. for an extremely charismatic and believable guy to get 12 other dudes to follow him around thinking he was the son of god and then get really popular a few hundred years after he dies.
Suppose you had the privilege of meeting Jesus during that time. You watched Him heal the sick - Matthew 8:14-17. You watched Him give sight to the blind - Matthew 9:27-31 and Matthew 20:29-34. You watched Him bring the dead back to life - Matthew 9:18-26 and John 11:38-43. You watched Him die on the Cross only to speak with Him again 3 days later - (Doubting Thomas) John 20:24-31 and John 21:15-19.
Now, step ahead 30 years later, you are standing before the officials of Nero, the emperor of Rome. You are given the choice of pledging your sole allegiance to the Rome Empire or to Jesus. If you believed that Jesus was a fraud and the resurrection of Jesus was a masterfully executed hoax, would you pledge allegiance to Jesus and face certain death?
What was Peter's choice?
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5358
It is certain that Peter died in Rome and that his martyrdom came during the reign of Emperor Nero, probably in 64. Testimony of his martyrdom is extensive, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus. According to rich tradition, Peter was crucified on the Vatican Hill upside down because he declared himself unworthy to die in the same manner as the Lord. He was then buried on Vatican Hill, and excavations under St. Peter’s Basilica have unearthed his probable tomb, and his relics are now enshrined under the high altar of St. Peter’s.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
It is traditionally believed that the Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to a tradition recorded or perhaps initiated in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar. In art, he is often depicted holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven (the sign of his primacy over the Church), a reference to Matthew 16:18.What was Paul's choice?
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=91
We gather, however, from the Pastoral Epistles and from tradition that at the end of the two years St. Paul was released from his Roman imprisonment, and then traveled to Spain, later to the East again, and then back to Rome, where he was imprisoned a second time and in the year 67, was beheaded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
It is commonly accepted that Paul died as a martyr in Rome and his body was interred with Saint Peter's in ad Catacumbas by the via Appia where it remained until moved by Lucina and Pope Cornelius into the crypts of Lucina.[10] One Gaius, who wrote during the time of Pope Zephyrinus, mentions Paul's tomb as standing on the Via Ostensis, and the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls consistently claimed to be built upon Paul's tomb. This claim was given much support by the recent archaeological discovery of a tomb under the basilica bearing Paul's name, the titles "apostle" and "martyr", and dating to antiquity. -
Lol I hope this guys kidding
One the back of the $1 and $5 dollar bills in your wallet has the inscription "In God We Trust". Today is September 28th, 2006 in the year of our Lord (Jesus Christ).
Jesus Christ was a real person, not some fictional character in some fable. He made some outrageous claims that are written about in the New Testament.
Someday, when our life on earth is complete, all of us will meet Him. All I am saying is that it would be a good idea to know a little bit about Him when that time comes.
-
I just spent 7 hours typing a 12 page 3900 word paper based on the book Introduction to Christianity for my lower division dogma class.
File away that paper for future reference. As your days on earth start to come to the end, you will go back to that paper and realize that your time spent reading the New Testament was some of the most valuable time that your have ever spent.
-
Old News -- look at the date in upper right hand corner (also in url)... "October 2001"
-
I am begining to research all of this myself -- heater hoses, o-rings, plastic coupler (on cabin side of firewall).
I am still looking for the small funny shaped coolant hose near the turbo.
I miss the good ole days of walking into any friendly local neighborhood auto parts store and buying a couple feet of heater hose along with a pair of stainless steel band clamps.
-
Replace ATF
Replace Brake Pads
Replace Serpentine Belt
Replace Timing Belt
Suspension Components at... http://www.quickbrickmotorsports.com/products.html
Genuine Volvo Service - 850 series 1995-1997
Every 10,000 miles:
Oil Filter & Engine Oil: Replace
Battery Test: Check Electrolyte Level and Clamps
Brake Pads: Check Wear
-- In my experience, OEM Brake Pads must be replaced every 25K miles
Automatic Transmission: Check Shift Control; Check Fluid Level
-- In my experience, ATF must be changed every two years
-- Note 1998 Model Years and older use DEXRON-III
-- Note 1999 Model Years and newer use Mobil/Volvo JWS 3309.
---- It is not synthetic. It is expensive at $18/quart.
Fluid Levels: Check/Adjust (Coolant, brake fluid, power steering and washer)
-- Note Our power steering system uses DEXRON-III, not generic PS fluid
Diagnostic Codes: Check, Reset
Tires: Check for damage and wear (Rotate at customer's request)
Lubricate: Hood Hinges, Door Hinges, Door Striker Plates,
Clean: Power Antenna
Reset: Service Light
Every 20,000 miles:
Brake Hoses: Check
Fuel Lines: Check
Steering, Front & Rear Suspension: Check
Drive Shaft Joints: Check for wear/play
Lubricate Belt Tensioner Pivot Bearing
-- I would guess this means both Serpentine and Timing
Every 30,000 miles:
Air Filter Cartridge: Replace
Spark Plugs: Replace
Brake Fluid: Replace at interval or every two years
Every 60,000 miles:
Drive (Serpentine) Belts: Replace
PCV: Replace Flame Guard, Clean Nipple and Hoses
Every 70,000 miles:
Timing Belt: Replace
Every 100,000 miles:
EGR System: Check and Clean
Fuel Filter: Replace
------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a list of items that have been omitted...
1) ATF: Replace
2) Coolant: Replace
3) Thermostat/Engine Coolant Temp (ECT): Replace
4) Water Pump: Replace
5) O2 Sensor: Replace
6) Ignitor Module: Replace
7) Struts/Spring Seats: Replace
See the remainder of the items in "Stage 0" FAQ post
-
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/index.html
THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ
Question: “Is there a God?”Answer: “No.”
In the quite unlikely event that you were to discover any omissions or inaccuracies on this page, they may be reported to the international headquarters of The Official God FAQ, at aod@400monkeys.com, where they will be thoroughly investigated, submitted to rigorous scientific testing and, if substantiated, included in a subsequent update. Thank you.
That's pretty funny. He MUST be in denial.
01) On the back of a ONE, FIVE, TWENTY, and FIFTY dollar bills -- "In God We Trust"
02) Today is Fri, Dec 16th 2005 -- In the year of our LORD
03) Archaeological remains of Noah's Ark
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_rema..._noahs_ark.html
Even well-known atheist, Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers,
has changed his view about the existance God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html
Who's Next???
This Is Sweden Nowdays!
in Political Discussions
Posted
Some please explain taxes in Sweden correctly?? When I did the math, I came up with 82%. What did I do wrong?
Using a generic figure of 1000 to represent gross income
330 -----33% of 1,000 - Payroll Tax (Paid by Employer)
070 ----- 7% of 1,000 - Pension Tax (Paid by Employer)
256 ----- 32% of 800 (less pension & base ded.) - Municipal Income Tax
160 ----- 20% of 800 (less pension & base ded.) - State Income Tax
--------------------
816 Total or almost 82 percent!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax