whitev70r

Kona Lava Dome modded with MZ Race shocks, front discs, monkey handlebars, stem and headset.

I'm curious but don't have an hour to kill. I got the gist from watching the first few minutes. As for whether government would lie, concoct stories to dupe the public, two names: Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman.

The new 2008 V70's will have a 285 hp six cylinder option. At least engine wise, a 'stealth' R (short 15 hp) and it looks like they all come with dual exhaust.

So, what did they do with all the ones that they didn't sell? Any chance there would be a fire sale on 2006/07 R's?

I found the article by Robert Rector, written in 1998, "The Myth of Widespread Poverty", the one that you quoted from Heritage Foundation. And it dawned on me that we come from 2 fundamentally different presuppostions, probably best summarized by the sources that we quote, yours - Heritage Foundation, mine - New Economics Foundation. Heritage Foundation - Our Mission: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. New Economics Foundation - Mission: NEF is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being. We aim to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues. We work in partnership and put people and the planet first. I think we've put enough information out there for people to make their own conclusions. Doesn't look like you or I will change our positions dramatically. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree. ***** This just in, from USA Today, Feb 25, 2007: In US, Record Number ar Plunged into Poverty WASHINGTON (AFP) — The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found. Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure. For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year. "The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005," the U.S. newspaper chain reported. "That's 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted. The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.

Is 18% nationally in the US high enough for you? AND in this short summary below, it also addresses your other implied assumptions, the relationship between children in poverty and parenting or 'parental responsibility'. Taken from National Center for Children in Poverty - Article: The New Poor In 2004, approximately 18 percent of all children in the United States lived in poverty. Over the last five years, child poverty has risen substantially, increasing by 12 percent. After hitting a low of 12.1 million children in 2000, more than 1.4 million children have been added to the poverty rolls, becoming members of this country’s “new poor.” Children who grow up in poverty experience significant hardships that can have lasting effects well into adulthood. At the national level, family characteristics have had little relationship with whether children experienced increasing poverty between 2000 and 2004. Overall, increases in U.S. child poverty did not vary by parents’ employment status, parents’ education level, or parents’ nativity. These national statistics mask varying economic realities across regions. This report examines regional differences in the family characteristics of children who have seen the greatest rise in poverty. During the last five years, children living in the Midwest experienced the biggest increases in child poverty, accounting for 43 percent of the national rise in the number of poor children. At the same time, poverty did not increase among children living in the West. 18% is approximatley 13 million children in the US that live in Poverty. I am actually Canadian and our numbers are about the same, hovering 20% or 1 in 5. Another article by the Nat'l Center for Children in Poverty: Article: Who Are the Poor?

Precisely, sometimes I think you have to have some writers/thinkers on the 'extreme' side in order to bring the other perspective to some sort of moderation or balance. It's like a pendulum, they are far left, US is far right ... that's why I proposed some models in the middle.

"There are NO children in America who go to school hungry?" I've met some. In order for you to know that none exist, you would have to know all the children in America. "Homeless because they choose to be so." Again, that is a huge assumption and generality that demonstrate your lack of personal awareness of homeless people. You, on the other hand, are using archaic ways of measuring the overall success of a country, namely only economic indicators. The GNP is not the only indicator of the quality of life. New Economics take into consideration factors like labour, environment, family, leisure, voluntarism, community involvement, education, children's well being, health care, poverty, homelessness, etc. In fact, in almost all cases, the higher the GNP of a country, the worst the rest of the indicators are, including quality of life. I invite you to join the 21st century of economics. New Economics Foundation Link to Information Real World Economics – New Economics Foundation The international economic system creates damaging inequalities between rich and poor, and fuels climate change and environmental degradation. Through Real World Economic Outlook, nef aims to expose the problems with the international finance and economic systems and create appropriate remedies. We are also researching and campaigning on changes to global governance to tackle international issues like climate change, and work by jubilee research continues nef’s pioneering involvement in tackling international debt. transforming markets goes beyond corporate responsibility to set out a new vision for harnessing and channelling enterprise to meet social and environmental need Well Being – New Economics Foundation NEF NEF's leading aim is to create a new economy that serves people and the planet. We want to begin to redefine "wealth" and "progress": to judge our systems and economies on how much they create the world we actually want, rather than how much money they generate. NEF's well-being programme was set up to find ways to promote policies and practical solutions that help people live more fulfilled lives. Our people in public services, timebanks and participation and democracy projects aim to put people back at the centre of their services and communities and decision-making over what affects their lives. Finally, a ranking of 21 different countries on Child Well Being, Sweden - 2nd; US - 18th

No one is suggesting that as an option. What about Sweden, the land of our Volvos. Sweden runs on a socialist government and they consistently outperform US in every category that ranks quality of life. Not looking for a marxist nation, just not the present capitalistic one where there is such high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America's, homelessness, such rampant consumerism, and of course crazy stupid foreign policies.

I've come across Chomsky and some of his writings. I think he is a prophet, someone speaking from America who has a critical and intelligent voice whom we should listen to and think about.

'allows for self determination when it is in our best interest, or in the interests of that region' ... wow, that is really kind, generous, and gracious of the US. Thank you. As for 'proactively changing unfriendly hostile regimes to those which better suit our interest', my interpretation is that the change was for the better of the people of that country involved as well, could you name, say three in the last 100 years ... not including Iraq, of course, the one that is going so well presently.

Wow! You are kooky, you said we could call you that if we want. 1. Democracy I thought, meant that people were entitled to their own beliefs, religion, and cultural values. Why does the US, a democratic country, insist on being 'undemocratic' in that other people cannot have whatever worldview/religious/cultural beliefs that they want, including iron-fisted theocracy? Unless democracy has been distorted to mean the imposition of all nations to the Western capitalistic democracy of the US. 2. If the US had better foreign policy, ie. you leave Iran alone, do not provoke them, nor impose American values on them, steal their oil, I highly doubt that they will nuke the US for no reason other than religious extremism. Think about it. Why are there never any talks about Iran wanting to nuke Sweden. Ans: because Sweden doesn't piss people off through their international foreign policy. In other words, there is good reason for Iranian hostility towards the US and other Western countries. I think the majority of Iranians are like you and me, it is not fair to paint Iranians as extremists any more than to paint all Americans like Timothy McVeigh. Even you said that it was an extreme form of Islam. Iranians in general (not extremists) are nice people. They want to provide for their families, they want to put food on the table, they want security and a roof over their heads just like you and me. 3. You can't fault people for wanting to die for their own freedom and religious views. US and Canada were built on the backs of those who were not afraid to die in battle for what they believe in. In the unfortunately reality of war, you would want someone who is not afraid to die ... for their country. Why do we see our soldiers willingness to die as a good thing and the 'other side's' soldier's willingness to die as some sort of evil? ... again extremists aside, cuz extremists whether they are Iraqi, Iranian or American should be dealt with. Violence begets violence.

So what if Iran is supplying Iraq with arms? The other half of Iraq's artillery is probably made in US, they probably supplied it to the Iraqi insurgents years ago when they wanted them to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Kind of like US fighting the Al Quada in Afghanistan, each shooting missiles made in US at each other. What else are you going to do when US military factories are making all these missiles and bombs and they are stocking up ... especially if you, the president and/or vice president have vested interest in these huge military companies/factories. And oh ... for some of you who think the Middle East are 'stupid' ... from the rest of the world's point of view AND a large % of people IN the US, this administration is STUPID. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush did put his Texan cowboy hat on and try something STUPID with Iran ... oh, and Mr. Bush, don't forget North Korea, afterall, we declared you the keeper of peace and democracy of the human race. He got whooped by the Democrats in the last midterm elections he comes up with a brilliant idea ... 'let's increase troops to Iraq'. What will it take for him to get the message? Read Thucydides, history is replaying itself, democracy is a wonderful country but the US definitely losing moral ground internationally.

Dudes, bring back Al Gore, he seems like the most balanced individual with some common sense. He is the sleeper candidate if he chooses to run, defeat Clinton for the nomination and maybe this time he will win what he narrowly 'lost' - the incident that started this stupid Bush era.

Dude, you got 4 bikes in the stable ??!! You've got the naked 03 SV? What colour? Any pics?

Say, why is your R sporting the Persus wheels, those weren't stock were they?

Yah, no need for the violent protests, that's a bit out of hand but +1 on the comment about responsibility and freedom. So often, we just harp on freedom freedom freedom. I think those who have so much freedom should restrain once in a while voluntarily. Flaunting our freedom on a global scale is a bit arrogant, especially in places where freedom is hard to come by and a precious privilege.

So I'm quite sure you've heard about the riots, protests, violence erupting in Europe and Syria about some Danish paper publishing cartoon depictions of Mohammed. I just have a couple of thoughts and would like to have a meaningful/serious discussion about this. So, please be respectful. This is my opinion. You've got two very strong and indelible rights clashing. On the one hand, you have the right of freedom of speech/expression. On the other hand, you have the right to one's own religious beliefs. That's the nature of rights, sometimes they clash in a society. In this case, I think those with the right to free speech should refrain from using their rights out of respect to those with deep religious convictions. I mean publishing those cartoons hardly fall into the category of censorship ... it was an unnecessary usage of the right of 'free speech'. Any thoughts? Comments, especially from the Muslim community, would be very much appreciated to help us understand this.

Is this thread dead? I found this little parable/excerpt and thought it would be an interesing point of discussion. Some people may wish that this thread was dead but it's been resurrected . From Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the famous 'God is Dead' pronouncement. I thought it was interesing, what do you think? Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto." Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves." It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

Let's stop and think about this phenomenon and what it actually proves. It is a fact that medical researchers can trigger certain feelings with hormones or endorphins. That means if you were willing to go into a lab, a psych researchers can make you feel happy, sad, ecstactic, depressed, etc. by injecting or triggering the right amount of endorphines. Does this nullify real life experiences that produce these feelings or emotions? I don't think so. Just because you can trigger/reproduce joy/happiness, that doesn't nullify the actual experience does it? Eg. Just because we can reproduce happiness, does it nullify the happiness that comes from seeing a good friend that you haven't seen for a long time? No, I don't think so. So, what does your point actually prove? Now, who is the one who can't 'think' logically ?? Therefore, I see no real big issue with a lab being able to trigger endorphines that correpond to religious experience. Hey, I notice that all four of us are online, why don't we just jump into the chat room and duke it out :>

That's a good one. Now who is acting as if he is right and those who believe differently are wrong. I will agree wholeheartedly with one statement of yours: ' ... you're free to believe whatever you like and everyone should respect that' . I think some of us were having a cordial discussion until you came along and interjected with your 'wisdom'. Getting back to Voltaire, this is what I have found. He was a humanist, satirist. Although he did not believe in God, he did believe from a social point of view that religion should be accepted. If there is anything else that might shed light to his quote, please help us to understand. In the meantime, here are a couple more quotes from Voltaire for you to 'think' about: Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd A witty saying proves nothing

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire Thankfully he does so we don't have to. If he could really be abolished by you, KMFDM or whoever ... then he wouldn't be god now would he?

Ditto ... bring it on ;)

I'm not quite getting ya, the middle part is a bit confusing. Can you rephrase your question? Are you trying to say that it is frustrating to talk about God to Christians becuz Christians believe that Jesus is the ONLY way? If this is what you are trying to say, then may I add that the Christian faith is not the only faith that believes that it is the only way to God. Muslims, Buddhist, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and all major world religions all claim exclusivity. In fact, even Atheists think they are the only ones who are right. There is a 20/20 show on Heaven tonight, that should be interesting.