KRC

What about the plan is weak? I am all for a decrease in government spending, which in turn will reduce the deficit and reduce the tax burdon on the American taxpayers. The military spending is on benefits for military personnel and their families.

You should follow stevestojan's advice. (Did I just say that?)

Don't need to pay for it either. Besides, why would I want your sloppy seconds. You really need to try harder with your retorts. These are embarrassing.

Nope. No need. I can actually get a woman.

We could have, if the UN actually showed that they had any desire to enforce their own resolutions. They have repeatedly shown that when things get tough, they run away from the situation. Just in Iraq: Resolution 661 of 6 August 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 660. Imposes economic sanctions. Resolution 662 of 9 August 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolutions 660 and 661. Resolution 664 of 18 August 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, and 662. Resolution 665 of 25 August 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, and 664. Resolution 666 of 13 September 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, and 665. Resolution 667 of 25 September 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, and 666 along with violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963. Resolution 670 of 25 September 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of 660, 661, 662, 664, 666,and 667. Resolution 674 of 29 October 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on 18 April 1961, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, International Law, along with Resolutions 660, 662, and 664 Resolution 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677. Resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678. Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.” Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991). Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians. Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773. Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833. Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715. Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115. Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060. Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143. Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions. Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154. Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154. Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687. Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284. Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284. (reprinted courtesy of the Official Ken Crippen For President website) Now look at North Korea. The IAEA begged the UNSC to address the North Korean nuclear situation. The UNSC refused to even address it. Now look at Haiti. The French were begging the UNSC to address the situation. Well after the US, French and a few others had the situation underway, the UNSC finally got up off of their asses to address the situation. Now look at the Sudan. They have yet to do anything other than pass resolutions that say nothing more than "abide by this resolution, or we will pass another resolution." I could go on and on, but you get the point. The UN refused to do what was necessary. We shall see how things shake out with the Oil For Food scandal. This might shed some light on why they were so intent on delaying things as long as possible.

Well, you need to vote for who you think is the best candidate. Voting for Kerry is not going to make things better, it is just another face on the same problems. 1) People rip Bush for the deficit, but if you look at Kerry's plans you will see that he has yet to point out how he plans to pay for everything. Rolling back the tax cuts for the "rich" does not pay for even 1/4 of the new spending he is proposing. His "plan" will do nothing more than increase the deficit (unless he raises taxes on the middle class). 2) Kerry's foreign policy is absolutely frightening. I could go into a long diatribe just on North Korea, but I will spare everyone here. 3) Kerry said that he will get more international support for Iraq, but the two major suppliers of that support (Germany and France) have already said that they refuse to send troops to Iraq, regardless of who is President. I could go on, but I will spare the people here.

1) Each county has a different process for write-in candidates. It would be impossible for me to accurately answer this question for every county. Your local Board of Elections can help with the exact procedure. 2) Nope. The way the current election system is set up, it makes it more difficult for anyone outside the "Big Two" to run for office. The amount of money required, signatures required in each state, along with various other regulations discourage anyone outside of R's and D's to run. By running as a write-in candidate, I bypass all of the BS. 3) Nope, no joke. I am officially running. 4) Yup, but it might take a while. Every write-in vote is counted. 5) There are three types of people in this world: those who B word but still vote for one of the "Big Two," those who don't care, and those who B word but actually do something about it. I am part of the last group. I am tired of the BS from both of these parties and neither candidate, IMO, have the qualities that I want in a President. Therefore, I am running. Both of these parties are running the country into the ground. I am tired of it, and want to do something about it. If nothing else, I hope my campaign will show people that there are more than two candidates running in this election and nothing will change if you continually vote for the "lesser of two evils." We need to send Washington the message that they are screwing up this country, and we are not going to take it anymore.

I think it is obvious who I am voting for in this election.

Where was Rosen through all of this?

So, you didn't read the "horrible human being" thread?

Disturbed does a good version of the song. I can actually listen to it, when they play it.

Topic from today

Looks like someone got themselves an e-mail. Try posting it on the right board. Friggin PPP people invading this board.

Awwwwww...Poor T-Bone. You Bastard!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. [/saracasm]

They recently released Anheuser World Select, in order to pander to the people who like a little more flavor in their beers (read: international beer drinkers). It is OK for a domestic, but does not even come close to the better beers in the world.

Maybe they will create different brightly colored bottles, so that it will be really cool. [/sarcasm]

I went to school for Electrical Engineering. I am now a Controls Engineer (combo of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering). As far as continuing your education, I say GO FOR IT. I know that it is a financial and time commitment, but if this is what you want to do, then find a way to make it work. I am currently going for my Masters in Strategic Intelligence (concentrating on Asian Studies). Best of luck to you!!

No, you can find them in the colon, as well.

They will whine about the whiners, whining about the whiners.

How else are you going to pay for all of those effective government programs? Double, triple tax people.

It is a good thing I read this thread before lunch, in order to increase my appetite.

...and this is shocking how? Of course they will need to pay taxes on this stuff. It is just like any other prize, regardless of whether it it lottery winnings, cars, winnings from gambling, etc. If you trade in the car on something else, you will still have to pay the taxes on the original prize. Now, if Oprah were as magnanimous as she is portraying herself to be, then she would pick up the taxes. Yeah, right...like that will happen. I am still trying to figure out why this is a news story. Seems like common sense to me.

Spreadsheet of what?

You tell him, Sue. We don't need a$$holes like that around here. Tell them to go to their own board to talk smack like this.

Actually, with the speed it happened, it is quite scary.