RI Bills Fan

One party may be refered to as the party of Big Government, but it is the other party that seems to actually increase the size and expendatures of the government at a much greater rate.

Here is a link to the web page that lists the national scholarships offered by the UNCF. Please find for me any requirement that the recipient be 75% of any race or ethnic designation in order to qualify for a scholarship. UNCF Scholarships And just to further clarify, here is a link to the College Republicans Home Page, please note the purpose of the organization and the reason it exists. Then compare that to the UNCF Home Page, again noting the purpose of the organization along with the reason it exists. If after reading all of that, you still cannot understand why the College Republican's scholarship offer (If it really exists, I couldn't find any mention of it on their web-site) is racist, while the scholarship offers from the UNCF are not racist, there is very little I can do to help you.

I already did. Read my first post in this thread.

Exactly

Which part of open to the general public went entirely over your head?

Sorry I joined this debate late but it's plain and simple, the highlighted section of the requirement makes it racist. Please save all of the whiney "but they do it too" arguments for someone who cares. The thread is about this particular scholarship, not about anything else that is done in the name of affirmative action. PS; Just to answer the inevitable questions, anytime any program open to the general public excludes people based on race, sex, religion, and/or sexual orientation, that program is racist/sexist and wrong.

Yeah, what he said... How does a Republican like Rudy get any more Liberal on issues like Abortion, Marrage, Gay Rights, etc. I want to see the debate on Marital Fidelity between him & Hil, with Newt as Moderator.

So if I've interpreted this correctly your hatred for a poorly defined group of people called liberals was, is, and forever shall be, the fault of those dammmed liberals you hate so much themselves. Whoever they are...

I disagree only in the area of the root cause, I still think that the invasion was something that certain members of the administration wanted before 9/11 and would have occurred under some pretext even if 9/11 had never happened. Hopefully some of the smarter ones will come around. Although that might be "Pie in the Sky" thinking on my part.

So if this were (Heaven Forbid) to actually escalate into the WWIII Scenatio that certain people are claiming it already is, we would be cast in the same role that Japan was during WWII? That idea really bothers me...

Okay, I know you've never supported this botched war! But at times you come across as very supportive of the basic policies behind the decision to go to war. Yes I know that the two are very different things. I just tend to disagree with the "neocon" mindset more than you apparently do. On this we are in complete agreement. IMHO the sooner we restart building Nuclear Power Plants the better off we'll be. One benefit of that would be a much easier path to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Infrastructure.

So, from that, I'm forced to assume that you are in favor of an Imperialistic Foriegn Policy. Should our UN Ambassador simply put the world on notice that whenever we want something another country has, and they won't meet our terms, we'll just invade and take it anyway? I didn't think conquering the world was part of the Libertarian Manifesto.

Okay, Japan AFTER STARTING A WAR WITH CHINA badly needed oil and other materials. Got it. It's quite a reach, far worse than taking a safety with the eighth pick, but at least it's a fact. So just how does the need for raw materials to support an already existing war, translate into the cause of that war? Even the article you quote doesn't say the initial conflict started because of oil. It says that the need for oil and other resources arose from the existing war. two completely different sets of circumstances. Japan was already at war when the need arose. They didn't start the war because of oil. They caused the war to escalate into a global conflict because of political responses to their actions which included cutting off oil supplies.

Read this: US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual and you'll understand why the Bush Plan is, at best, a lame political response to the election results. General Shinski was right. The occupation requires a minimum of 400,000 troops. But! he was fired for telling us the truth. I think the Generals who wrote that manual just might know a wee bit more than the politicians who hamstring them when they try to do their job.

WWI & WWII were about OIL? (England has some, mostly at sea, but I failed to notice where the vast reserves in western europe are) Korea was about OIL? (Kim Ill Suck must have misplaced those vast reserves) Vietnam was about OIL? (And all this time I thought it was about a game of Global Dominoes) Smurf Boy, your inane responses continue to amaze me but this one is the best yet. And to top it off you actually have the nerve to tell me to go look it up! Try proving that the junk you spew is correct for once. Common smurf, it'll be a novelty. Just think, it would be the first time you ever backed up any of your blatherings with a fact. But that would require thought and effort on your part, so I'll just assume you'll start hurling insults and innuendo instead. After all, that is what you do best.

Do you have any clue as to what I was talking about when I started this thread? Here are a few articles for you to read: Iraq Oil Rights Law Kurd Reaction The evil liberal media in this country isn't paying much (if any) attention to these developments, so you may not have heard about them. But the conservative think tanks in Washington are certainly paying close attention and have already gotten their spin machines into operation. Selling Iraqi Oil Rights to the Highest Bidder is NECESSARY to fight Terrorism: Iraq Oil Economy Oh, and by the way, according to them that will also greatly benefit the average Iraqi Family. Didn't Dick Cheney once say that the Liberation of Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi Oil Profits? Does that mean that when this goes through the winning bidder picks up the tab for the Iraq War? I thought not...

To Quote Dependent Smurf: Lemming! When you understand the difference between pointing out that certain actions may have been undertaken by certain elected officials with far less regard for our Great Nation's safety and security than we were initially led to believe, and blaming our Great Nation Itself for anything, at any time, and under any circumstances, please let those of us capable of independent thought know. Until then please confine your comments to the children's table (any statistics thread).

Amazingly, I think you might actually understand the differences between the two situations if you tried really, really hard. Not likely, but within the realm of possibility.

STFU!!!!!

ExxonMobil, BP, et al, are the USofA? Interesting Viewpoint! It explains a lot. And bringing China into the discussion proves what? That you're completely comfortable using obfuscation tactics to derail any meaningful debate?

We all know that the real reason for the invasion was to take those WMD's away from Saddam before he could give them to his nasty Terrorist Buddies. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course when no WMD's were found, the reason for the invasion became Freeing the Iraqi People from the bloodthirsty, savage, and inhumane rule of Saddam and Sons. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course it's always been about fighting them nasty terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And bringing democracy to the poor oppressed people of Iraq is a good thing to do. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And keeping the country of Iraq united, instead of divided into three separate nations, is in their best interests, not ours. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And putting more troops on the ground to suppress the Sunni Rebellion, which many mistakenly believe to be a civil war, is the best possible course of action at this point in time. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... So why am in not surprised by this development?

The answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes. However, the unresolved questions are: How does the abortion affect others; is the pregnency a result of consentual sex? Was the mother raped? Is the mother a teenaged victim of incest? Each Yes answer here calls for different handling of the situation. The fetus starts out as a part of the mother but when exactly does it become a separate living individual? Five minutes after conception, ten minutes, ten weeks, at birth? When? One answer does not fit all of the possible scenarios. Abortion should be safe, legal, and exceedingly rare.

Apparently it means that if you agree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding doesn't matter but if you disagree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding can be used as a way of dismissing the matter entirely. Do I win a prize?

Rest In Peace, Paul.

Well to be fair, who would want to? Common Man, a bunch of prima-donnas dessed in Smurf Suits... If you were in command of that "Outfit" would you admit it?