Cerran

NAFTA isn't a free trade agreement. Read it, it's nothing but 500 pages of rules and regulations.

You certainly don't know whether he did or not, and neither do most people until there has been an investigation. The real question is will there be an investigation. Last I looked a member of the liberal press was in jail for protecting her source. Can you name any major stories with the exception of tabloids and the Dan Rather bit which were published and were false? Not to mention CBS apologised after finding their story was false. That's more than I can say for Fox News.

While I don't think the press really does its job this is hardly partisan. If a senior whitehouse official did leak the name of an oprative people want to know. The press should always question the administrations actions no matter who is in office. They certainly did with Clinton although nopt loud enough IMO. The press's job should be to report on the truth, which in 99% of cases they do. Whether someone is a democrat or republican has no bearing on the story if it's the truth.

Government over-regulation currently hampers any chance we have at economic recovery. CAFTA is a great example. It's claimed to be a free-trade agreement but it is anything but.

Found the actual quote: "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding". And he was right. At some point you have to quit trying to analyize the criminals behavior and just punish him for it. To be blunt, some people cannot be rehabilitated, they are simply evil.

I will pray for his family. It's people like this that we reserve the death penalty for. Saved or not he should pay the ultimate price for his crime. I heard an apt quote from a movie that fit this perfectly: "Criminals prey on the understanding of societies"

I sure hope they catch him. Be nice to see the person responsible for 9/11 brought to justice.

The market will adjust provided the government doesn't overregulate. Regulation is what kills private development. Gasification of coal will be the next big step towards energy independence as we have a 150 year supply of coal. They key is reduction of use. When the price gets high enough, use will go down and the demand for fuel efficient cars will rise.

Fuel cells power by liquid or gaseous fuels have a myriad of problems the major one being storing the Hydrogen. Hydrogen being the lightest element is very difficult to contain for long periods because is passes easily through most membranes. In order to store it in liquid phase it requires huge compressors and very high pressure tanks. Other storage methods require lots of energy and reduce the efficiency to where it's worse than fossil fueled cars. Couple that with the very strigent filtration requirements to prevent smog and other airborne contaminants from destroying the semi permious membrane in a fuel cell and you have a technology that is at least 7-10 years from reality in the private market if not more. Electric cars are okay for in town, but most have max ranges of ~100 miles or less. For now it looks like hydrids and smaller cars are going to be the wave of the near future.

I suggest you look very closely at this as the countries in africa recieving the most foreign aid also have a trend to show no improvement in their economy. Most of the time the foreign aid gets funneled to corrupt politicians and dictators and never see the populace. Better to not waste taxpayer money and donate to private charities. Instead of less than 18% getting to the people who need it with government aid, more than 80% makes it with legitimate charities. It's also been shown for every 10% of tax reduction, 3% of that reduction ends up in charities. I'll have to dig out the figures on this. I have em bookmarked somewhere.

Look at Vietnam, Korea, and South American countries where we propped up dictators for your answer.

Brookins Institute Post Article I Don't have the other links on this computer. I'll have to dig them up later when I'm back at home. Mr. LaTulippe is right, this argument is not only false it's insulting. There is no evidence that this is true. If the only goal of insurgents was to kill Americans, it would be extremely easy for them to waltz across the Mexican border and do so. to quote Mr LaTulippe: Third, upon hearing this excuse, it immediately prompts inquiring minds to begin postulating exactly what the real reasons for the war are. Since no one can seriously take this argument at face value, it follows that the president employing it must have some other reason that he doesn

This isn't a case of a bully Leonard, it disingenuous to say it is. If anyone is doing the bullying we are. Need I remind you of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, German occupation of France, Poland and other countries. In every case the occupying force lost because the people did not want them there. Recent studies of the insurgents captured shows more than 60% are now Iraqi nationals, not foreigners. We're not fighting a foreign force in Iraq anymore. Pulling out of Iraq is not an action of appeasement. The simple fact is there is no reason for us to be there. We are creating more terrorists being there simply because they see us as an evil occupying force. Whether you believe we are doing good there or not, the vast majority of people there don't see it that way, so in the final analysis we have already lost the war there.

Based on what past events? Can you name a place in history to back up your rhetoric? Please don't insult the intelligence of everyone here with unsubstantiated statements like this. At least back it up.