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.

Playing the Troop Morale Card by Steven LaTulippe Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site As the conflict in Iraq drags on, more Americans are beginning to question both the president

Kind of like 80+ % of boys being on Ritalin in some schools, teachers not using red pens to grade, and schools no longer using the A,B,C,D & F grading system. It's sad really. I can say this I won't be sending my son to Public School.

It's a good read even if you don't agree it makes some very convincing points. Exit Strategy for Iraq

Us policy should be mind our own business and fix our own problems, not constantly install puppet governments and created hatred for our country around the world. The US will fail because we are ignoring the very principles we claim to hold yet fail to practice. The exit strategy should be to get troops home as soon and as safely as humanly possible. In fact we should do this in 90% of our bases around the world. Concentrate on fixing our open borders and work on a viable missle defense system. You cannot liberate a people who will not stand up and fight for their own freedom.

by Charley Reese, June 29, 2005 One question Americans should be asking the Bush administration is why it wishes to do such an expensive favor for the Iraqi people. I cannot think of any instance in which the federal government has been willing to spend $1 billion a week and 1,700 lives just to improve conditions in any one of the 50 states. Yet that is exactly what it is doing in Iraq, presumably for no other reason than to bring the blessings of liberty to a people we have bombed, starved, impoverished and vilified for 14 years. Naturally, the democracy bit is a fallback excuse after the original justification for launching a pre-emptive war was proven false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaida. There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise. These undisputed facts leave the American people with two choices. One, they can give President George Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he believed there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that case, he is guilty of the most expensive blunder in the history of the United States. When such blunders are discovered, the normal course of events is to fire the people responsible. No such firings have occurred in the Bush administration. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to admit it made a mistake, however obvious the truth. The second choice is to conclude that the president deliberately misled the American people and was intent on attacking Iraq without regard for the facts. There is accumulating evidence that this is the case. As a recently unearthed British memorandum reveals, Bush had decided to go to war, and the facts were to be "fixed" to justify it. This explains the lack of firings. The intelligence bureaucrats didn't err; they did exactly what the Bush cabal instructed them to do: fix the facts to justify a war. Whichever it is

I'm not saying it makes sense, but they did weasel their way out of having to remove the display in the Supreme court. The funny thing is the "Seperation of Church and State" is a myth. It's too far often abused for the original intent. A display of the 10 Commandments is hardly a law recognizing the establishment of religion. I have to wonder if most of the judges out there have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. On the other side, the 10 commandments wasn't the foundation of the justice system like I've been reading from so many christian news sources.

I recently read a Biography on Reagan Charlie and you should see his response on why he didn't start a war in the middle east. It's very enlightening and insightful.

I didn't I simply pointed out the fallacy of "Pro Life" people turning a blind eye to killing in Iraq and the double standard it sets. Talk about a serious logical fallacy. I believe I'm one of the few here who is very consistent in my stance on the bill of righrs and the personal freedoms that make this country great. I would argue I am one of the few here who hasn't sold out to Socialistic ideas. No, I think he is a liar and a sorry excuse for a man but I don't hate him. As for other people who like him, I do they they are seriously being misled. Let me ask you how much you have done for the service men and women overseas? I help every month by sending supplies and helping local families of people serving in Iraq. I don't believe our military personnel should be other there, but that wasn't their choice. I am sorry for what happened to Miss Shaivo, but it never should have gone to court. Right or wrong Michael had her power of attorney and was responsible for her when she could no longer make decisions for helself. I did nothing of the sort. Telling the truth is not slander. The Iraq war is wrong no matter what way you slice it. If you want to name call like certain other people on this board go ahead but it's not going to give your argument any more weight. I don't know,maybe he tried every treatment for her to recover and finally realized it was never going to happen and finally decided to carry out her wishes. Since you are not her husband you cannot say you know otherwise.

Butero, You stated: Who must err on the side of life? If you are to always err on the side of life than the patients wishes do not matter, you must always keep them alive even if they wish otherwise. What happens when it's a child and a parent denies medical treatment because of their beliefs? The question falls back to who had the power of attorney for Terri. Even if the document doesn't exist the decision making is left up to the immediate family, especially in a legal sense. Ultimately none of us are qualified to judge Michael and he was responsible for Terri. He will answer to God and if that was her wishes I believe God will forgive him. If not he's going to have some hard answers to give to his creator. I have a serious problem with the courts being involved in the first place. We are coming to a point that the nanny state is called in every time there is a dispute which they have no business being involved in the first place. The state should look at who has jurisdiction and rule as such. This case was not a only a travesty for the justice system, but showed the hipocrasy of the politicians involved. Sorry Reb but I wasn't taunting anyone and I believe the only person that resorted to name calling was yourself. I simply asked a question When they are used to illustrate a point or to understand a person's stance on the issue they are valid. I have a link to a great article with someone who can speak to the issue better than any of us: James Glaser Article