forrestkc

No, its just that some of us can add. See the previous post.

Russia is simply not a military threat to the United States. Russia's defense budget is 31 billion dollars this year. The United State's defense budget is 515 billion dollars this year. Russia has built 1, yes, thats 1, SU-47. In contrast, even with the elimination of the F-22 program, we have 187 F-22s. Do you honestly think we should be concerned? France's military budget is over twice that of Russia. The military budget of all EU member nations combined is 10 times that of Russia. The military budget of all NATO nations combined is over 30 times that of Russia. Russia would have to devote a full 50% of its GDP to defense spending alone to be competitive with us. Its a joke to think that Russia is in anyway a threat to the United States. Sure, they can throw their fits, and cause us some diplomatic trouble, but they could not last a week against us without resorting to nuclear weapons.

We spend exponentially more on defense than Russia. In fact, we spend more on defense than the next 18 or so nations combined. The cold war is over. Russia is not a military threat to us at all. So why spend tens of billions on one plane to combat a threat that does not exist. However, if you guys up there in Canada would like build a plane to combat the Russian SU-47, then feel free to throw your tax dollars at it and do so.

Because the costs for building the plane costs us more than we are paying for those illegals getting medicaid and welfare. The plane has not been used for one single mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan and is widely considered to be the most unnecessary weapon ever built by the Pentagon. We will still have 187 of these planes we have yet to use. If Israel wants a plane with similar technology, then let them hit their taxpayers up to build it themselves.

How about we pray for the hearts and souls of people - Because ultimately it isn't us who are being defamed, but Jesus. I understand. I was making a joke about how the Muslims reacted to a cartoon that depicted Muhammad.

Since we were offended by a cartoon, sounds like we need to rise up, riot, desecrate some flags, and burn down an embassy.

Can't imagine Gandhi being to keen on this one.

At the time of our nation's founding, any individual assuming he had the financial means, could purchase any weapon he or she wanted weather it was a musket, a cannon, or a warship. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not so that militias could defend the populace against a totalitarian governments armies, but rather it was so that the government would primarily rely on being able to call up militias in defense of the nation rather than to have a large standing army. While the founders could not have conceived of a weapon with the destructive power of an atomic weapon, they certainly would have been against anything remotely like the huge amount of defense spending we have today, and would have preferred local militias armed with the best weapons those militias could afford as the primary method of defending the country. Otherwise, in many ways the concept of what the founders were trying to achieve with the second amendment is no longer practical in our modern era. Its why Thomas Jefferson had this to say about you "strict constructionists": "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." That all said, you have a right to purchase a firearm. It should not be infringed upon in any unreasonable manner at all.

I keep one at my desk at work. Well, we publish it.

It has always been the case that unless you donate 200 dollars or more to a presidential campaign, you do not have to give your name and provide your employer. Obama had by far the largest donor base in American history - which is a good thing. He raised his money primarily from small donations - which is a good thing. Perhaps if he would have raised his money from a few wealthy and connected bundlers that would have been better? If your not even the slightest bit objective, you can hardly expect to get any credibility.

Economists have been predicting since last fall that the unemployment rate would reach as high as 10% this year before recovering. The only way will will slide into a depression is if we start seeing: 1. Protectionism across the globe. 2. Deflation and debt deflation. 3. A contraction in the money supply. 1 and 2 are the ones to worry about the most.

I keep one at my desk at work.

In terms of preserving liberty, there isn't. Most anyone would recognize that war at times is necessary. My only point is that too much defense spending cripples a nation just like too much of any kind of spending does. Its a fools errand to think one can preserve liberty while turning a blind eye to rampant defense spending. I certainly agree with that.

What operating system is it running? Also, is the hard drive making any noises, specifically, clicking noises?

They also did not want large standing armies or huge defense spending in the hands of government either. Thats why the wanted citizen militias that could be called upon to defend the nation if necessary. Frankly, they were as afraid of the totalitarian right as they would have been of a totalitarian left.

The ACLU is against using the state to endorse, compel, or promote religious belief - as any libertarian organization would be. You own your license plate, just as a civil libertarian organization like the ACLU would defend your rights to practice your religious beliefs (and they have in no telling how many cases), they would defend your right to put what you want on your license plate.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What you are proposing is unconstitutional on a lot of levels. For one, you have a near absolute right to bear arms. Secondly, you have a right of privacy. Third, if you allow the government to infringe upon these rights with such broad scope, you then open the door to intrusions into other rights, such as freedom of expression, and of the press. Never exchange liberty for security.

I don't think anyone is arguing that someone who sought treatment for depression should be denied the right to buy a gun. Instead, what people are arguing is that if someone is diagnosed as psychotic, their doctor should be able to petition the government to have that individual's ability to purchase a firearm suspended. Its a delicate balance for sure, but as I stated earlier, what is the difference in this, and criminalizing drunk driving? Yes, the vast majority of psychotics do not go out and murder people, but the vast majority of drunk drivers don't kill people either.

That is a baseless accusation. All one has to do is go to the Center For Responsive Politics to see where his campaign money came from: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary....d=N00009638#bli He raised a ton of money because he had a ton of people giving him money. He had by far the largest donor base in American history. There is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, a huge number of small donors is far more preferable than to have a small number of large donors.

Bios stands for Basic Input Output System. It initializes devices prior to your Operating System starting, and provides hardware access in cases where your operating system's kernel, in your case Vista, cannot directly access an underlying hardware device. Anyway, many times Bios updates will provide stability and or performance improvements, so its always good to apply them when they are available. Just make sure you have your laptop plugged in when you do so, and do not under any circumstances turn the computer off while the Bios is being flashed (if you do, it may not boot again).

Pointless insult on your part. This is nothing but a bunch of hyperbole. Much of the Muslim world despises the Saudi Royalty. Something tells me this did not hit the radar screen of the typical bedouin or Afghan poppy farmer. You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Why not stick to criticizing the policies you disagree with rather that this petty nitpicking. Besides, those in the Muslim world are not stupid. We have been beholden to the Saudi Royals for decades now due to our dependence on oil, it's not as though a bow all of a sudden established that in the minds of the Muslim world.

From the article: A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns. Three officers were killed. Do you not think he was mentally ill?

Like I say, maybe he should have done like his predecessor and practically made out with out of them. http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20...SaudiPrince.jpg No one, other than people just looking for yet something else to complain about would think anything of this.

Do you know how much memory is installed in the Laptop? If it's only 1 to 2 gigs, it would probably pay to go to 4 gigs. The cost to do so should only be around 30 to 60 dollars. Also, if you contact HP, they should be able to Webex into it and look at what is going on.

I believe it means the beginning of the end of our sovereignty.... Soon we will be giving up our sovereignty as a separate nation for a 'collective sovereignty' which is not sovereignty at all... Thank you for the explanation. I was being tongue in cheek when I asked what it was though. The world is getting smaller and economies are getting far more intertwined than they were in the past. That in and of itself is not a conspiracy though. Its just technology and free trade. For example, the Chinese own a lot of American Treasury Bills. Some think this is a bad thing, but really, all it means is that they have a stake in our success now. After all, if America were to fail, China would not get paid back and they want to be paid back. The same was true when the Japanese were purchasing U.S. companies in the 80s and early 90s. If those companies did not prosper, they would lose out more than we did. Right now the decline in our economy hurts many other countries even worse than it does us here. This is why you will find very few economists that see anything wrong with free trade and globalization. I started a topic on how one of these interdependencies work here: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/China...ap-t102728.html