Honest debate Iraq

[Jeff 232]

I'm just wondering what everybody's opinion is on the Iraq war. You can't trust our politicians to really be honest when debating the war and I'd just like to know what others think about it. Now most know that I'm liberal in my thinking. With that said I do and always have believed in a strong military, VERY strong. I believed in the war in Afghanistan.

On the Iraq war I never believed it was a good idea and I never really believed that George Bush was going to Iraq for terrorism & 9/11. I know many will say that I'm a GWBush hater but besides that whats your feelings on Iraq

I always thought GW Bush was going to war with Iraq even before 9/11, he didnt like Saddam since Saddam tried to put a hit on GBush Sr.

Do you think the entire war or some of it has been handled wrong, should we have ever gone, should we stay the course for unlimited time, should we have a date in mind to start pulling troops. should we institute a draft so our stressed military gets a break, should we send a couple hundred thousand more troops and squash the insurgency and bring Iraq back to order

I personally think we never should of gone. We had Saddam contained and he kept Iran in check, now Iran doesnt give a crap what anyone one says and Europe is a bunch of s--- heads and will never support us.

I'm thinking back the troops back to outer areas and see what happens if Iraq seperates so be it. Im thinking we should get our troops out within the next 2 years and only leave a small amount of troops to try to watch out over our interests

I hate the thought that we are fighting a losing battle for a country that is fighting its self and will end up hating us anyway.

As for the middle east, just about all of it is starting to hate us the U S. Hell I'd like to nuke them all right about now and take all the oil. I think Muslims in that area are going to always hate us and its going to get worse.

What do you think, I'm not trying to start a big fight I'm just trying to see what others think other than what you hear or read in the news

I want our mititary that is doing tour after tour home, either get out completly or draft others to fight.

God Bless Our Troops & The USA

[Don L 14]

Jeff,

You 're cracking me up about my spelling.You 've got me there!

Forget about what they are packing their own bungholes with!The real point of thhis conversation is that I don't want ,need,nor will I "obey" these ...waterheads.If you plan on employees,or already have them,do the new math.You are the underdog,dog!The individuals supporting the increased min.wage,AREN"T IN BUSINESS!!!They are basically welfare receipiants!FOR LIFE!The government is NOT in charge of these decisions,unless we lie down,and grease up for them.This may seem to be a contrdiction to previous posts,but I draw a line between true leadership,and the layers of minions, in between.No matter what the news says,WE drive the economy not the corperat's.My poor spelling is partly driven by simply writing,and not checking.I know ,I suck.Anyhoo...

It is a great debate.Our ability to remain civil,respectful ..these are the same principals that led to the drafting of our constutuion,bill of rights.It is intriuging to see the different perspectives that we all have.Keep it comming gentlemen!

P.S.

Lobbyist are free citenzes too.Some I love,some I detest.I believe that if we as voters did our jobs,lobbyists would be irrelevant.(i.e...voting)

[cdposey26 14]

I just thought I would add my 2 cents on unions and minimum wage. I absolutely think unions are a farce. If I ever heard of my employees wanting to unionize, I would fire them all before they had the chance. Unions fight for themselves and for lazy workers. There is no place in todays workplace for a union. I am surprised that some people on here as business owners would support unions. I bet if your employees unioized you would change your tune a bit. I think in a capitalistic society, I should be able to hire who I want and pay what I want. For arguements sake, if I want to pay $2 an hour I should have that right. Now, I think I pay very well and treat those employees I have more than fairly. I do not think you could run a good business by paying $2 an hour. But, I have no sympathy for those people that whine about minimum wage and they should be paid more. Why? Quit crying and work harder and you will work yourself into more money. Or go get another job. There are plenty of them out there. Anyway, I have enjoyed reading the post on here and respect everyones opinion. Debating unions and minimum wage just gets me going sometimes.

[John T 744]

Yes as a Military person you are bound to obey the orders of your commander. You may not always agree with what those orders are but you do your job which is to obey those orders. Plain and simple and if you don't follow that thought pattern then you alone can be a danger to your fellow troops that are defending this country. As for me thinking that our president didn't do a very good job its just my opinion that is shared by millions. Yes I support my president as I have supported all before him because once there in whether I voted for them or not I do my part to support the UNITED STATES LEADER.

Now Don as for Unions there is alot that your not understanding. Your line "Unions have ALWAYS been subserviant to ownership" is false if I'm understanding you correctly. Ownership almost never ever wants a Union to infiltrate there business because now they can no longer do as they wish which most of the times is somewhere down the line to be UNFAIR to some of there employees. Just look up the history of most any Company in this country and you will see what I'm talking about..

I won't say that Unions are perfect which we know that is so far from the truth. What I will say is that its a damn shame when I hear that someone has put there heart and sole into a company and because they make a decent wage for there efforts they are laid off because the said company wants to hire cheap labor to replace them. Don't kid yourself and think that this doesn't happen because it happens all the time...but not in my job which is unionized and yes I still serve as its president..

You must be reading something somewhere or watching the boob tube(TV) and getting alot of your info. Me being on the front row and talking from experience I can tell you that Unions are needed in alot of jobs...but not all.

You ever wonder why companies dont' want Unions...because it takes away some of there power and with out Unions some of these companies would have absolute power and everyone Knows that eventually absolute power corrupts...Now do I want a Union in my company..hell NO!! Because I'm a business owner and I would be a moron to say otherwise but for the common man/woman they need it most of the time because without the rich and powerfull will crush them at will..like some of our Mom and Dads. These are called checks and balances and the beauty of this country is we have this. Other countries don't and some of these ruthless business owners will jsut cut your head off and throw you in the trash.. Be happy to be in AMERICA!!!!!!!

[Jeff 232]

Don L & Trey. Not all businesses have Unions, but in the past and now workers sometimes need representation. As for saying union workers are lazy, what the hell do you know. I know thousands of very hard working union employee's. i was one for over 12 years. I also worked to have non union employees get better wages. I got paid $29 an hour and bennies and I was worth every cent. I risked my life many days. I knew non union companies that paid $12 an hr for the same job, but they were still making/charging the same as the union company. Why because they could get away with it. I would climb 100+ feet hang from bridges, repel off tanks, swing from 350 ft stacks. Do I think that job is worth more than $12 an hr damn right. They way I got a good wage was negotiation from union reps

Now I live in the south and the south you say union and they say the same thing as you, no way, lazy, useless. But you know these dumb ****** dont make crap for money down or get any bennies here in the construction trades

Im not saying every business or every area should have unions, but unions in the past & present had/have a role to play

Don you said lobbyist are free citizens---- WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY......They are hired guns, and they are not usually for the betterment of our country, they are to push & buy influence. Who has lobbyist? the average man & women ..NO......Big Oil YES.....Insurance companies..YES... Defense Contractors...YES

Is this country as a whole better off than a decade or two ago. I personally am when it comes to my business, but the country as a hole I worry about.

Alot of the problems now I believe is caused by some of these Bible toting Republicans that would screw the average man any chance they get. Many of these bible toting republicans that are in office, dont care about abortion or school prayer they use these issues to get elected. Hypocrites, hell some of them have paid for abortions in their own families

I figure this last paragraph should get some going. I said it just for that reason. I think many liberal democrats are useless and hypocrites too

We as a people and a country are so divided nowadays and its hurting our country. I would love to see one man get elected as President that brought us together as a country. Wishful thinking, why cant business & workers both prosper

We live in an F----- up world, the more I look at it the more I worry about our future and the future of our children

Its useless trying to make my point, it to bad everybody see's things and cant see all sides or opinions

[juan 14]

Iraq's Sectarian Bloodshed 'Made in the USA'

As each day is greeted with news of Iraq's daily death toll, the media debates whether Iraq is embroiled in an all-out civil war. While conventional wisdom holds that the country is being cleaved apart by religious differences, this conflict actually stemmed from the U.S. government's political miscalculations.

Foreign politicians have a history of misguided analysis about the potential for civil war in Iraq. In 1920, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George warned of civil war if the British army withdrew from Iraq. The exact same thing is heard today in the United States. Ironically, the same Iraqis George wanted to protect from each other instead united in a revolution against the British occupation forces. With rising opposition within the Shi'ite ranks against the occupation, the United States could see a similar revolt in the coming months.

Iraqi Shia and Sunnis have lived in harmony for centuries. Historically, the two sects lived in the same areas, intermarried, worked together and didn't fight over religious beliefs. During the decade of U.S.-imposed sanctions, Iraq's generally secular society became far more religious. This transformation even affected the secular Baathist regime, which gave Islam a bigger role in schools and other aspects of everyday life. Still, there were no social conflicts based on religious differences in the country.

When the United States ousted Saddam Hussein in April 2003, crime spiked and full-scale looting erupted. But there were still no signs of sectarian clashes. That quickly changed, however, as the U.S. administration assumed control over Iraq, led by Paul Bremer.

Bremer, attempting to put an Iraqi face on the occupation, appointed members to the Iraqi Governing Council. Instead of reflecting how Iraqis saw themselves, the council's makeup mirrored and reinforced the U.S. sectarian view of the population -- 13 Shia, five Sunnis, five Kurds, one Christian and one Turkoman.

Instead of bringing political unity, this reflection of Iraq's diversity, when thrust into the political playing field, became the basis of sectarian division in Iraq. The U.S. plan to allocate seats at the political table by ethnic and religious identity turned this political conflict into a more complicated sectarian one. It would have been better to divide power along the spectrum of political beliefs.

As a result, new fractures in Iraqi society appeared as Iraqis began to grapple with the foreign troops occupying their country.

The splits in Iraq were exacerbated by the timing of Iraqi political events according to domestic U.S. politics. Starting with the June 2004 "transfer of sovereignty," which was pegged to the 2004 U.S. elections, each subsequent political benchmark in Iraq was set by the United States for public relations purposes and ignored the security situation. That resulted in an election that didn't even allow the names of candidates to be made public. The outcome of the first Iraqi elections essentially became a sectarian census and further divided the country; it was a complete failure of the democratic process our nation's forefathers espoused.

The final straw fueling the ethnic and religious splits is the open-ended occupation. The occupation has split the Iraqi population into two major groups: those who are against getting involved in any political action as long as the occupation continues, and those who are building their new regime despite the occupation. Ironically though, as the death toll mounts on all sides, both groups now want the occupation to end.

Seeking a point of commonality, most of Iraq's leaders have asked the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. When President George W. Bush last visited Iraq, Iraq's vice president asked him to set a timetable for withdrawal. Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor, requested a similar "road map" for complete withdrawal. These leaders aren't alone. The vast majority of Iraq's parliament, religious leaders and political leaders want to know when the U.S.-led coalition troops will leave.

But instead of using the only issue that actually unifies the country to build a lasting peace, the United States continues to intervene in the political and military affairs of the country, adding more fuel to the budding civil war. U.S. intervention in Prime Minister al-Maliki's reconciliation plan effectively scuttled perhaps the best chance for peace Iraq has had since the initial invasion.

Even worse, U.S. actions are now even dividing its stalwart Shi'ite supporters. Shi'ite Muslim religious leaders are speaking out against the government because of U.S. actions. Recent U.S. aerial bombings of Sadr City were condemned by Prime Minister al-Maliki, but many Shi'ites see him as still being too close to his U.S. handlers. Meanwhile, the United States continues to signal its intent for a permanent presence as construction of the embassy marches ahead of schedule.

Given the political blunders made by the United States, a lack of any ability to learn from these past mistakes, and with all sides in the conflict seeking an end to the occupation, the only option left is to begin the process of leaving Iraq completely. In recognition of the failed U.S. policy, 12 Senate and House Democratic leaders and ranking members from the key national security committees wrote to the president on July 31, stating, "We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006."

But setting a timetable for withdrawing the U.S. troops would be only the first step in the right direction. The Bush administration has the bigger task of dealing with its consequences within Iraq and now throughout the region. With over $320 billion spent, more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers dead and countless Iraqis killed, the time for an alternative is now

[Jeff 232]

Iraq's Sectarian Bloodshed 'Made in the USA'

As each day is greeted with news of Iraq's daily death toll, the media debates whether Iraq is embroiled in an all-out civil war. While conventional wisdom holds that the country is being cleaved apart by religious differences, this conflict actually stemmed from the U.S. government's political miscalculations.

Foreign politicians have a history of misguided analysis about the potential for civil war in Iraq. In 1920, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George warned of civil war if the British army withdrew from Iraq. The exact same thing is heard today in the United States. Ironically, the same Iraqis George wanted to protect from each other instead united in a revolution against the British occupation forces. With rising opposition within the Shi'ite ranks against the occupation, the United States could see a similar revolt in the coming months.

Iraqi Shia and Sunnis have lived in harmony for centuries. Historically, the two sects lived in the same areas, intermarried, worked together and didn't fight over religious beliefs. During the decade of U.S.-imposed sanctions, Iraq's generally secular society became far more religious. This transformation even affected the secular Baathist regime, which gave Islam a bigger role in schools and other aspects of everyday life. Still, there were no social conflicts based on religious differences in the country.

When the United States ousted Saddam Hussein in April 2003, crime spiked and full-scale looting erupted. But there were still no signs of sectarian clashes. That quickly changed, however, as the U.S. administration assumed control over Iraq, led by Paul Bremer.

Bremer, attempting to put an Iraqi face on the occupation, appointed members to the Iraqi Governing Council. Instead of reflecting how Iraqis saw themselves, the council's makeup mirrored and reinforced the U.S. sectarian view of the population -- 13 Shia, five Sunnis, five Kurds, one Christian and one Turkoman.

Instead of bringing political unity, this reflection of Iraq's diversity, when thrust into the political playing field, became the basis of sectarian division in Iraq. The U.S. plan to allocate seats at the political table by ethnic and religious identity turned this political conflict into a more complicated sectarian one. It would have been better to divide power along the spectrum of political beliefs.

As a result, new fractures in Iraqi society appeared as Iraqis began to grapple with the foreign troops occupying their country.

The splits in Iraq were exacerbated by the timing of Iraqi political events according to domestic U.S. politics. Starting with the June 2004 "transfer of sovereignty," which was pegged to the 2004 U.S. elections, each subsequent political benchmark in Iraq was set by the United States for public relations purposes and ignored the security situation. That resulted in an election that didn't even allow the names of candidates to be made public. The outcome of the first Iraqi elections essentially became a sectarian census and further divided the country; it was a complete failure of the democratic process our nation's forefathers espoused.

The final straw fueling the ethnic and religious splits is the open-ended occupation. The occupation has split the Iraqi population into two major groups: those who are against getting involved in any political action as long as the occupation continues, and those who are building their new regime despite the occupation. Ironically though, as the death toll mounts on all sides, both groups now want the occupation to end.

Seeking a point of commonality, most of Iraq's leaders have asked the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. When President George W. Bush last visited Iraq, Iraq's vice president asked him to set a timetable for withdrawal. Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor, requested a similar "road map" for complete withdrawal. These leaders aren't alone. The vast majority of Iraq's parliament, religious leaders and political leaders want to know when the U.S.-led coalition troops will leave.

But instead of using the only issue that actually unifies the country to build a lasting peace, the United States continues to intervene in the political and military affairs of the country, adding more fuel to the budding civil war. U.S. intervention in Prime Minister al-Maliki's reconciliation plan effectively scuttled perhaps the best chance for peace Iraq has had since the initial invasion.

Even worse, U.S. actions are now even dividing its stalwart Shi'ite supporters. Shi'ite Muslim religious leaders are speaking out against the government because of U.S. actions. Recent U.S. aerial bombings of Sadr City were condemned by Prime Minister al-Maliki, but many Shi'ites see him as still being too close to his U.S. handlers. Meanwhile, the United States continues to signal its intent for a permanent presence as construction of the embassy marches ahead of schedule.

Given the political blunders made by the United States, a lack of any ability to learn from these past mistakes, and with all sides in the conflict seeking an end to the occupation, the only option left is to begin the process of leaving Iraq completely. In recognition of the failed U.S. policy, 12 Senate and House Democratic leaders and ranking members from the key national security committees wrote to the president on July 31, stating, "We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006."

But setting a timetable for withdrawing the U.S. troops would be only the first step in the right direction. The Bush administration has the bigger task of dealing with its consequences within Iraq and now throughout the region. With over $320 billion spent, more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers dead and countless Iraqis killed, the time for an alternative is now

True

We cant force our will or wishes on another country. The middle east is never going to be what GW wants.

[Adrian 155]

True

We cant force our will or wishes on another country. The middle east is never going to be what GW wants.

Hey Jeff, you created a frankenstein with this one bro!!!!!

You might get more pages than Shanes bleach vs. percarb thread.

Everyone's points should keep this thing going as long as the war itself.

I don't want to comment on this topic anymore because I keep getting shot down by my fellow countrymen and told how wrong I am. But there are alot of good points like I said. Alot to make a person rethink his personal position of what's going on.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Such is the way of life. Unfortunetly not enough people care and alot of these type people are the first ones to forget something as drastic as 9-11. If anyone here watches the show "Rescue Me" there was a great part in there last week when The main Character yells out in the bar to anyone that will listen stating that he bets not one person in there can name one fallen firefighter who died that day when the BDLG's came crashing down..Yup you got it not one person could........

Hell...I can't either. I don't think I ever knew their names, other than looking at names/pics on a website dedicated to them.

[smokey51 14]

On minimum wage:

Someone posted earlier that $7.00 an hour was not a living wage. With that being said, why don't we raise the wage to $8, $9 or $10 an hour. Why stop there, let's just raise it to $20 an hour. Who is going to pay for this increase? Consumers and employees!

There are about 2.2% of the people in the US making the minimun wage. Most of these are teenagers just getting started in the work place or the elderly working to supplement their SS. The remainder are those that are uneducated, have no ambition to do better, or those who actually like their jobs and have no desire to advance. By the way, what happens to those people who have worked hard and gotten pay raises only to see their pay raise value decrease if the minimum wage increases.

Another down side of raising the minimun wage is the lost of jobs. If an employer decides that an employee only produces $5 an hour in production, but the goverment has mandated that I must pay that person $7 an hour (plus company required social security contribution and other benefits), the emloyer may look at spending more money on capital that will give him more bang for the buck. To give an example on our level, let's say we have a deck to clean, neturalize and stain. We have estimated the job and the customer has agreed to our price. We decide that we will use manpower to do the job. So we get out our hand held pump ups and use two or three employees to start spraying a big deck to clean it. After using our pressure washer (capital) to rince the deck, we use the same employees to spray on the neturalizer and rinse. Once dry, we use the employees to hand stain the deck. The job is done, the customer is happy, we get paid and we pay the employees. We make a small profit but we wish it were more. Now we invest some of our profit in some capital, a surflow, Decker5 or Deckster. Now we take this capital and use 1 employee to clean, neturalize, and stain the deck. The job is done, the customer is happy, we get paid, we pay the employee and we are happier because our profits are higher because we do not have to pay 2 employees. To make the same profit as the latter using three employees, we could raise our prices but probably would price ourselves out of business as customers are only willing to pay so much. So we are in a balancing act of having employees and using capital to maximize our profits.

I say let's get rid of the minimun wage altohether and educate and train the masses so those who have the ambition can better themselves and their families. Except for safety, lets get the goverment out of private business.

Terry

[Jeff 232]

On minimum wage: There are about 2.2% of the

Another down side of raising the minimun wage is the lost of jobs.

I say let's get rid of the minimun wage altohether and educate and train the masses so those who have the ambition can better themselves and their families. Except for safety, lets get the goverment out of private business.

Terry

Its been proven in the past that raising the min. wage has not cost jobs. It just gives everyone more money to spend, its the working people who keep this country going. If you raise the min wage other wages go up more money to spend on pressure washing. The last raise over 10 years ago the economy was great and didnt hurt anything

I think it would be great to educate & train the masses. Our education system isnt doing its job. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND is a farce, its just a name, our schools are graduating a lot of dumb kids more now than ever in history.

I'd love to see better education and better parenting

[Deck Guy 14]

I'm still amazed at the people who equate Iraq with 9/11. Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. regarding our planned invasion, ver batim, is available all over the internet (try the official UN website) along with the photos and such he provided at the time of his speech. There's no need to guess about it, read his speech!

Here is a thought...do a Google search, find his speech, read it, and then decide if our reasons at the time were justified. Of course, we've adjusted our reasons as the original ones were found to be baseless.

The "War on Terror" is the reason we went to Afghanistan. Iraq was initially about WMD's, not terrorism. Only after realizing how flawed our intelligience (or wishful thinking) was did we re-focus on supposed ties between Al Kaida and Iraq. Many feel that no such ties existed until after we entered Iraq, which created a rebel force looking for Al Kaida support.

By the way, not one of the detainees in the current liquid explosive probe is Iraqi.

The minimum wage? All the same arguments against raising it have been made each time the debate comes up. I recently saw an Op/Ed piece from 1987 speaking against it, and it could have been written by anyone posting here this week who feels the same way. Funny though, the doom and gloom prophesies based on raising it never happen.

[Jeff 232]

Hey Jeff, you created a frankenstein with this one bro!!!!!

You might get more pages than Shanes bleach vs. percarb thread.

Everyone's points should keep this thing going as long as the war itself.

I don't want to comment on this topic anymore because I keep getting shot down by my fellow countrymen and told how wrong I am. But there are alot of good points like I said. Alot to make a person rethink his personal position of what's going on.

I see many great points also. I think I'll drop out of this one too. As usual I've said enough..

What ever we do in Iraq and what ever your view point, pray for those brave American hero's. I just hate seeing our men die for these arabs that dont give a rats ass about us

Nuke Em

Everyone have a great one and God Bless all of us

[Don L 14]

Hey Jeff,

I am not crazy.Hired guns...how appropiate.I support a particular lobby,the NRA.Unfortunatley,because too many Americans blow off their responsibilitie's to uphold our Republic,lobbyist's have ascended.I agree that we live in a f up worl.No doubt.

It is the same principle tha applies to greedy,unGodly biz owners,who didn't (and don't) fairly compensate their most valuable resource...their employees.They allowed the union's in.So be it.

Jeff you really hit the mark with this thread.It is exhilerating.I wish I had more time to invest,but am happy to drop in when I can.Praise God in the name of Jesus Christ that we live in this great country!The reality is that this world is growing worse ,and worse.This can not be stopped by anyone but the Living God.I believe ,although,it is our responsibility to steward what we have been given,to the best of our ability,until that fateful day.Let the conversation continue,to the end that we may learn,and understand more than we did yesterday.Enjoy this beautiful day,Jeff.

[Don L 14]

John T,

Your point that some people need unions is taken.I understand this.Greed of some owners opened the door for unions in America.I was a member of a union,twice...the musicians union,and sefcu.In both instances,in order to get the job,I was forced to "join".In both instances,I was sickened.I admit that I have been over the top with my op's about unions,but I still believe that they are in existance because of weakness,malaise on the part of owner's,workers,citizens.That being said,I realize this is not a perfect world,band aid's are inevitable.

I will be what I believe an employer should be..paying well,training well,offering the best opportunity for our employees to prosper according to their work ethic.Effectivly locking out any intrusions of any unionizing.I am glad they have served you well,but no thank you.Enough out of me ...for now.Have a great day John,and thank you for your input.

[Deck Guy 14]

Hey Jeff,

The reality is that this world is growing worse ,and worse.

Violent crime rates are down, people are living longer than ever, and the weather's getting warmer (a big plus for our northern bretheren). Thanks to technology, many of us will never toil as our fathers and their fathers did. I say the glass if half-full! This is the best time to be alive!

[Mike Williamson 198]

The "War on Terror" is the reason we went to Afghanistan. Iraq was initially about WMD's, not terrorism. Only after realizing how flawed our intelligience (or wishful thinking) was did we re-focus on supposed ties between Al Kaida and Iraq. Many feel that no such ties existed until after we entered Iraq, which created a rebel force looking for Al Kaida support.

It was about both..gimme a break. The support Saddam had and was giving to terrorists was one of the reasons we went in. The PRIMARY reason we went in was Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resolutions...He'd spit in the face of the US and the UN quite a few times...He refused to cooperate. There was no "refocusing" on terrorist ties...that was a focus from the beginning.

By the way, not one of the detainees in the current liquid explosive probe is Iraqi.

Has anyone claimed that they were? Does that mean anything?

The minimum wage? All the same arguments against raising it have been made each time the debate comes up. I recently saw an Op/Ed piece from 1987 speaking against it, and it could have been written by anyone posting here this week who feels the same way. Funny though, the doom and gloom prophesies based on raising it never happen.

Yes, because the arguements are valid, whether it is 1987 or 2006. The minimum wage doesn't encourage productivity, it enables laziness. "Hey, I got a raise even though I'm a 'do the minimum required' employee"

[Mike Williamson 198]

Violent crime rates are down, people are living longer than ever, and the weather's getting warmer (a big plus for our northern bretheren). Thanks to technology, many of us will never toil as our fathers and their fathers did. I say the glass if half-full! This is the best time to be alive!

That's because you and I live in a particularly blessed part of the world.

I do agree, it is a GREAT time to be alive...but that doesn't change the fact that this world is in many ways getting worse. Ways that may not matter to you or others who don't share my beliefs. That's a whole different thread. LOL!

[PLD 14]

I question that is it our job to tell other countries to democratize and why do we think we can democratize a country or a region, especially one thats been killing each others for centuries.

I don't know about democracy, but we are the 900# gorilla on the block and should count our blessings for what we have here in the USA. And IMHO that makes it a moral imperiative to involve ourselves in any country (including Rwanda) where genocide and other mass atrocities are being commited. Not to do so is like Hulk Hogan pretending not to notice as two punks beat up an old lady for her grocery money. It's just cowardly and wrong.

Rape rooms, mass graves, gassing the Kurds? Saddam needed to go. Unfortunately, overthrowing a government means that you have to stay until the place is stable again. And since you must establish a new government, might as well be democratic. If the people really prefer communism/dictatorship/monarchy, they can just vote it in once we give 'em the keys.

[PLD 14]

The reality is that this world is growing worse ,and worse.

Not necessarily worse, but more and more chaotic. It's merely entropy at work.

[Deck Guy 14]

How bad things are is a matter of perception. I think that thanks to the age we live in, we are more aware of all the bad sh*t that happens. I don't think that 100 years ago, you would have known about the kidnapping of a kid 1000 miles away, now its in your face 24/7 when something like that happens. Do you think the average American 100 years ago knew anything about Sierra Leonne?

People used to spend their time trying to make ends meet and feeding their family, and even though there was limited information available by way of newspapers to those who truly sought it, many people were illiterate and newspapers were in the business of making news as much as they were in the business of reporting it.

An example... my mother, whom I love dearly, will tell me that they didn't have any gay people in Germany when she was a kid. Right, and I bet there were no pedophiles, aldulterers, or wayward priests either.

[Mike Williamson 198]

People used to spend their time trying to make ends meet and feeding their family

I'm not just speaking of pedophiles, murderers, rapists. I'm speaking of the general decline in morality. And that IS a matter of perception, or rather, position. For me, my moral guide is scripture. Society as a whole has moved away from many of those areas of morality.

You're right, people spent more time working, and trying to get through life, and didn't have all this time on their hands.

newspapers were in the business of making news as much as they were in the business of reporting it.

LOL, you mean like today?

[Deck Guy 14]

I'm not convinced that people are any less moral now than at any other time. You and I must live in different "societies."

Men (not me) have had mistresses as long as there has been marriage, and people have always lied, cheated, and stolen from one-another. I can see you rolling your eyes, even from Missouri, but I really believe that. We just don't have crime stats from the middle-ages (for example), but I will bet there was alot of bad stuff going on then too. All-in-all, I genuinely believe that most people (98%) are good, it's just the evil that gets the attention. I know dozens of good people myself!

Mankind has always been flawed according to my book. That's what redemption is all about.

I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you Mike, but we just seem to have different views on things. I don't see the world as this immoral place that you seem to envision. I just see it. BTW have you ever considered reading the teachings of Buddha?

[JFife 14]

I'm not convinced that people are any less moral now than at any other time. You and I must live in different "societies."

Agreed....read the old testament. Made our societies look mild. Ancient Rome. They had NAMBLA, back then...except it was legal and excepted!!

[HotShot 34]

Larry....I am with you on this one. I don't think we're any worse now than before or vise versa. Sin is Sin. However, I don't agree that 98% of people are good. The Bible says that "...none is good, but one, that is God..." Matt 19:17. Some of us may be good according to our standards, but God's standard is morale perfection. The Ten Commandments.

Let me give you a little quote by someone and see if you can guess who it is..a good guy or a bad guy (our standards). "It is a constant torture to me that I am still so far from Him whom I know to be my very life and being. I know that it is my wretchedness and wickedness that keeps me from Him." If you can't guess I'll tell you...it's Mahatma Ghandi. He realized that all works-based religions lead to futility and death. It is only in Jesus Christ that sinners can find forgiveness for their sins and deliverance from death and hell.

Jon...NAMBLA? that's funny :D

[Deck Guy 14]

LOL, you mean like today?

Let me guess...the liberal media making GW look bad?? He does a pretty good job by himself. All you would have to do is quote him ver batim, or film him speaking with editing anything. Not exactly Pulitzer Prize stuff there.

No, what I'm talking about is that 100 years ago, any major newspaper looked like more the National Enquirer than they do today. Let's see...who owns the USA Today, NY Times, and Washington Post? Conservatives, that's who. Those three papers account for a great deal of readership and influence, no? Our local conservative newspaper owner (Gary Rust) owns over twenty other papers, and he's a dyed in the wool conservative (Limbaugh style) too. Again, you and I apparently live in totally different societies.