Texsox

Both people are correct.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) That is wonderful that is alive and okay! Miracles do happen. I am interested in learning how much was miracle and how much was him knowing basic survival skills. One of the Scouting listservs I spend some time at was discussing this from a Scouting perspective and it wouldn't take a lot for him to survive. Rain was the most feared possibility. He probably wandered too much trying to find his way back.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) $1000X 300 million people = $300 billion annually, which is a little bit more than the deficit we ran last year (about $240B if I remember right.) Our spending budget for fiscal 2008 is about $2.9 trillion, or about $10,000 per person. So we wouldn't want to live in a country where everyone paid the same cost and everyone could "afford" to contribute. So we then we are asking some people to pay more than others. I'm guessing that most would gladly make that sacrifice. I also can agree with that. So why do we have a system where people do not pay anything? One answer is we have made it so expensive to live in this country that 40% of the people can not afford to pay any income tax. Why is it so expensive to live in the US? Just buying food, clothing, and shelter is too much for some people. How can we make it cheaper to live here, without robbing from the rich and giving to the poor?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) This would be a great topic to sit around and talk with you about over a couple of beers, but I don't think typing words here could do it justice, at least for me. Back in the day when I first graduated college and was looking for gainfull employment, I was pissed that the best I was finding was about $19k per year, when autoworkers who can barely read were making $30+ an hour with benefits. (I know that is an unfair statement, but at the time, that is how I felt) This country became great because we had a huge middle class, which was possible when a large part of our economy was in manufacturing. Back to autoworkers, I know of Ford employees who have second homes, boats, new cars every few years and are retired. Not bad for someone with no degree. I just think that those days are over since our economy has shifted is base away from manufacturing. too much 'keeping up with the Jones'es' going on for people to feel secure with what they need, they have to have 'more' just to keep up. Man, this is just too big for my sleep-deprived brain today. Not to spin this into a comparative worth discussion, but that would be interesting as well, throughout history some of the most valuable citizens were not formally educated. I'm thinking more along the lines of let's all pay the same amount in taxes. $1000, whatever. No one pays any more, or anyless, than another. That's the total gross income, now put together government services based on that amount.

They keep reporting he is alive and fine. One video report from yesterday I watched showed the Dad saying "I trusted those leaders to take Michael on this trip and I will trust these same leaders to take him again." I pray I have earned the same trust from parents in my Troop.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/20/missing.scout/index.html I pray the reports are accurate. I've been praying for this kid for days now. As a youth leader, this was my worse nightmare.

The tax thread has me thinking. Whether it be Hotels, Neighborhoods, Airline seats, etc. we all know it costs more to go First Class and we either pay the cost or accept the best we can or are willing to pay for. Can't afford to live in Lake Forest? Libertyville may be just the ticket. What do you do when a country has priced itself too high? It costs a lot to create and maintain a First Class country like the US. If the numbers in that thread are accurate, we accept that 40% of the population can not afford to pay income taxes. In a sense, they do not earn enough to cover their share of the cost. One alternative is to cut back and in a sense have a "coach class" country and allow the wealthiest to retain more of their hard earned income. This stops the poor from robbing the rich. Problem is, I don't think the rich would want to livbe in the country that the poorest could afford to build. (think Mexico) Is there a point when we have priced ourselves too high?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) I'll say this as clearly as I know how... This is the fairest individual tax system you will ever find. There are loopholes that need to be closed, and much more so on the corporate side, but all in all, the system works pretty well. The only thing I would like to see is another simplification of the code, and the reduction of the IRS, but that is another story. The poorest taxpayers, are not taxpayers at all. In fact they actually come out ahead because of tax credits like the EIC. I have sited the link a bunch of times, usually when this very topic comes up, so it should be at least a memory to most people. The lowest quintile of tax payers, has a net negative tax rate, and the second to lowest quintile has a tax effective rate of zero. You can't get a much better situation than the bottom 40% of taxpayers paying nothing. And I always wind up agreeing with you on this. Overall the system is as good as it gets. The little rate tug of wars hardly make a difference with what always amounts to minor rate changes. The problem is the complexities that cause average filers to need professional assistance.

E, Before going, read the Floyd Collins story. I think the book was called Trapped! or something like that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) Hey Grandpa, tell us about the 1970's again

Another thought, when troubleshooting something like this, you will want to isolate components. Take off the range extender when it is convienent and run a couple computers close by. If the problem stops, only to restart when the extender is added, you have a very good idea where the problem is. Check the settings and see if there is an automated seek happening.

I think some people are confusing trying to convert someone or recruiting to studying about something. The best analogies I can think of is a government class that discusses the GOP and Dem parties. The history, key figures, important events, philosophies, etc. Another would be studying the five branches of the military. One can talk about them without recruiting. Again, the history, key figures, etc. The same is done with world religions. Try and discuss history without mentioning religion. Explain to me the Six Day War without mentioning religion. Or the Munich Olympic tragedy. Slavery. QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:02 PM) How about we practice what we preach and seperate state from religion? I don't think not paying attention to something is "ignorant," and there are more important things students should learn in school other than religion. Like spelling.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:02 PM) How about we practice what we preach and seperate state from religion? I don't think not paying attention to something is "ignorant," and there are more important things students should learn in school other than religion. You are correct if religion didn't have an impact on how people behave in the rest of the world. Social Studies knowledge is missing a lot when religion is dropped. The state would not be creating or mandating one religion. Learning about religion is like learning about laws, economics, or any other subject. Learning about Islam, for example is far different than converting to Islam. Understanding other cultures and religions is important in a global economy. While the rest of the world understands that, we are sticking our heads in the sand and believing that understanding the world's religion isn't important. How can someone understand world events without understanding the underlying belief systems of the countries that are involved? This isn't about converting, it's about studying something that effects the vast majority of humans on this planet.

I also believe that borderline recruits, those that are "leaning towards service" but not gung ho committed back off when bullets are flying. I would suspect that groups that do not fit the mold would be even more likely to just say no to military service. So there are probably many reasons why the military becomes less selective during war time. And I recall reading somewhere that self proclaimed (whatever the hell that means) homosexuals increased during the Vietnam War era. Of course we had a draft then. And btw Rex, if there is a draft, and if we do get to the point where 45 year old men are getting drafted, will you marry me?

Wow. I could see them being deployed to non combat roles and pushing the desk jockeys out the door and into the field. Someone tell me again how removing an evil dictator and replacing him, while stripping our military of enough soldiers, makes us safer?

As far as the ARMs etc. It's the guns don't kill people logic. By themselves, they aren't bad and actually are good in some areas. I'm trying to decide if there are advantages to foreclosures over bankruptcy for someone. I am thinking the unsecured lenders may benefit if equity in the home is forced into their hands.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) Good to see nobody's too gay to fight and kill and die during wartime. I hate to cry foul on someone I usually agree with, but perhaps the decline is because the military is seeing the light, or gay men and women are not buying the DADT story and staying away. You're a scientist and you know better than to make an A+B=C mistake when all the variables are not controlled.

A new head coach comes in a requests that all the assistant coaches resign. Seems nornal to me. Same guy 5 or 6 years later fires the guys he's hired? Seems like someone is trying to fix some mistakes they made.

Charcoal Grills, and other popular forms of suicide are covered here http://www.satanservice.org/coe/suicide/metaguide.html Great wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal-burning_suicide IIRC the nurse of killed a bunch of people in NY tried to commit suicide with a charcoal grill but failed. Start humming the M*A*S*H theme

Look around at all the religious references we have around us. In God We Trust, Our Pledge of Allegiance, to name two. So we want our children to be ignorant of the basis of those tenants? How many wars around us are started and fought, and re fought, because of religion? Yet, we want our children ignorant of those religions. Billions of people around the world study these systems of beliefs and it guides their governments, economies, and values. Yet, we want our children ignorant of these religions. I don't see the advantage. Education should prepare our children to live in this world, it should help perpetuate our position as a major superpower and economic powerhouse. Wishing ignorance on our children to belief systems that most of the world understands, dare I even say embrace, does not help them in any way except shield them from the religious reality of the rest of the world. And don't worry about a teacher evangelizing and corrupting your children by making them religious, there are enough less talented teachers that will turn your kids away from religion. In my kid's Sophomore Literature class they studied the Old Testament. The assignments on those works were about the same as for any other work of literature. Sadly, they used the King James version because there are no publishing royalties to pay, making that translation available for a couple dollars instead of using an easier to read translation. (Same reason the Gideons and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints give those away) And just like a counseled by kids as they struggled through an unreadable translation of Beuwolf, I had them read an alternative translation. Seemed better than just doing their homework for them.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! NOW! 100 YEARS FROM NOW!! 1,000 YEARS FROM NOW!!! !!!! !!!!! Anyway, I think there are strong correlations that says "mankind" is doing some harm to the environment. I'm not denying that. What gets me is, 30 years ago, we were experiencing "global colding" ( ) according to some of the same (now bandwagon) "global warming" scientists. So, which is it? I wonder if the funding was strong in the 1970's for the "global colding" crowd, you know, the impending ice age and all of that? I think that it's naive to think we don't have an impact. I can also respect both you and Flaxx, because you're from the "scientific" type of field, which I am not a part of. Having said that, though, there's enough evidence from the other side, IMO, to at least question how much of an impact we are having. After all, earth has been through a "global warming" cycle before, otherwise, we'd still be in the ice age. So we reversed a climate freeze and not only stopped that, but now are projecting a warming. And humans and CO2 doesn't have an effect.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) When a key element of your platform is that you are going to run the cleanest and most ethical Congress ever, you probably should know when to STFU. You are also going to open yourself up to additional scrutiny when you stand on holier than thou grounds. And it hasn't been a "mixed bag" its been business as usual, just like I said it would be. Nothing has changed, and it isn't going to, on matter what gets shoved down my throat. If these people don't like being called a hypocrite, they shouldn't act like one. What they really have to understand is our society no longer wants to hear big goals. Imagine if Kennedy had talked about a man on the moon in 2000. He'd have been laughed off the political map.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) The GOP as a party seems to OK with massive funding and complete federalization of the military and all security apparatus', under the argument that they have to be handled at that level for national security and welfare. And yet, when it comes to problems with the environment (pollution, warming, etc.), which are frankly much more prescient and are having a much greater effect on our lives than either terror or Iraq, they are apparently unwilling to allow federal control. It seems to me that in both cases, due to their very nature, they need to be federal or even international concerns. As I was reading your post I was thinking, those are the big things that should also be above partisan b.s.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) I agree, to a point. My personal hangup was/is that we hear all the time about how we need to change, and you know what? Yes, we do. However, to me, all this is a mechanism to interfere with free enterprise and get a cut of the profits for the government to regulate environmental controls. The government doesn't belong in it, period. That's where I have major disagreements with the Goracle crowd. I do believe that MNE's need to be socially responsible when given credible evidence that there is environmental damage being done that they need to fix it right away. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen near as often as it should. . Starting on April 22, 1970, do you think we would have cleaned up the environment as much without stricter government laws and involvement?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) Maybe Bush should have just fired all of the DA's like the all Great and Mighty Bill Clinton? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmM...zFjYTRmYTlhNzk= I am certain this was in jest, and not to flame, but maybe we should be trying for a higher standard instead of "he did it, so I can too"? Let's stop the downward spiral to the least common denominator and push for something we can be proud of? So far it's been a mixed bag from the Dems. I'm disappointed in some of the things they have done. And when they do screw up, I'm sending off emails quickly reminding them to take the higher road.