Politics & Government - 11 June 2006

After all, it was our grandfathers (hundreds of years back),fathers, sons, husbands, cousins, nephews, mothers, daughters, and more who fought and died for this country. It is the legal, natural and naturalized, citizens who built this country, through hard work, determination, strong will and without handouts and paid our taxes, voted,and make changes for the better. You'd think they would have better sense than to refer to us as "fat, lazy, old", etc. As if there are none of those in their community . That is so uncivilized, ignorant and irrational. It's really difficult for me to see any logic in their way of 'thinking'.

2006-06-11 17:22:21 · 17 answers · asked by vacant 3 in Immigration

Please do not overlook this issue. This is serious.

Check out the website, any rational unbiased America loving mind would have to agree this to be infuriating:
http://mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/KNOWLEDGELIBERATION.htm

This is a movement that Osama Bin Laden would praise!.....That is common sense!

Remember that Osama Bin Laden is a Terrorist!

2006-06-11 17:17:14 · 12 answers · asked by Americans1st 2 in Immigration

2006-06-11 17:15:21 · 7 answers · asked by nooniepoo 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

I want to join the army but i don't know how.

2006-06-11 17:11:14 · 15 answers · asked by sunny opa 1 in Military

2006-06-11 17:11:02 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2006-06-11 17:07:47 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

faster than your airbags could deploy and ran?

I have... well it wasn't really a van...lol But, they all ran. What are your thoughts on that? Luckily this time I could prove my innocence when it came to the cause of the accident... But imagine it was something more serious; injury, death... And all the witnesses fled?

2006-06-11 17:06:05 · 11 answers · asked by DmanLT21 5 in Immigration

Why then do the illegal immigrants speak of it as though it is 'abusing' the system? Aren't they being rather ignorant?

2006-06-11 17:04:29 · 12 answers · asked by vacant 3 in Immigration

2006-06-11 17:01:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

The second American Revolution?!?

...SUDDENLY Great Britain, France, Spain, and Mexico do major full INVASION towards United States of America! They invade USA through the whole East Coast, West Coast, and Southern Border simultaneously... without any warning! Thus, the USA does NOT prepare at all since they're focusing their power for War against Terrorism...

There have been classified alliance between Great Britain, France, Spain and Mexico to regain their very own territory from which we know today as USA...
Great Britain wants to get back its 13 original colonies. Spain reclaims Florida and Fountain of Youth. France wants its Lousiana territory up to Lower Canada. Mexico wants to regain Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona!

2006-06-11 17:00:50 · 23 answers · asked by Professor Franklin 4 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-06-11 17:00:07 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-06-11 16:58:36 · 1 answers · asked by HEY boo boo 6 in Politics

2006-06-11 16:57:13 · 4 answers · asked by let's chat here 2 in Law & Ethics

NJ is one state that provides for a civil committment for sex offenders that pose a significant threat to society if released. These include the ones that attain sexual gratification from the mutilation of their victims, etc. Civil committment basically amounts to a life sentence for those offenders. They are the ones most people are most afraid of but they will not appear on a registry because they are not free. Could this practice replace the need for a registry that could include "one-time offenders?"

Please, no diatrides about the recividism rates or the ratio of known to stranger offenders. This question is about the efficacy of two different methods of protecting society, not about which side of the treatment vs. punishment arguement you happen to take.

2006-06-11 16:56:40 · 5 answers · asked by ? 3 in Law & Ethics

Here is some demographic research that I did check for yourself if you dont believe.

Demographics:* Population- Ethnicity- Crime Level

City * - Population - Hispanic% -(Crime Index)

Cudahy * - 24,208 - 94.1% - (292.5)

Bell * - 36,664 - 90.9% - (244.8)

Maywood * - 28,083 - 96.3% - ( 259.0)

HuntingtonPark* - 61,348 - 95.6% - (529.1)


Aliso Viejo * - 40,166 - 11.7% - (85.1)

Mission Viejo * - 93,102 - 12.1% - (103.6)

HuntingtonBeach* - 189,594 - 14.7% - (166.0)

Irvine * - 143,072 - 7.4% - (152.4)

2006-06-11 16:56:04 · 24 answers · asked by Americans1st 2 in Immigration

Betsy Devos stated that the biggest problem with MI economy is wages are to high. Do you think Dick DeVos shares this view?

2006-06-11 16:52:02 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

2006-06-11 16:48:00 · 8 answers · asked by lip11 3 in Politics

When India was partitioned in 1947, Muslim forces from Pakistan invaded Kashmir. The Hindu ruler fled to Delhi and there agreed to place Kashmir under the dominion of India; the region was given semiautonomy. Indian troops were flown to Srinagar to engage the Pakistani forces. The fighting was ended by a UN cease-fire in 1949, but the region was divided between India and Pakistan along the cease-fire line.
A new vote by the assembly in Indian Kashmir in 1956 led to the integration of Kashmir as an Indian state; Azad Kashmir remained, however, under the control of Pakistan. India refused to consider subsequent Pakistani protests and UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite. The situation was complicated in 1959, when Chinese troops occupied the Aksai Chin section of the district of Ladakh.
n the late 1980s, Muslim resistance to Indian rule escalated, with some militants supporting independence and others union with Pakistan.

2006-06-11 16:46:48 · 5 answers · asked by MUSLIM 1 in Politics

First, lets review what we agree on.

1) We want the US to be as strong as it can be in the world,
2) We want the US military as strong as it can be to support US interests throughout the world,
3) We want as many people as possible to CONTRIBUTE to the strength of the US military by being in active service
4) We want to supply those troops with the best available hardware to maximize their fighting strength


So, let's agree to this, because what I'm about to say next, flows from these goals, based on actual knowledge;

First, The United States has 298 million people, according to the CIA World Fact Book, and of those approximately 54.6 million males and 54.7 million females are fit for military service. This is age 17 through 49 - not 18 through 30 that you suggest. If we pick those people 18 through 30 - we have a total population of around 90 million people total, half male half female, not the 134 million reported by the CIA. So, your proposal reduces the total.

There are 4.18 million US citizens reaching military age anually. Why is this important? That's how many kids can get killed each year and allow the US to fight indefinitely at this rate. Since death rates are about 1 in 20 in battle, this means that the US could field about 83 million people in combat and sustain it biologically. Even so, that's less than the number you think we should have in arms right now!

The US military $440 billion each year supporting 1.5 million active troops. To support 90 million troops would require at least 60 times this amount, or $26,400 billion! Since the US economy is $12,700 billion, and the US budget couldn't support it. Actually the $440 billion already spent is 3.7% of the US budget, and about 50% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. So, we could double the military to about 3 million from the current 1.5 million, and not cut into welfare and other non-discretionary spending. (We still need police schools and the like) But we'd have to raise taxes to field even more troops! Which is possible, but how much? Well, there's a thing called the Schumpeter Limit - which Ronald Reagan's advisors were well aware of. IF the government spends money, it MUST take it out of the private sector, which REDUCES wealth and makes the US WEAKER! So, that's a box we can't get around really, by the laws of economics. The Russians tried to get around this limit, and it killed their economy and ruined them as a great nation. We'd be fools if we didn't pay attention. So, its unlikely that we could ever usefully put more than 7 million people in the field on economic grounds.

The best ages for fighters are generally speaking between 18 and 25. Why? Because under 18 and over 25 physical and mental abilities are less than at this age, and a fighting person outside this age range actually REDUCES fighting ability for a group.

Furthermore, humans have a biological dimorphism. Males are bigger and stronger and more agressive than females -on a biological level. This is accentuated by social conditioning. Now, I've known some females who could kick some males asses, and win, but if we select for size, strength, and agressiveness, be they male or female, we will end up with about 30% of the people who are available by age - and we can even extend that a little if we mentally and physically test those that are +/- 3 years around our 18 to 25 year old filter - based on ability - even so, we're not going to get more than 15 million people in the armed services and maintain tip top fighting - and that's more than DOUBLE what we can support given economic constraints.

Furthermore, not all people are mentally and physically fit to fight. Requiring the military to take ALL folks, in any age group, therefore REDUCES our fighting ability by requiring the military deal with those of less ability.

Also, not all people are MOTIVATED to fight, and so, are unfit for this reason. A person who is mustered into service and not motivated to be there, can easily become a HUGE liability to a fighting force! Ever hear of FRAGGING? This was a problem in Vietnam BECAUSE there were so many people there against their will. We don't want that for our present military force.

Finally, as a free society our military MUST live within that society as a good citizen. The military plays an essential role in all societies, including ours freedom loving society. For this they should be honored. But they must also be good citizens. This means that the US military more than others, is strongly affected by public perception and public opinions. And, conscription creates a strong reaction in a significant minority of folks, and that minority can grow to a majority if the US is engaged in a long conflict, with large numbers of young people dead and injured, who didn't want to be there in the first place, and are now mourned or supported by their families back at home who also didn't want them there. We learned all this in Vietnam, when there were HUGE protests against the war. Not at the outset, after the Gulf of Tonkin, but after a few years of grinding war with no end in sight.

So, BECAUSE we want the best fighting force possible, we should first and foremost MAKE IT DIFFICULT to become a member of it. Secondly, we should only take the BEST and make service in our armed forces not a requirement, BUT AN HONOR that only a very few are selected to fulfill. And then, we SHOULD SPARE NO EXPENSE in training and outfitting those who fight on our behalf. Finally, we should publicly promote and glorify our fighting force so that ALL WANT TO APPLY - BUT FEW ARE SELECTED! This is how we get the best fighting force possible.

Now, there's another point to consider. The USA exists in a world of 271 nations, possessions, and independent territories. Those nations produce over $47,500 billion in wealth, against the USA's $12,100 billion in wealth. Those nations have 6,227 million people compared to the USA's 298 million people. Combined these nations could field over 3,000 million people against the USA, and each year they could afford to lose somethin like 80 million of their fighting youth in combat! Of course, like the USA, they're more constrained by the cost of training and weapons, but generally speaking the cost of weapons for most of the rest of the world's armies navies and air forces are about 1/3 the cost of US materiel. Why? Because the US fighting equipment is the best, and gives us far more than 3x the advantage in the field. Even so, if more than about 20% of the world's population decided to attack the US, and the US had no allies to back it up, the US would quickly succumb to such an attack - EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE US CITIZEN COULD BE BROUGHT TO FIGHTING READINESS. This is why the US State Department and the US Intelligence community and the US economy are so important for the continued dominance of the US in the world. And it also provides an important lesson - WE SHOULD PICK OUR FIGHTS CAREFULLY, and WE SHOULD WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WORK WITH ALLIES IN ANY CONFLICT as George Bush Senior did in the first Gulf War. This isn't weakness, because the US in terms of numbers is fundamentally weak, we are less than 5% of the world's population, but consume over 25% of its resources. That's the power of free enterprise! But it puts us at a disadvantage in military numbers. So, we must adopt policies that use use our military to best effect by picking our spots! This is best achieved through careful analysis of extensive intelligence gathered from around the world, and using statecraft first. Its difficult, its complex, but its the only way we can stay on top in a complicated and big and powerful world. We're the most powerful nation in history. We can do more for our military. Filling their ranks with unmotivated, unintelligent, and poorly trained and supplied and paid troops - is not one of those things we need to do. We could usefully double our force levels. We could usefully quadruple our expenditures. We could promote the military so that everyone of a fighting age applies. But we also should pick the very best, and spend considerable effort training and motivating them to BE the best, and then outfit them WITH the best equipment and support possible. This is the MOST we can do. Conscripting 90 million people would create a HUGE nightmare for the military and actually reduce our fighting effectiveness, especially at today's level of funding. Fielding more than 3 million soldiers would sink our economy, and that would reduce our fighting effectiveness. So, your question promotes a foolish notion that actually reduces our fighting effectiveness.

Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_of...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schumpeter...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact...

2006-06-11 16:44:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

god bless america and george bush and may he lead him in the way of the lord god christ almighty. what do you think

2006-06-11 16:36:10 · 19 answers · asked by ghogger 1 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-06-11 16:35:07 · 3 answers · asked by sunset 3 in Law & Ethics

Police Sergeant, Promotion, NJ, Civil Service Exam

2006-06-11 16:34:57 · 3 answers · asked by protoncannon31 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

This has to be a morale booster for all there. Right?

2006-06-11 16:33:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Yes, I know the dictionary definition, and I also have my own definition. But I've noticed people on this site use "conservative" and "liberal" as if they were curse words.

I've met people who defined themselves as conservatives, but had no problems with abortion, and I've met people who defined themselves as liberal but had a serious problem with gay people. So, I'm a bit confused. I was taught that liberalism and conservatism can only be attached to viewpoints, not people.

So, what's your definition of "conservative" and "liberal"?

I'm open to all opinions, but please, keep it clean!

2006-06-11 16:30:42 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

We owned a house during the marriage and when we divorced he agreed to pay me $100 a month until my half of the value was reached. Now he is deeply in debt and wants to get a home equity loan, but he says I must quit claim for him to be able to do this. I DO NOT want to be paid off in a lump sum, as this will affect other benefits of mine. He says he can quit claim my name back on the deed after his loan goes through. Is this legit?

2006-06-11 16:24:07 · 6 answers · asked by Singlemomof10 4 in Law & Ethics

Now, smile and kiss my baby!!!

2006-06-11 16:23:03 · 10 answers · asked by Light 1 in Government

I just bought a Springfield XD40 and its by far the best gun out of the box I have ever fired. What do you all think?

2006-06-11 16:22:28 · 10 answers · asked by this guy 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-06-11 16:21:34 · 22 answers · asked by mybabymydestiny 3 in Immigration

If so, how did it impact your views on global warming?

2006-06-11 16:20:02 · 5 answers · asked by oaksterdamhippiechick 5 in Civic Participation

Is it because the government is so corrupt, and they are conditioned by a country of wishy washy law enforcement- to where they have no respect for laws and government.

2006-06-11 16:12:13 · 28 answers · asked by Americans1st 2 in Immigration