thx for the link & i apologize for the way i type, im just used to it

LOL, to praise Hitler, now I know you are crazy. I guess you can say the same for Bush. He was a great leader, but then went insane with Liberal thoughts.

I guess you forgot Saddam was shooting at American planes. But then I don't usually expect other UN nations to come to our aid since most country would love nothing less than to see us crumble like the Roman Empire. I'm sure today's situation is like a sweet desert to most those countries.

I find it funny how you would so readily release someone who was caught in the battle field because you don't think they are a real threat.

how am I crazy? hitler steam rolled over France, poland, belgium,denmark, africa, had the USSR begging for help & if it werent for an ill-advised change of tactics, would have crushed the UK. and no you cant say the same for Bush cause he was never a good leader, all his speeches were crap, he did far more damage to the economy than most other presidents we've had, & was kind enough to ignore Osama long enough for 9-11

well which planes were u talking about? the ones that were bombing iraq? or the ones bombing his army? please refresh my memory, since you seem to have all the answers. as for the other countries, well there was this thing they invented a few hundred years ago, i think it was called.....alliances....ya thats it. last time i checked, we were part of 1 such alliance, im fairly certain thats NATO. there may b others, but gosh golly im just not sure. anyway in most alliances, the members protect one another, usually with military or political force, now last time i checked, there werent too many NATO members part of the latest strikeforce sent after Saddam.

yaaa somehow i doubt that every single prisoner there was "caught in the battle field" bsides, we still have officers who were in the iraqi army working for us now, why werent they sent to guantanamo? were they not fighting against us? im not saying that they should all b released, im saying that Bush has willfuly violated the constitution AND human rights. & prisoners can be interrogated in many different ways, most of which arent violations of the constitution.

actually that is pretty funny. FYI there wasnt any prove in the latest scandal that ACORN itself was responsible for voter fraud, but theres plenty of prove pointing to those ACORN employed. & while im not a fan of the groups housing & economic works & rly dont care much about anything else they do, it is kinda annoying to see politicians use any excuse they can to bash their opponents. that goes for both sides.

you rly didnt read about ACORN did you? ACORN hired ppl in Nevada, ppl who ordinarily wouldn have much more to do w/ politics than anybody else. most of those employees turned in documents that were just fine. but some werent so honest (probably bcause if they didnt turn in enough documents they wouldnt b paid) the officials from ACORN who received the documents werent fooled & checked them out. the ones that proved to b false were flagged & not meant to b taken seriously. but some politicians who didnt like ACORN used that as an excuse to raid them. the exects behind Fannie & Freddie can b held responsible bcause they did nothing to stop al the bad deals. they were fully capable of dealing with it, but they didnt. ACORN wouldnt have let the fake registration affect the election. & as for "dumb logic", how dumb is it to call some1 crazy for standing up for the amazing achievements of an individual? especially 1 who is so well known.

Um...yeah, Obama's the one throwing the most mud atm, not McCain!

So if I'm reading the article right, Obama's 'nonsense' is to simply to say he'll cut taxes for 95% of people, instead of saying he'll benefit 95% of people (via benefits+tax cuts)? Doesn't exactly sound like a terrible illusion to me. Also while the article made a valid point wrt the marginal rates of tax faced (when factoring in benefits), it would've been nice if they could have given more than the one graph (since the graph they used was for a very specific group of people/households).

There is a fine line between genius and insanity, and it can certainly be argued that Hitler showed some of the former (and of course plenty of the latter). Getting parliament to vote itself out of existence, for example; managing to take Germany from a shell of a country, and practically take over most of the world (had it not been for the insanity that crept in, he would have likely succeeded); In fact managing to convince his neighbours to just sit tight while he broke the treaty of Versailles, and then to start letting him take over neighbours and even handing over parts of their country on a silver platter (e.g. Chechoslovakia) was a remarkable achievement. Meanwhile then being able to obliterate the more powerful countries in days or weeks, such as the French who had spent a fortune on building a defensive line with the sole purpose of protecting from a future German attack, again an achievement not to be sniffed at. Just because someone is evil/insane etc. doesn't mean that they can't have achieved anything worthy of recognition, and it also doesn't mean that someone who might recognise such actions is crazy (just that they're not politically correct). Of course if they started praising Hitler for everything he did, or for his policies towards Jews+other minorities, then that would be another matter entirely!

How does CharlesCS qualify a bad background and policies that are dangerous? You need to give us some proof of this. Personally I think Charles is like a bad journalist---he does not check his sources. And HE called me a hypocrite!

Actually I'd imagine that to make walmart liable you'd just need to prove that the employee was acting to further walmart (their employer)'s interests, regardless of whether it was authorised or not. In fact even if an employee does something that their employer has specifically told them not to do, the employer could still be held liable by the person who suffers damage, providing they can show that.

Just because you didn't order an employee to do something, doesn't mean you're not responsible. If failings in your management have resulted in wrongful/illegal action taking place by your employees, that is a failing of your organisation, and hence you have some responsibility. Furthermore, referring back to the previous point, if those employees are acting in the organisations interests, again that organisation can be held responsible for the employees actions. So, a milkman who hires a child to do some of their work for them against instructions from their employer could result in the employer being held liable (since the milkman is undertaking that action for the benefit of the employer), while a miner who decides to light up a cigarrette by a mine (+causes an explosion that destroys a nearby home) probably wouldn't cause his employer to be liable (as lighting a cigarrette wouldn't have been in the employers interests).

As I mentioned elsewhere, Obama is almost certainly talking about profit not turnover. I.e. expenses such as purchasing stock, paying rent on your shop space, and hiring employees, would be taken off your turnover before determining tax.

I am not sure what you are taklking about adnau. Please elaborate.

Thank you for proving my point. Fraud done with ACORN employees, on ACORN supplied paperwork, during ACORN working hours (just because this kind of work does not have an office with it does not mean ACORN is not responsible). If you can prove to me that these people had nothing to do with ACORN directly, I will take back my comments. Otherwise, you will have to tell the FBI otherwise.

you forgot to add "corrected by ACORN" they did flag the paper work & did not intend to take it seriously. they probably wouldve thrown it out if that wasnt illegal. Still, lets assume that officials from ACORN intended to create fradulent registration, they still only have limited connection to Barack Obama, years ago he worked up in chicago for them & some time later as a laywer. So far there hasnt been any real proof that hes doing much more w/ ACORN now than before, so whats the connection? why is it assumed that Obama automaticaly had a hand in it?

I saw the video of that, too.  He left no room for doubt.

Experience.

FactCheck.org has a more accurate take on Obama's association with Acorn. It has to be noted that there is no evidence of fraud on the part of Acorn, only of employees trying to meet quotas to keep their jobs. And even if there was it would have been almost impossible for Obama to know this.

McCain has also spoken highly of them at one of their events.

Link

There is always the... possibility... that mccain is not a criminal like obama. He claims to have built his career on hunting down corrupt official from both parties... if that is the case he might actually be clean (weather that is because he respect the law, or just feels he has more to gain by hunting down criminals then being one is irrelevant)