Democrats vs republicans

[ariscus99 1]

So by your logic you only support teachers because you and your late husband were teachers? And I imagine you have some proof Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't one? What is wrong with having something affect your life and enlighten your viewpoint? Why is that horrible. You tried to say the same thing about me, because I have to cousins and several friends who are gay, your claim was the only reason I'm okay with gays is because I'm related to some and know a some, well, what is wrong with that, if I wasn't related or friends with them, maybe I wouldn't know all that I do about them. Life is a learning experience, and I'll take all the opportunities presented to me. For the record I don't ever remember having a problem with gays, and was pretty happy for my two cousins when they told me, as both had lived lives full of horrible relationships with men, and when they discovered in themselves what they did, they both seemed much happier.

[ariscus99 1]

So, it was semi-automatic. That doesn't change the point I was making. No civilian needs to be able to buy a clip for a semi-automatic gun that shoots 33 bullets in a short period of time. The only reason would be to kill as many people as you can in the shortest period with a weapon that is easily concealed. So, I oppose the sale of these types of clips to civilians.

What it does change, is that you, the high and mighty fact checker, did not fact check, and is spewing false information. Also, again with false info, Glock does not make a 33 bullet capacity magazine, they make a one called a 30, that in reality holds 29 plus one in the chamber of the gun for a total of 30. I agree there is no real reason for these types of clips in anyone's hands, LEO's or civilians, if you knew much about guns, you would know that this clip makes a gun horrible to control and use. LEO's don't want them for themselves. While I can attest to them being fun to shoot, there is no real need, and I don't think the world would fall apart if they weren't on the market.

[ariscus99 1]

One of the biggest causes of state's financial woes was the loss of so much of their investments in the stock market during the bush years that was to fund pensions. Another big cause is the increased need for government services due to so many being unemployed. And a third reason is that with so many being unemployed there are fewer paying taxes.

The best thing to reduce deficits - federal and state- is to get people working. Not cutting services. And the best way we can get people working is to get corporate America to get their asses off the 2 trillion in assets that they are sitting on. There is consumer demand out there. But corporations don't want to hire. Government has gone pretty much as far as they can to improve conditions for economic growth - like allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital improvements. Imagine if I could do that when I put a new roof on my house? And there have been many, many small business tax breaks and incentives. It's time for Wall Street to man up and contribute to this economic recovery that served them well, starting with the bailout and continuing with their obscene CEO bonuses.

The tax level in CA being so high, is undoubtedly one of the reason's we are hurting, many, many companies have pulled up roots and left this state, thats a lot of tax money lost, because corporate tax in the state is so high. I've read more then a few stories of large companies moving to Utah and Nevada in recent years.

Unemployment is a big reason our state is in big trouble, however, a lot of the unemployment is self induced, by the hand of the unions. Look at the 4 major unions in CA and what they did when the economy collapsed: The 4 major unions in CA are teachers, the highway patrol, corrections officers, and cdf firefighters union. 3 of the 4 have outrageous retirement benefits, the highway partol, corrections, and firefighters, all retire at age 50 with 90% of their highest year pay. When the state was doing good that was fine, but unless the state was booming, these retirements are unsustainable,(I'm a member of the cdf firefighters union mind you, so I am going against myself here) but the unions fought for them anyways. Now when the economy collapsed, 2 of the unions tried to act as responsible groups, and 2 did not. The highway patrol and the correctional officers both went to the governor and basically said "look, we know we're facing hard times and we want to help, but we don't want our folks taking big pay cuts or furloughs, so instead of that we'll give up our pay raises for the next 5 years and our retiree's will also give up their cost of living increases for the next 5 years to help out." The governator and all the Sacramento folks said "okay." When they went to the firefighters union and the teachers union to see what they were willing to give up, both said nothing. Refused to give up pay raises, refused to take cuts, refused to pay more into their own retirements. So what did the state government do, they cut us, and they cut us deep. Teachers took the harder blow, but we were taking furloughs twice a month, basically a 9% pay cut on our base salary. Problem with the firefighters was, you couldn't tell us to go home for the day like you can an office worker, we have minimum staffing standards that must be met, so we were working for free on those two days a month, but they allowed us to take those days off at our leisure and were actually encouraged to take them off, and were told we had to burn furlough's before any vacations, sick leave, plp, or holidays. This creates a bit of a paradox however because you now have to pay somone time and half to fill behind us taking this "free" day off. So the state was actually spending more money on us taking furlough's then they would have had they just gave us a paycut. The union wouldn't allow it because they knew furloughs would work out better for us monitarily. The teachers also took furloughs but couldn't very well leave the students alone in the classroom two days a month, so they too were forced to work for free. But they didn't get the same benefit of taking days off whenever they want. They also were forced to have higher class sizes, fewer teachers, fewer support systems set up to help the teachers. And all of this for one reason; these two unions refused to give anything up. So yeah people blame the unions because the unions are to blame for some of it.

Many local government unions tried to mimic our retirement benefits and it has literally bankrupted several cities in the state, because now that things aren't great, they can't afford them and went broke, resulting in the layoff's of hundreds, probably thousands of people. This because the unions got greedy. Our union recently raised the retirement age to 55 for new members and they will also have to contribute 3.5% whereas we contribute 3%. But to say the unions were unfairly targeted during all of this just isn't true.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So by your logic you only support teachers because you and your late husband were teachers? And I imagine you have some proof Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't one? What is wrong with having something affect your life and enlighten your viewpoint? Why is that horrible. You tried to say the same thing about me, because I have to cousins and several friends who are gay, your claim was the only reason I'm okay with gays is because I'm related to some and know a some, well, what is wrong with that, if I wasn't related or friends with them, maybe I wouldn't know all that I do about them. Life is a learning experience, and I'll take all the opportunities presented to me. For the record I don't ever remember having a problem with gays, and was pretty happy for my two cousins when they told me, as both had lived lives full of horrible relationships with men, and when they discovered in themselves what they did, they both seemed much happier.

No, those of us on the left support teachers and public servants. I would regardless of whether I or my husband had been one. Was it the left or the right who opposed the repeal of DADT or gay marriage? Was it the democrats or republicans? So, it is not a giant leap to conclude that one of the most conservative republicans, Cheney, would oppose rights for gays.

As far as having something affect your life and changing your viewpoint - if is something that can be extrapolated to a larger group and have validity, then I see nothing wrong with it. For example, if you get pulled over for speeding and get a ticket and then develop an anti-cop mentality forever - that is not valid or reasonable. But there is a lot of hypocrisy in this, though. I only will look at the big picture if something affects me personally. Liberals can do that without something affecting them personally. I have never been unemployed but I can support extending unemployment benefits. But I wonder how many were opposed to it until they became unemployed. I have never been without health insurance but I can support universal health insurance.

I can support government run healthcare (medicare) without receiving it. That's a big difference between the left and the right. Those on the right have to affected personally, those on the left can see the benefit of something without being affected personally.

I don't know where I said anything to you about your views on gays. I don't even recall you ever posting anything about gays, so please show me where I have.

As to saying it was automatic vs semi-automatic - that is picking on a minute point and missing the big picture. It's like a wife saying to her husband "I am divorcing you because you had affairs with 5 women" and he says "No, it was only 4". As to fact checking - well you've already established that you didn't before you posted the job loss figure. So I made a mistake, big deal.

I saw a man shoot a semi-automatic Glock and he shot 14 times in about 7 seconds. So to unload a clip with 30 bullets would take about 15 seconds. Again, no civilian needs to have ammunition like that. Would this guy have still shot Gifford had this ammunition been illegal? Yes, but there might not be as many other casualities. Because it was when he was reloading that some unarmed people in the crowd subdued him, first by hitting him over the head with a folding chair and then getting him to the ground, kicking his gun away and taking the extra magazine clip from him.

[ariscus99 1]

So I've searched back threw many pages of posts, and found the one I was talking about, and as it turns out it was your pal bjean who said it, in post #967 of the health care thread, and then again in the same thread on post #971. Same thinking from both of you tho, not really surprising, she tends to parrot everything you say. I will concede that point.

So Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't gay because "most conservatives" hate gays. So, do all liberals think exactly the same? You all have identical standpoints and thought processes? No? So would it be such a stretch to think that maybe someone who is a conservative just might not hate gays? Apparently to you, it would be, pretty narrow minded thinking for such a well rounded liberal. And it's great that all liberals love everyone and are empathetic towards everyone, without any outside help. Apparently not everyone is as Enlightened as you and your ilk. Except when it comes to thinking people could brake a mold a little by not being cookie cutter conservatives.

The auto vs semi auto argument is relevant for many reasons, the strongest being that the majority of pro gun people agree that regular civilians don't need automatic weapons, and most would agree that they shouldn't have them(the exception being Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, as well as couple of small mid west states). So if the media and people like you are going out stating he went and legally bought an automatic weapon and then killed people with it, it draws attention to the wrong things, it's untrue first and foremost, and it's already something most people are against, even pro gun people, like Congresswomen Giffords. So those FACTS need to be correct. I don't know why your being so combative on this point, I've already said I agree with you that regular civilians don't need 30 round magazines.

I like how when I make a mistake you go all high and mighty and try to belittle me, but when you make a mistake the response is "big deal." Even when your proven wrong, you can barely admit it. And you downplay it. Which is typical of the left. When the right makes a mistake it's this gargantuan ordeal, but when the left does, the typical response is oh well we were given false info no biggie. Talk about hypocritical.

DADT and gay marriage were apposed by republican's because most of them have beliefs of what a marriage should be, is shortsighted? Sure. Will it probably change? Yup, and the sooner the better. DADT was repealed, tho it's not been implemented as of yet, I believe. DADT had potentially dangerous consequences, tho I hope nothing negative will come of it. I've heard several military people state they are against it, not necessarily because they hate gays, but because it can make for uncomfortable and hostile circumstances. I've even heard some gays in the military who have remained nameless say they opposed it. A good quote that sums up the thought behind the potential danger in this comes from older, not so classic movie, Men In Black, when Will Smith first finds out about the aliens living among them he says to 'K' Tommy Lee Jones' character, people can take this, people are smart, and 'K' says to Will's character 'J' "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So I've searched back threw many pages of posts, and found the one I was talking about, and as it turns out it was your pal bjean who said it, in post #967 of the health care thread, and then again in the same thread on post #971. Same thinking from both of you tho, not really surprising, she tends to parrot everything you say. I will concede that point.

So Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't gay because "most conservatives" hate gays. So, do all liberals think exactly the same? You all have identical standpoints and thought processes? No? So would it be such a stretch to think that maybe someone who is a conservative just might not hate gays? Apparently to you, it would be, pretty narrow minded thinking for such a well rounded liberal. And it's great that all liberals love everyone and are empathetic towards everyone, without any outside help. Apparently not everyone is as Enlightened as you and your ilk. Except when it comes to thinking people could brake a mold a little by not being cookie cutter conservatives.

The auto vs semi auto argument is relevant for many reasons, the strongest being that the majority of pro gun people agree that regular civilians don't need automatic weapons, and most would agree that they shouldn't have them(the exception being Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, as well as couple of small mid west states). So if the media and people like you are going out stating he went and legally bought an automatic weapon and then killed people with it, it draws attention to the wrong things, it's untrue first and foremost, and it's already something most people are against, even pro gun people, like Congresswomen Giffords. So those FACTS need to be correct. I don't know why your being so combative on this point, I've already said I agree with you that regular civilians don't need 30 round magazines.

I like how when I make a mistake you go all high and mighty and try to belittle me, but when you make a mistake the response is "big deal." Even when your proven wrong, you can barely admit it. And you downplay it. Which is typical of the left. When the right makes a mistake it's this gargantuan ordeal, but when the left does, the typical response is oh well we were given false info no biggie. Talk about hypocritical.

DADT and gay marriage were apposed by republican's because most of them have beliefs of what a marriage should be, is shortsighted? Sure. Will it probably change? Yup, and the sooner the better. DADT was repealed, tho it's not been implemented as of yet, I believe. DADT had potentially dangerous consequences, tho I hope nothing negative will come of it. I've heard several military people state they are against it, not necessarily because they hate gays, but because it can make for uncomfortable and hostile circumstances. I've even heard some gays in the military who have remained nameless say they opposed it. A good quote that sums up the thought behind the potential danger in this comes from older, not so classic movie, Men In Black, when Will Smith first finds out about the aliens living among them he says to 'K' Tommy Lee Jones' character, people can take this, people are smart, and 'K' says to Will's character 'J' "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

I must have missed where you said you also opposed the 30 round ammo. Fair enough. As to my saying automatic vs semi-automatic, well those who are gun savvy like you would know a Glock was semi automatic. Those who don't know about guns wouldn't be focused on that but on the rapid fire and big magazine clip. And I will do some research, but I suspect that the NRA, whose lobbying power is second only to the Chamber of Commerce, supports sale of them to civilians as well as hollow point bullets.

What the majority of people want in terms of gun laws or gun safety means nothing compared to the power of the NRA. What they want, they get. Name me one person running for any public office that dares say they want more gun laws or restrict gun ownership and I will show you someone who lost. Not even the most liberal candidate will say that.

As for DADT, just use all the arguements for keeping it but change the word gay to black and it's the same arguments that were used against integration of the military.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So I've searched back threw many pages of posts, and found the one I was talking about, and as it turns out it was your pal bjean who said it, in post #967 of the health care thread, and then again in the same thread on post #971. Same thinking from both of you tho, not really surprising, she tends to parrot everything you say. I will concede that point.

So Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't gay because "most conservatives" hate gays. So, do all liberals think exactly the same? You all have identical standpoints and thought processes? No? So would it be such a stretch to think that maybe someone who is a conservative just might not hate gays? Apparently to you, it would be, pretty narrow minded thinking for such a well rounded liberal. And it's great that all liberals love everyone and are empathetic towards everyone, without any outside help. Apparently not everyone is as Enlightened as you and your ilk. Except when it comes to thinking people could brake a mold a little by not being cookie cutter conservatives.

C'mon. Cheney is to the right of Attila the Hun. Do you honestly believe that he would support gay rights if it weren't for his daughter. He supports nothing that anyone on the left supports. And this would be his one exception?

And as far as BJean and I having the same thinking - well you obviously haven't been paying attention because she is against the death penalty and I support it. And at first she was opposed the the so-called ground zero mosque. I wasn't.

[ariscus99 1]

Quite a few more instances of hate and violence from the left here. Be forewarned there is a lot of graphic violence and foul language. Will you also just dismiss all of this CM? This stuff is outrageous.

Here's a nice quote from Chris Matthews

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Quite a few more instances of hate and violence from the left here. Be forewarned there is a lot of graphic violence and foul language. Will you also just dismiss all of this CM? This stuff is outrageous.

Here's a nice quote from Chris Matthews

As usual you have missed my point. I never said there wasn't violence from the left or hate. My point was that in the last 4 years or so the tv talk shows and radio airwaves for longer than that, especially, have been and are dominated by right-wing rhetoric, much of which is hateful. And most of the gun and violence references from those in the political spectrum come from the right. Rush Limbaugh reaches 20 million people a day. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman can reach millions, too. There is no liberal counterpart for these people, yet alone any that are saying the things they say. There might be one liberal radio show.

I could find all kind of videos of right wing violence and post them, too. And then you could come back...ad infinitum

But here is one right wing extremist who isn't running away from what he said (like Sarah Palin who said her targets on the map were surveyor symbols and they guy who said Gabrielle Giffords window could have been smashed by skateboarders - how stupid do these people think we are?)

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-all-modern-sons-of-liberty-this-is.html

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Which party reached out for civility and which rebuffed it?:

.

RNC Chairman Steele Refuses Chairman Kaine's Call to Condemn Threats and Vandalism.

Posted by Erica Sagrans on Monday, March 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM..After last week's threats and vandalism directed at lawmakers, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine reached out to RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- asking him to issue a joint statement condemning these acts. Chairman Steele refused. On Face the Nation yesterday, Chairman Kaine discussed the letter he sent and Chairman Steele's rejection of the call for a more civil tone in politics:

Here is the text of the letter:

March 26, 2010

Dear Chairman Steele, In recent days, we have seen, heard and read about Members of Congress being intimidated or threatened. They have described threatening phone calls, letters and e-mails. They have told stories of vandalism and physical endangerment of Members, their staffs, families and offices. In the interest of protecting and instilling confidence in our political system, I propose that we issue a joint statement calling for an end to such tactics. A joint statement by the elected Chairs of the major national parties would send a bipartisan signal that this is not how we should conduct our politics in America. In the interest of acting promptly, I have enclosed a draft for you to consider. I look forward to working with you to finalize the statement and issue it from both of our Committees. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tim Kaine Chairman Democratic National Committee

You can read several news highlights on the Chairman's letter below: CBS News:

When asked about the tone of rhetoric surrounding the health care debate, Kaine said that both sides needed to be more civil with one another.

"One of the great things about this country is we can disagree in significant ways about important matters," said Kaine. "But we can do it in civil and appropriate ways. So when I saw the anger level last week, I wrote a letter to Chairman Steele and just said hey, let's do something good. Let's join together and issue a statement calling on Americans to be civil but also on our elected officials to model the right behavior. And it was interesting what happened. The RNC considered my request for four or five hours. They then called the office back to say they wouldn't sign on to the statement. And one minute later, they released a press statement just blasting the DNC that they sent around."

The Hill:

The Republican National Committee will not sign Democrats' proposed "civility" truce -- an agreement Democrats drafted this week in response to the rise of "violence and vandalism" targeting congressional lawmakers.

An RNC official confirmed on Saturday Chairman Michael Steele would not support the document, which Democratic National Committee leaders first pitched to their counterparts on Friday. ...But the DNC this weekend promptly seized on Republicans refusal to support the new bipartisan effort. Speaking to reporters on Friday, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse stressed the joint statement only focused on "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics." Consequently, he said Democratic leaders were "disappointed" in the RNC's decision not to support the agreement.

Washington Monthly:

After a week featuring some overheated rhetoric and actual right-wing violence, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine decided to reach out to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele about issuing a joint statement condemning all politically-motivated threats directed at officials.

The outreach was not limited to the chairmen. The DNC's executive director and communications director also reached out to their RNC counterparts about the value of a joint statement that might help send a signal about the civil discourse. Republicans refused. RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said Steele rejected the draft statement because "we don't need to do anything on their schedule or on their timetable." What a surprise. We are, after all, talking about an RNC that recently put together a fundraising presentation filled with donor insults, offensive caricatures, and an admission that the party will rely on little more than "fear" to win. In the wake of the health care breakthrough, the RNC is desperate to make right-wing activists as angry and agitated as possible -- which is why Michael Steele is describing the Affordable Care Act as "Armageddon" and demanding to see Speaker Pelosi on "the firing line."

[loserbob 11]

I must have missed where you said you also opposed the 30 round ammo. Fair enough. As to my saying automatic vs semi-automatic, well those who are gun savvy like you would know a Glock was semi automatic. Those who don't know about guns wouldn't be focused on that but on the rapid fire and big magazine clip. And I will do some research, but I suspect that the NRA, whose lobbying power is second only to the Chamber of Commerce, supports sale of them to civilians as well as hollow point bullets.

What the majority of people want in terms of gun laws or gun safety means nothing compared to the power of the NRA. What they want, they get. Name me one person running for any public office that dares say they want more gun laws or restrict gun ownership and I will show you someone who lost. Not even the most liberal candidate will say that.

As for DADT, just use all the arguements for keeping it but change the word gay to black and it's the same arguments that were used against integration of the military.

I think you both make good points about the guns and who woulda thought you'd agree(clip size)? I think the real issue is, why everytime there is a crime of this magnitude, be it a shooting, child abduction, rape, the criminal always has a past. This is were we're failing! If someone(community college) would have reported this nuts behavior and someone actually did something about him in the past, it wouldnt matter if the guy had 100rd magazines! Instead many people lost their lives and we find out once again it could have possibly been prevented! It happens all too often. Again, criminals have more rights than the victims. Big, big problem!!! Im so freaking tired of hearing about a child being abducted(Florida girl a few years ago, rapist abductor piece of shit lived right by her, I believe he failed to register his address!) Women getting raped, then you find out the scum served jailtime and was released or never convicted in the first place because god forbid these scumbags get their full constitutional rights!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think you both make good points about the guns and who woulda thought you'd agree(clip size)? I think the real issue is, why everytime there is a crime of this magnitude, be it a shooting, child abduction, rape, the criminal always has a past. This is were we're failing! If someone(community college) would have reported this nuts behavior and someone actually did something about him in the past, it wouldnt matter if the guy had 100rd magazines! Instead many people lost their lives and we find out once again it could have possibly been prevented! It happens all too often. Again, criminals have more rights than the victims. Big, big problem!!! Im so freaking tired of hearing about a child being abducted(Florida girl a few years ago, rapist abductor piece of shit lived right by her, I believe he failed to register his address!) Women getting raped, then you find out the scum served jailtime and was released or never convicted in the first place because god forbid these scumbags get their full constitutional rights!

People might be surprised that I am actually very tough on crime. I don't believe that pedophiles should ever be released from prison. By their own admission they can't control their urges. So they need to go to prison for life - no parole. The same goes for serial killers and rapists. I would also extend it to those who abuse children or animals. Because their crimes are indicative of someone who doesn't possess normal human emotions. Anyone who could break a child's arm or beat a dog with a board with a nail should never be integrated into civil society again. They are sub-human and need to be locked up forever.

There were many red flags about this guy and I put a lot of the blame on his parents. He would have been insured under their health insurance, thanks to the healthcare reform, and eligible for mental health coverage (because the healthcare reform requires that those who cover physical illness must cover mental illness) and they had to see and ignore the signs. He was kicked out of college for irrational behavior, he was rejected from the military for drug use. He lived with his parents, who had to have blinders on. Someone who is mentally ill doesn't think they are and they think there is a purpose for the violence they commit. They rationalize it in their irrational mind. So, the people closest to him, his parents, had to know and just ignore it.

I think it is too easy to get a gun. It is too quick of a process. I think there should be a 3 day waiting period so that the person can be thoroughly investigated, not just the national database, where they could fall through the cracks, but the sexual predator list, the state police criminal reports, etc. Can you imagine what the NRA would have to say about that? It isn't stopping people from getting their precious guns - it's just making it safer.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

westboro baptist "church" praises the shootings in Tucson and calls for more and will picket all the funerals, especially targeting the little girl's. Watch the video - it is sickening and beyond the pale of human decency.

http://www.huliq.com/3257/phelps-and-westboro-baptist-church-applaud-tucson-shootings-plan-funeral-pickets

[ariscus99 1]

Not that I want to defend the wackjobs at WBC but they said they will NOT be picketing at the little girls funeral.

From the article;

Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka says her church has agreed to avoid Thursday's funeral of Christina Taylor Green

[loserbob 11]

Im so tired of hearing how the world hates us but they look to us to solve their problems! Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon etc., they hold signs of hatred for us, burn our flag but the headlines describe what we need to do to solve their problems. This could end up better or worse for us but let them solve their own problems for once, we have enough of our own problems, let them see how much they really do need us!

These governments are so corrupt, these people(radical muslims) are usually well educated middle to upper-class(Dr. Zawahiri, Alquaeda 2nd in command)people who have college degrees and want better lives for their families but because of gov corruption they have no where to turn, no jobs. All they can really do is dream the dream not live it! These people are finally realizing they're being held back by rich governments who are for themselves only. They're being held back by corrupt governments who limit everything they do from jobs to the internet. So whats the one thing they can do to support their families, make money by blowing themselves and others up.

This might be the answer, support the change these people want, help them hopefully install a more dem form of gov who might actually give them a chance to prosper so they dont have to look for alternative means. It like everything in this world comes down to the evil "love of money". We can keep killing them militarily and they'll keep coming in waves to "support the cause" which isnt to kill as many American and zionist jews as possdible, its to support their families! In Arab/Muslim culture its the #1 priority! The Americans and Zionist Jews are just a good answer for the leaders of corrupt Muslim governments. Come on, Egypt and Israel have had a pretty good, cooperative relationship for many years., Its the more radical countries(Iran, Syria) who hate Israel and America, how fitting, the two biggest sponsors of state terrorism and two of the most corrupt governments on earth! Its simple, everyone wants the same things out of life, health, wealth and happiness!

I change my mind, we need to help now more than any time in the past, what we do now could shape the future for the better or we can let these countries fall to the hands of radicalized lunatics! Who will promise more of the same and deliver!!!!!!!!!!!!