Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[Jasper 45]

bin laden was cool when he was fighting the russians. we helped put the taliban in power and now they're bad. these people have always been bad, but if they're on our side they're cool.

Bin Laden declared war on us when the Saudis asked us for help in removing Iraq from Kuwait, rather than him.
Terrorism was treated largely as an issue for law enforcement all thru the '90's, when there was a stark increase in terror attacks. Trying to arrest and prosecute these savages does not work
.
Bin Laden was never a "cool cat", but war does bring about allies that other wise would never be thought of. The Soviets in Afghanistan were a larger threat at that time, to world stability. You need to look at the current events of the day. We were never "allied" with Bin Laden, the CIA just helped them stay in business.

As far as Stalin, we should have kicked his behind back to Moscow. To me, the biggest drubbing a group of people have taken are the Polish. They were invaded and occupied by Germany until 1945, and then allowed to stay under oppression for the next 50 years by the Soviets. We stood by and watched as they were never truly liberated, actually we allowed them to be occupied.

History has proven that invading the Soviet Union probably would not have been a good idea. We had a common enemy with Stalin, but to call us an ally of the USSR is a stretch. We never engaged in open hostilities with them during WWII, we provided equipment, but to compare them to the UK is a bit of a stretch.

[jsin925]

And many of those same companies are starting to move their industries back to the US. Why? Quality is important to many of them, and the US worker provides it more than workers in many other nations, especially developing nations.

The free market economy that you have such an issue with is the same economy that made the modern age we live in possible. Without the potential for profit, the personal computer wouldn't be sitting on your desk. The assembly line method would never have been created to mass produce cars. And, many of the innovations that keep firefighters safe would never have been created either. It is the desire for reward that drives people to innovate. Is the playing field level? Maybe not as level as it once was, but it's still level. Build a better mouse trap, and the world will still beat a path to your door.

it's also the same economy that put pinochet in power, and the reason why south america is moving away from it. what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. brazil and venezeula have paid off their national debt. can america say the same?

What's wrong with it is in determining what is "fair". Fair for whom? I invent a product that no one else has. I decide to sell it. A competitor decides that it's unfair that I alone get to sell my new product. "Fair Market" economy is usually a euphemism for some form of socialist economy.

have you ever bought fair trade coffee, or chocolate? no socialism involved, all capitalism.

And the question asked is important for us to try and understand what walking in your shoes is like. Knowing what your degree is in would help us understand what you're trying to say after all. I mean, your situation would mean different things if you studied Indonesian Property Management, as opposed to Nursing, for example.

if i apply for jobs in my field where i live, there are obviously jobs in my field where i live. my point is that the economy sucks right now. it's more about who you know and not what you know (in the private sector). i have a friend who has an mba and he can't find a full time job. he works three part-time jobs, one delivering subs. regardless of what my major was, the answer you all would give would be to move. if it were that easy, don't you think i would have done that. i have a son who is type 1 diabetic so my wife and i can't go anytime without health insurance. you all want to be judgemental, and offer up tough love solutions.

You want to live in an area where you obviously can't find a job, but you don't want to move. So, you want to have your cake (a job) and eat it too (live in your current city) despite the obstacles in your way. Yeah, lots of people manage it, but not everyone can.

listen, i've applied to other jobs outside of the field i've studied in, like the fire dept. being a firefighter was always one of my dreams as a kid, and i had a lot of dreams that i have tried to attain. i don't have a defeatist attitude and i believe i can make it here, where i live.

So now you say you've applied for jobs in other states? OK, fine. Good for you. Frankly, if you have the education you claim, then I find it hard to believe you can't find a job anywhere. And, for the record, I have little reason to doubt you. But you were indicating that you were against moving, and made no reference to applying out of state at any time that I can recall.

I wish you luck with the job hunt. Of course, I'm still curious what your master's degree is in.

well, i do have the education i claim (with great references too), and i am having trouble finding a job (in the private sector) in the field i studied regardless of what you believe. i teach in my field and i am totally aware of the pitfalls and setbacks that come with it. i just can't believe how judgemental you all are. a guy is having trouble finding a job and it's my fault. i'm not against moving, if i have a job lined up. otherwise moving would be stupid.

Oh yeah, this quote you said earlier you agreed with?

You are aware where it comes from originally, right?

not at all. it could be from hilter or milton friedman. that's why i said it sounds good, because i have no idea of its origin. please enlighten me. do you know the origin of judge not lest ye be judged?

[scfire86]

Help me out, do you really mean GSP and not GDP? If so, what is GSP because I can find it anywhere in this context. NY is also heavy agriculture and tourism. Unfortunately, tourism relies on people having disposable income. As the government takes more of that disposable income tourism drops.
It also hurts the agriculture. Instead of buying the expensive wine people but the cheap wine. Instead of real maple syrup they buy imitation. However, to accurately measure how well an economy does one must normalize the data. For instance A household of 10 people earning $200,000 is not as good as a household of 2 earning $100,000.

GSP stands for Gross State Product. It is the total amount of goods and services produced in that state. A State's version of the GNP. Do yourself a favor and stop thinking about how DE is a more significant economic force than CA. It isn't close.

Personally, I don't care about any other country. I only care about my country and what they are doing to me.

What makes you believe I don't?

Governments are worse, they don't have bankruptcies, they have deficits. And I can sho3w huge examples of governments mis-managing their money. Unfortunately, they get away with it by raising more taxes.

And what's your point? As I pointed out the government is us.

There is nothing wrong with supporting basic government operations. Unfortunately, our current status has a lot of extra baggage. We pay for the health care of illegal aliens. And if we are going to do that, then why not pay for the health care of everyone in the world. Our social programs are out of control. I have no problem helping someone who is down on their luck. But we have created a system where by it is passed down from generation to generation. Millions of people in this country accept it as a way of life.

See above post.

We have a world class military. We don't need it. Clinton got that half right, if only he had finished the job. We do not need to be the worlds military. We had no business going into the former Yugoslav republic, Bosnia, Kosovo, and to some extent Iraq. We went to Kuwait as they asked for help. I'm good with that. And as part of the surrender Saddam agreed to certain conditions, which he did not stick too. Talk wasn't working. Oil for food flopped miserably. We had to do something. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. Once that was done we leave. Let them fight their own battles.

I guess there is a point in there somewhere, what I have no idea. How was removing Saddam the right thing to do? In retrospect this foreign policy decision has been a disaster.

As for the delinquent taxes. The reason we have a low rate is the IRS just takes all of your stuff. In my personal situation I had a time where I became unemployed and need to survive. I took my 401k rather than run top the local welfare office. In retrospect, I should have ran to the welfare office. They raped me with taxes, followed by penalties and interest. Tried to do the right thing and got screwed for it. And now I'm back on my feet, but can't get ahead, because they take 43% of my check. And I'm sorry, but when half of the work I do goes to support the government I think we have a problem. That means that half I support the notion of a communist system, that in which you have no freedom and the government provides for you.

Welcome to America. I pay the same percent in taxes. It's not like they're only picking on you. I've never had any problems with the Feds. I don't know what you do for a living but that is a choice you made.

[jsin925]

Bin Laden declared war on us when the Saudis asked us for help in removing Iraq from Kuwait, rather than him.
Terrorism was treated largely as an issue for law enforcement all thru the '90's, when there was a stark increase in terror attacks. Trying to arrest and prosecute these savages does not work
.
Bin Laden was never a "cool cat", but war does bring about allies that other wise would never be thought of. The Soviets in Afghanistan were a larger threat at that time, to world stability. You need to look at the current events of the day. We were never "allied" with Bin Laden, the CIA just helped them stay in business.

As far as Stalin, we should have kicked his behind back to Moscow. To me, the biggest drubbing a group of people have taken are the Polish. They were invaded and occupied by Germany until 1945, and then allowed to stay under oppression for the next 50 years by the Soviets. We stood by and watched as they were never truly liberated, actually we allowed them to be occupied.

History has proven that invading the Soviet Union probably would not have been a good idea. We had a common enemy with Stalin, but to call us an ally of the USSR is a stretch. We never engaged in open hostilities with them during WWII, we provided equipment, but to compare them to the UK is a bit of a stretch.

bin laden is a psychopath, i agree. i disagree that the soviets in afghanistan were a threat to world stability, but that's just my opinion. never being allied with bin laden but giving him money and arms to fight the soviets might be a semantical argument. were we allied with the hmong when we gave them money and arms to fight the communists in laos during the secret war?

isn't there a picture of roosevelt, churchill, and stalin hanging out kicking (excuse my use of slang) logistics.

i think all of eastern europe got a raw deal after the war. i'm not familiar with the plight of the polish, but i believe you.

i don't like to call people savages, although people do commit savage acts (ted bundy, jeffery dahmer, the hutus against the tutsis in rwanda, milosevic, etc). we're deemed savages by some. we are just more efficient i guess, but i wouldn't say we are savages. in war people do savage things. such is the nature of war, that's why it sucks. bin laden's crew are well educated, crazy, psycho motherf@#kers who will stop at nothing. i have no idea how to go about defeating them, but i know iraq and afghanistan isn't the answer. history will tell.

[jsin925]

Yea, and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama.

what, no repubicans on the list. i'm sure there are some republicans you can put up there too.

[jsin925]

Where was he captured from, again?

i believe it was at the airport, but i could be wrong.

Wrong.
Dealing with terror as a "law enforcement" issue worked even less. Terrorism is an act of war, as such it should be treated as such. It is possible to cripple terror groups, eliminate their funding, dry up their infrastructure, and cause countries to not want to harbor terror groups.
Active military operations are the only way to deal with terror groups, be it with direct force or thru covert operations. History has proven that.

But yeah, I get it. We're much better off to try and talk, placate, and let these animals run roughshod over us.

it worked fine for tim mcveigh.

where in history has military operations worked against terrorism?

why is it that because i disagree with our strategy one makes the assumption that i believe we should do nothing?

[Jasper 45]

were we allied with the hmong when we gave them money and arms to fight the communists in laos during the secret war?

It's probably semantics, but in my opinion you look at the overall picture of the relationship. Bin Laden was never trust worthy, and any who dealt with him knew that.
Each situation needs to be looked at individually.

isn't there a picture of roosevelt, churchill, and stalin hanging out kicking (excuse my use of slang) logistics.

The question to ask would have been about who trusted Stalin, and who wanted to establish a lasting relationship with the Soviets post WWII. Germany was a much larger threat to world peace than 1930's USSR. They were a military might that barring a leader who was nuts, very well could have dominated much of the world.

There was also a reason why many of the German scientists were running to our troops rather than the Soviets.
I find it hard to believe that any of the western European leadership, or Roosevelt actually thought the Soviets to be a friend.

i think all of eastern europe got a raw deal after the war. i'm not familiar with the plight of the polish, but i believe you.

You're right, the whole of eastern Europe did. It was just that Poland was invaded very early on, as was France. One lived under oppression for fifty years, the other likes to forget that they were liberated.

i don't like to call people savages

I don't either, thats why I reserve it's use for those who deserve it, such as terrorist and those who support them. Terrorists and those who support them are savages.

i have no idea how to go about defeating them, but i know iraq and afghanistan isn't the answer. history will tell.

Both were havens for terror groups, providing money, logistics, as well as safe havens for terror groups. Both were open about.
You go about defeating them by killing those who choose that path faster than they can kill us. Then you give the people who live in those countries hope, and a way to get ahead. They get caught up in this crap because they have nothing else to live for, and they become easy prey.

But you are right, history will tell.

[Jasper 45]

it worked fine for tim mcveigh.

where in history has military operations worked against terrorism?

why is it that because i disagree with our strategy one makes the assumption that i believe we should do nothing?

McVeigh was a domestic case, in which our law enforcement actually has jurisdiction. That attack was entirely on our soil, we controlled all aspects of the investigation, the manhunt, and the arrest.
The FBI has no jurisdiction outside of our Nation.

Actually, using the military worked pretty well in the '80's. Once the military was shaped up following Carter, and years of neglect, President Reagen chose to use the military in this role.
As you may recall, there were a series of terror attacks all thru the early to mid 1980's. Several GI's were killed in a Berlin disco bombing, Leon Klinghoffer was killed on the Achille Lauro after he was thrown overboard in his wheel chair by Abu Abbas, and US Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered on a TWA plane that was hijacked.



All had some degree of support,approval or involvement by Libya's government and Moammar al-Ghadafi.
He established himself as a state-sponsor of terror and was the subject of a 1986 air strike by US military forces. What have you heard from Colonel Ghadafi since?

The military is also better trained, better equipped and more able to take down these savages wherever they are. Most of the Achille Lauro hijackers were essentially taken into custody by US Navy F-14's, to ensure they were truly brought to justice.
US special forces, as well as the military are in a position to deal with these situations, and these savages appropriately.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

i never asked you all to judge me, nor are you all in a position to judge me. your judgements hold no validity with me, and i'm not playing your gotcha game, as bush would say.

I'll take that as meaning you got your Masters in some field that is high in demand like Humanities, Philosophy, Foreign Studies, Ethnic Studies or some other field that companies are beating the door down to hire candidates with. But it's the US economic system's fault you can't get a job. I understand EXACTLY where you are coming from. EXACTLY.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Alright my friend, I watched. It's 8 minutes of my life I want back.

She is misrepresenting the law, plain and simple. It actually makes me mad that she uses her RN credentials to do this.

But let's go with it... lets say big brother was warehousing DNA.

Why? What would they gain ? What black helicopter conspiracy are you all suggesting?

Now, let's talk of the gains... the research into better, more accurate screening...

The diseases that are not routinely caught upon screening now, may be caught in the future.

Do you know that hospitals are currently warehousing your private medical information?

Sorry, this is alarmist conspiracy nutjob stuff.

That would be the low-bid hospital.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

well, jose padilla wasn't ripped from his home but he was held without charges, and tortured. we would never know who was ripped away from their home because the government doesn't have to acknowledge having anyone.

the war on terror is like the war on drugs, unwinnable. terrorism is a tactic, and one can't have a war against a tactic. it's kind of like saying a war on shock and awe.

You're a hoot. The US government couldn't run a free picnic correctly. Yet you want us to believe all this secret conspiracy crap that would literally take thousands of people to pull off to shut their mouth?

The war on terrorism is being won. The problem with the war is that, despite us winning, the moment we let down our guard, the war will be back on.

BTW there Skippy, are you a fire fighter?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

did i ever suggest doing nothing? no, i said it's unwinnable as a war, which it is. terrorism is a tactic. in palestine they use terrorism as a tactic. the ira used terrorism as a tactic. the basque used terrorism as a tactic. shock and awe was a tactic and it didn't work.

you sound like a comic book, "For in the end, good must prevail." next you'll be calling people evildoers like my 9 yr old when he writes his stories. those cats struck the world trade center in '93 and waited 8 yrs until they struck again. they developed their tactics over time. it might be another 8 years until they strike again. who is the enemy? i read a book (i forget what it was called) about special ops in afghanistan, and they said they don't know who they're fighting, who the enemy is or where they are exactly located. the majority of hijackers were from saudi arabia, so why not go to war with saudi arabia?

interpol would probably do a better job. i don't have any answers, but i know things are bad.

the american government puts bad people on our payroll like sadaam hussein and bin laden. hussein was cool when he was fighting with iran, and bin laden was cool when he was fighting the russians. we helped put the taliban in power and now they're bad. these people have always been bad, but if they're on our side they're cool. stalin was bad but he was cool during world war two. and don't say the rhetoric about my enemy's enemy is my friend crap either. that's bull***** when you just end up fighting the guy in the end.

i've never been to war, maybe you have, but my brother fought in the first gulf war, and he's not down with war. did you watch the winter soldiers hearings? a lot of people who fought over there don't see the point. why are we in iraq in the first place?

The Palestinians use terrorism as a tactic and are losing. The IRA used it and they were defeated. The Basque used it and they were defeated. I do not see your point.

Shock and awe didn't work? Sure seems to me that the country of Iraq is far better off today than they were in 2003. It sure worked as far as I can see.

The terrorists who committed murder at the WTC were not "cats". They were our enemy. An enemy who declared war on the US. We didn't go to war with Saudi Arabia because there was, and is, no evidence that it was State-sponsored terrorism by Saudi Arabia.

You do understand that INTERPOL really doesn't have people who do anything working for them, right? No, of course you don't. INTERPOL is essentially a coalition of member countries. This coalition allegedly coordinates investigations among the law enforcement agencies of those countries. They are, despite occassoional succeses, highly ineffective.

When you join the US military, they do not ask you to "see the point". This is not a Fortune 500 company. They tell you to shut up and do as you are told. If that offends someone, it is best that they do not join the military.

Is anyone here "down with war"?

You never answered me. Are you a FF?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

McVeigh was a domestic case, in which our law enforcement actually has jurisdiction. That attack was entirely on our soil, we controlled all aspects of the investigation, the manhunt, and the arrest.
The FBI has no jurisdiction outside of our Nation.

Actually, using the military worked pretty well in the '80's. Once the military was shaped up following Carter, and years of neglect, President Reagen chose to use the military in this role.
As you may recall, there were a series of terror attacks all thru the early to mid 1980's. Several GI's were killed in a Berlin disco bombing, Leon Klinghoffer was killed on the Achille Lauro after he was thrown overboard in his wheel chair by Abu Abbas, and US Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered on a TWA plane that was hijacked.



All had some degree of support,approval or involvement by Libya's government and Moammar al-Ghadafi.
He established himself as a state-sponsor of terror and was the subject of a 1986 air strike by US military forces. What have you heard from Colonel Ghadafi since?

The military is also better trained, better equipped and more able to take down these savages wherever they are. Most of the Achille Lauro hijackers were essentially taken into custody by US Navy F-14's, to ensure they were truly brought to justice.
US special forces, as well as the military are in a position to deal with these situations, and these savages appropriately.

Shock and awe sure worked with ol' Moamar (sp) didn't it?

[giweff]

They all make over 100,000 $$ a year. Prob more for most of them b/c of other things. They don't give a **** about us and how much we pay for gas. The can afford it. Most Americans can't go on vacation, they are taking six weeks. Must be nice anyone on here get six weeks off at a time? I don't care if you are a dem or a Rep what they are doing is wrong. They should be at work trying to do something. And kicking everyone out is the biggest piece of $hit thing I have ever head of. What is our country coming to.

[Tomcat1066]

it's also the same economy that put pinochet in power, and the reason why south america is moving away from it. what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. brazil and venezeula have paid off their national debt. can america say the same?

National debt is irrelevant. Individual economic freedom is the topic. Please try and keep up.

And yes, there are warts in any economy. However, any socialist economy requires sky high taxes in time as people realize that natural rewards available in a free market economy are gone.

As for Pinochet? That's politics, not economics. There is a difference after all.

have you ever bought fair trade coffee, or chocolate? no socialism involved, all capitalism.

And again I ask, fair trade is fair for whom? I used an example that you apparently skipped over completely, so I guess I can assume that it's exactly how fair trade works?

if i apply for jobs in my field where i live, there are obviously jobs in my field where i live. my point is that the economy sucks right now. it's more about who you know and not what you know (in the private sector). i have a friend who has an mba and he can't find a full time job. he works three part-time jobs, one delivering subs. regardless of what my major was, the answer you all would give would be to move. if it were that easy, don't you think i would have done that. i have a son who is type 1 diabetic so my wife and i can't go anytime without health insurance. you all want to be judgemental, and offer up tough love solutions.

Sorry to hear about your son, but you know, every time we turn around you've got another sob story. My God...they could make a movie of the week about you

As for jobs, there are apparently insufficient jobs for your field, hence using the term "no jobs". But fine there Captain Semantics, whatever you want. There are insufficient jobs. Same for your MBA friend. And your answer is simply "the economy sucks". Guess I'll tell that to my friend who just got her first job with her MBA.

listen, i've applied to other jobs outside of the field i've studied in, like the fire dept. being a firefighter was always one of my dreams as a kid, and i had a lot of dreams that i have tried to attain. i don't have a defeatist attitude and i believe i can make it here, where i live.

And just where did anyone call you defeatist?

well, i do have the education i claim (with great references too), and i am having trouble finding a job (in the private sector) in the field i studied regardless of what you believe. i teach in my field and i am totally aware of the pitfalls and setbacks that come with it. i just can't believe how judgemental you all are. a guy is having trouble finding a job and it's my fault. i'm not against moving, if i have a job lined up. otherwise moving would be stupid.

Obviously, you have the education you claim, because your mastery of capitalization (something my 7 year old son has mastered) and and reluctance to tell us what it's in

As for us being judgmental, we're not the one's who offered our situation up as an example of how rough things are. You did. When you use yourself as an example of the evils of the free market economy, this will happen. Every time, on almost every board.

not at all. it could be from hilter or milton friedman. that's why i said it sounds good, because i have no idea of its origin. please enlighten me. do you know the origin of judge not lest ye be judged?

Yeah, Matthew 7:1

And FYI, the quote you agreed with was Karl Marx.

[ChiefKN]

Good question George...

Here are the outstanding questions that Jsin has ducked/dodged/failed to answer:

1. Are you a firefighter?

2. What is your master's degree?

3. Did you know that the quote I asked was from Karl Marx?

4. What economic system in this world is better than capitalism?

5. Who is fair trade fair to?

6. Are you really Nancy Pelosi?


I'm most curious about question 1.

[Tomcat1066]

Chief,

In all fairness, he did answer that he didn't know who the quote was from.

Of course, he only had to be asked twice on that one

[jsin925]

Good question George...

Here are the outstanding questions that Jsin has ducked/dodged/failed to answer:

1. Are you a firefighter?

2. What is your master's degree?

3. Did you know that the quote I asked was from Karl Marx?

4. What economic system in this world is better than capitalism?

5. Who is fair trade fair to?

6. Are you really Nancy Pelosi?


I'm most curious about question 1.

1.not to put all my eggs in one basket, i am testing to become a firefighter. the city i live in is hiring for the first time in 5 yrs and 5 yrs ago i was in graduate school so i missed my chance then to apply. it was one of my dreams as a kid to be a firefighter, but i tried to pursue my other dreams first.

2.there are more jobs in the field i studied than there are firefighter jobs. you know, i'm just not going to talk about myself anymore. i wasn't offering up any sob stories, and i didn't ask for any sympathy. just because things work for one person doesn't mean that it'll work for the next. just because someone has a degree in something and found a job in that field doesn't mean it should be just as easy for the next person to. and didn't i say i have an interview comming up with the city. i was talking about the private sector. i guess i learned my lesson. never talk about oneself on these things because people are very judgemental, and love to play the gotcha game, to quote bush. call me a ducker, dodger, i don't care.

3.didn't know the quote was from karl marx, but i can agree with things a person says even if i don't completely agree with the person. i agree with some things bush says even though i don't agree with him completely. besides, i said it sounds good, and i don't think karl marx was an evil person.

4.depends on where one lives. norway is pretty much socialist and it works out fine for them. venezuela is bolivarian socialist and it works out fine for the majority of people there, that's why hugo chavez has constantly been re-elected, and the rank and file of their military put him back in power when the military brass and the elites tried there coup in 2002. south america is moving towards socialism, and electing presidents who aren't part of the elite (chavez, morales, lula, and the lady in chile, i forgot her name, who is a socialist, single mother, agnostic, and i believe she was tortured under pinochet). what works for the goose doesn't always work for the gander.

5.in terms of coffee, both parties, the roaster and the coffee pickers. the coffee roasters are usually american and they buy the coffee beans at a fair market price from the pickers. i went to chiapas, mexico with a local coffee roaster, met with the mayan coffee cooperative they buy their beans from and watched the whole process. it's all capitalism, but done fairly. everyone wins. usually coffee beans are bought for a pittance by large corporations and the quality of the beans are awful. fair trade costs more, but the quality is better. some of starbucks' coffees are fair trade.

6.you caught me, i'm really nancy pelosi. i'm slumming on the internet.

[jsin925]

What have you heard from Colonel Ghadafi since?

last i heard he was going to give louis farrakhan a billion dollars. and didn't reagan drop a bomb on his palace and kill his kids.

i think comparing ghadafi to bin laden is comparing apples and oranges. ghadafi didn't have the network that bin laden does. maybe i'm wrong, but i don't think ghadafi had terror cells all over the world, and used islam to justify his actions.

bin laden is a megalomaniac, ghadafi actually ruled over a country. if we kill bin laden al qaeda will still go on. bin laden could be dead right now for all we know. ghadafi was like cutting the head off of the snake. but i could be wrong.

[Tomcat1066]

2.there are more jobs in the field i studied than there are firefighter jobs. you know, i'm just not going to talk about myself anymore. i wasn't offering up any sob stories, and i didn't ask for any sympathy. just because things work for one person doesn't mean that it'll work for the next. just because someone has a degree in something and found a job in that field doesn't mean it should be just as easy for the next person to. and didn't i say i have an interview comming up with the city. i was talking about the private sector. i guess i learned my lesson. never talk about oneself on these things because people are very judgemental, and love to play the gotcha game, to quote bush. call me a ducker, dodger, i don't care.

And yet again you fail to answer this basic question. You say the economy sucks, and use your fruitless job search as an example, yet you won't even tell us what field you are seeking employment in? Come on...do you even have a masters?

3.didn't know the quote was from karl marx, but i can agree with things a person says even if i don't completely agree with the person. i agree with some things bush says even though i don't agree with him completely. besides, i said it sounds good, and i don't think karl marx was an evil person.

That quote is one of the guiding principles of communism, socialism, and pretty much every economic system and advocates stealing from those who have been able to achieve and give to those who can't/won't.

5.in terms of coffee, both parties, the roaster and the coffee pickers. the coffee roasters are usually american and they buy the coffee beans at a fair market price from the pickers. i went to chiapas, mexico with a local coffee roaster, met with the mayan coffee cooperative they buy their beans from and watched the whole process. it's all capitalism, but done fairly. everyone wins. usually coffee beans are bought for a pittance by large corporations and the quality of the beans are awful. fair trade costs more, but the quality is better. some of starbucks' coffees are fair trade.

So, tell me then, if you are having such trouble with the job hunt, how are you able to travel out of country to meet with these people? If you can afford to travel out of country, how come you say it would be to expensive to move?

And, for the record, what you claim to have witnessed happens every day in a free market economy as well. The corporations who pay pennies for inferior quality beans are a great example of why free market works...you get what you pay for. In addition, if they weren't buying these inferior quality beans, where would they go? What would the growers sell?

The quality beans are bought by those willing to pay for the quality. That's free market at work. Call it "fair" market all you want, but it's free market. They are free to sell to whomever they want, and the buyers are free to buy from whoever they want. That is the win/win.

When governments impose regulations designed to create "fair" trade, what happens, using your coffee example, is that buyers who can't afford to buy the superior quality beans petition the government, saying they can't compete with company X who is paying more for the beans. The government steps in and tells the grower that they can't sell the beans for more than Company Y can afford to pay, or require them to sell to company Y, despite the fact that the grower could get more.

You keep mentioning Milton Friedman. Have you even read any of his work?