Riogho

I agree with everything the O.P. said. Unfortunately, as every rant can be, it is generalizing. But you know what, generalizing is okay. If 95% of the terrorists bombing shit are wearing turbans, I'm going to be wary of people wearing turbans. It applies in the stupidity sense too. You can consider yourself lucky though. You arn't surrounded by these people 10 hours a day, 5 days a week in a terrible land called 'school'. The benefit is honours classes tend to segregate. Oh well, take a small bit of happiness in what I do as well. When you find yourself hating them, know, deep down, that they are trash, and their entire life they live is going to suck. And if you're into slavery consider owning one.

It would be neat if you could spell presidential.

The problem with the progessive taxation is defining who is rich and who isn't. Obama says 300k - 250k is rich, Joe Biden says 150k is defined as rich, and Bill Richardson says that 120k is defined as rich. I don't know about you, but where I live (west virginia, very rural area), 120 thousand is very well off. However, 120 thousand and a family of 4 living in New York City isn't rich by any definition of the word. Thats why it'd be so hard to decide where to redistribute the wealth, etc. That is why in the mind of the constituion, that people should make their own life for them (if they choose to live in NYC, so be it, or if they choose to have 50 kids, so be it), but you shouldn't reward them because of those choices, or hinder them either.

I can't vote for Joe. Do you have any idea how long-winded those presidential addresses would be?

There are dozens of different 'Preon' Theories out there, none which of really provide anything we don't really know.

Deceiving the public is being a Clinton. Saying whatever you can to win, and not actually backing any of it.

I always considered fair to be a synonym of equal.

cotton gin It looks like a really crappy spectrophotometer.

My family is in 250,000 dollars of debt due to a scolliosis surgery that was performed on my sister. That is more than our house is worth. Just because it completely sucks balls, doesn't make universal healthcare RIGHT. Something can be good, or nice, and still not be right.

I refuse to vote for Obama because of this issue. He was asked if every american should have health coverage, and he said 'yes, healthcare is a right to every american'. Health care has never been, and never should be, a right. Freedom of Assembly Freedom to Bear Arms Freedom of Speech Freedom of Press Freedom of Religion Those are basic human rights because they are what makes you, you. And they are FREE. The minute a 'right' costs someone else something, it is not a right. If you can't do it for yourself, than you don't deserve it. We need to keep what is ours, earn what is ours, and stop asking for what is someone elses.

The problem with that is that a law would have to be passed to do this. And who passes the laws? The Bi-partisan congress that doesn't want to have their seat total lowered.

But society needs a caste system in order to survive. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they deserve to be rich, and the government shouldn't discriminate against you just because you have money. If the poor people get up to middle class living standard than all that does it re-define the lower class. We've seen it time and time again, you cannnot have everyone on the same page, there must be a caste system, but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair. And if it's a percentage based tax system, the rich ARE paying more, because they CAN pay more. And as for the cost of room and board, its just about the same for everyone. A rich person lives in a 1/2 million dollar mansion, and a poor person in a trailer.

Option one is very much biased. There should be an option that more corresponds to the title of this thread. Real or manufactured? Obama will be elected because he can deceive millions of people into thinking that he'll be a good president. Not because of vote rigging. And not because we need his change.

If you want a good Chem 1 textbook, I reccomend Zumdahl/Zumdahl (Version 7). It's the one I use.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111655/Americans-Split-Redistributing-Wealth-Taxing-Rich.aspx In this Gallup article it says that 58% of Americans are for spreading the wealth, while 37% of americans are against it. Mind you, this 'spreading the wealth' that gallup polled on was by levying heavy taxes on the rich and giving to the poor. Am I the only one terribly outraged by this? There is no way that is can be right to take someone's money, just because they have a lot of it, and give it to the poorer people. They earned that money, it is theirs, it is fundamentally wrong to take it, just to supplement someone who doesn't work hard enough/isn't smart enough to get a better job. Mind you, welfare is a completely different thing here, I am not bashing that. But levying higher taxes on someone just because they are rich? The best tax system is a % per income. They take 30% of your money you earn. End of story. Taxing a rich person 40% just because they are rich and making everyone else pay 20% is not right. Uhg, I've been rambling, but it just makes me feel like the government is playing Robin Hood. And Robin Hood was an outlaw.

If it's a particle of light going faster than the speed of light than isn't it going faster than itself?

They can go as fast as they frikkin want to, they don't exist.

From my understanding, Hydrogen Bonding isn't bonding at all. It is an intermolecular force between the mostly positive Hydrogen(attatched to something such as H2O) and another negatively charged source. A good example is water, the electronegativity (Electronegativity is a measure of how strongly an atom pulls on outside electrons) is so much stronger in oxygen than in hydrogen, so hydrogens electron spends most of it's time around the oxygen atom, making the positive end of the molecule be attracted to the negative oxygens of other atoms, the attraction isn't strong enough to have bonding occur, though.

Slow down there snail I thought the edge of the universe was expanding? How can the universe not have an edge if at once it was nothing? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't understand.

You have to be careful in saying that just because the photon has no charge it doesn't have an anti-particle. Neutrino's and Antineutrino's both have zero electric charge, but when a neutrino interacts with a W-boson it produces a negative lepton, while an antineutrino performs the same interaction it produces a positive lepton. The important thing to note is that their spins are different. Though, once more spin isn't the tell-tale sign as well (electrons can be spin-up and spin-down)

You also have to think, that if all the chinese people are out of jobs, which pay less than our anyway, that they can't afford near as much gas as we can. So the fact that they make so little money anyway, and now they are all dropping jobs the demand is dropping. It's correlated with why our demand is dropping, prices are too high for us to afford. You have to remember the world is in recession, not just the U.S.. So when the recession ends, oil goes back up.

Her outfits do seem a little mainstream to me... maybe not... maverick-y enough.

We should just hang criminals, then they wouldn't want to vote at all.

That's more than they spend on advertising in most states! The amazing thing is, it seems she is always wearing that same blind-your-eyes red outfit. PALIN POWER!

Except that energy is quantized.