[quote]From economist Walter Williams:

What about claims of a disappearing middle class? Let's do some detective work. Controlling for inflation, in 1967, 8 percent of households had an annual income of $75,000 and up; in 2003, more than 26 percent did. In 1967, 17 percent of households had a $50,000 to $75,000 income; in 2003, it was 18 percent. In 1967, 22 percent of households were in the $35,000 to $50,000 income group; by 2003, it had fallen to 15 percent. During the same period, the $15,000 to $35,000 category fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the under $15,000 category fell from 21 percent to 16 percent. The only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that if the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes.[/quote]


In 1967 one income produced those statistics, in 2008 it takes two. Why is it no one thinks beyond the surface as soon as some one states a statistic?

Two people both like you. One is more fun, the other is more stable.

• I'd play my nights and days away - FUN!
• I'm looking for something a serious - STABLE

You didn't give me the BOTH option. I wouldn't choose between them but would honestly tell them both that I wanted them both. Either they would be ok with that or one would not accept it and go away solving the issue. The remaining one would already know where she stood so that if I did find some one else down the road who filled that gap in our family we could add her then.

Of the joke "A white man is driving a car. A black man crosses the road, and is struck by the car, entering it through the window. The black man is charged with breaking and entering", which of the following statements is true:

• It's racist because it relies on skin color

• It's anti-racist, because the court is corrupt

• The joke is neither racist nor anti racist

• I don't get the joke.

Can anyone say GET OVER IT? I'm Jewish, you don't hear me crying that the German's are keeping me down. If the courts are biased either fix them or if you can't move. We couldn't fix the German courts so those of us who could left. If you think that the United States is that biased against you then go elsewhere and start over. Our people did it for thousands of years, and now that we finally have a homeland again everyone wants us to start giving up pieces of it. I'm tired of hearing about racisim, adapt and overcome.

In response to I AM my #1 Match! by hyena9:

Which makes perfect sense, unless you take into account that I only match myself 95%....

I guess that means that there's 5% of me that I'm completely incompatible with.
Is it the tapeworm in my belly????
Or the goblin in my brain???
Or the sentimental bastard in my heart????
Or the lush in my liver???

Oh my, how - according to the Encarta Dictionary: English (North American) - does the word "lush" mean:

producing a lot of vigorous rich young growth;
tasting rich, sweet, and juicy;
with luxurious decoration and furnishings;
written in a dramatic style that is intended to produce an emotional response;
voluptuously sensual in appearance or behavior

& ALSO mean:

somebody who regularly drinks too much alcohol

at the same time???

The English language sure is strange & wonderful & stupid & beautiful & LUSH!!!!

I don't want to match myself. What I am looking for and what I am are two different things. I want some one who is compatable with me but not a match. Why do I need some one who has the same strenghts as I have? I need some one who is strong in my weak spots (yeah I know I don't really have those) and can deal with it when they are weak in areas that are my strenghts.

Do you normally treat other people as you'd like to be treated?

• Yes
• No
• Maybe / not sure

It's far more important to treat them as they want to be treated. Everyone doesnt have the same tastes.

Is homosexuality a sin?

• Yes, it's a sin
• No, it's not a sin

The only thing actually forbidden is male homosexuality. For women, so long as they eventually fulfill the "be fruitful and multiply" commandment no big deal. So two widdows may live together and comfort each other assuming they've already had their children, or two wives of the same husband, or even girl friends who share a few caresses during girls night out could even be rationalized so long as the men in their lives knew and did not object. I have a problem with any form of dishonesty or sneaking around.

Which would you rather lose?

• the right to bear arms
• the right to vote

GRRRR.... Bad question. "The one who will sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and loose both." Ben Franklin was right then and he's right now.

How important is voting to you?

• Extremely important
• Very important
• Not so important
• Not at all important

The right to vote is important. The act of voting is not so important. Our government has been co-opted by the wealthy elite that now control both sides of the public debate so the act of voting is ineffectual. The right to change that non-violently is very important. Eventually enough people will chaff under the yoke of an over bearing government and so long as they can "vote the bums out" we can avoid violence.

Is it wrong to cultivate/manufacture illegal drugs?

• Yes, always
• No, never
• Sometimes

Ok, it is not morally wrong in and of itself. As they should be a legal option for a concenting adult. The risk they pose because of their illegality to a family is unacceptable.

Do you put more weight in science or faith?

• Science
• Faith
• Equally in both

I do not see these as opposed. Both should be a search for what is and should not be mutually exclusive. If I had to pick I would say faith based upon facts is more important than science which can only be as good as your observations.