| Q. | Can you guys proof read this and give me your suggestions? | Related Search:
Words & Wordplay | | | Being an Average Joe means that one meets the standards of the average American. The United States Department of Commerce measures these standards for each American with statistics. These standards can range very broadly, but in retrospect, the typical American should meet four social norms. These standards are categorized in family situation, values, income, education, and social class.
Remember the days when the ideal family is being married with two children? Not anymore, today a person must be married and have no kids to be considered average, but before the end of ones lifetime they must get divorced and then get remarried. The first marriage should take place before you turn 26 years old. Anything less is unacceptable.
Considering that the 80% of American identify as being Christian, ideally the Average Joe must have Christianity to play a large role in their life. One also must registered as a democrat, but has more a centralist viewpoint on social and fiscal issues.
This isnt all of the essay just 3 paragraphs.
| | A. | put a period after "Not anymore." It is a complete sentence, then Capitalize Today.
after average put a " ; " (semi colon) then however, to be considered normal one must get divorced and remarried by the end of their lifetime. "
and make sure you put all your numbers in word form like "eighty percent " insted of 80% and twenty-sixth instead of 26th
Your first marriage should occur before your 26th birthday. Anything less is unacceptable.
turn American to Americans
and add themselves between Americans and identify.
then ideally the Average Joe relies on Christianity to play a large roll in their life. The Average Joe must also be registered as a Democrat but have a more centralist viewpoint on social and fiscal issues.
And rember to structure your essay. Your First paragarh is a guide to how the rest of the essay is layed out, then your fillar paragraphs, then your conclusion (wich summerizes the entire essay)
Good Report man, Makes me happy to be Joe Canadian :P our average is a bit different. | | | |
| Q. | How many years would you say it will take before the United States are run by descendants of Mexicans? | Related Search:
Immigration | | | Were are seeing it already , The position of the head of the Justice Department and the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is held by the son of Mexican Immigrants, one of the second largest Cities, Los Angeles, in the U.S is run by a Mexican American, the State of California, with one of the largest Economies in the world is part run by a Mexican American, the Sheriff of Los Ageles is a Mexican American, the list goes on and on in every State of the U.S, some of the Fortune 500 companies in the States are run by Mexican Americans, and it has been proven that they make some of the greatest Leaders and Politicians. Oh and lets not forget the other Latino Leaders, like the Cuban U.S Secretary of Commerce and former Kellog's Chief, the list goes on with them too. So how long would you say?
| | A. | In my eyes they are just Americans. They will do what every single politician in office has done, no better, no worse (well once you hit bottom the only way is up). | | | |
| Q. | Is forcing everyone to go "digital" just another example of how private interests our using our tax dollars... | Related Search:
Government | | | ...and government coercion to make all Americans pay for access to our public airwaves?
[Link]  /
[Link] /
Note: This news of being forced to pay to convert to digital is coming from the US Dept of Commerce.
[Link] >
[Link]
| | A. | Who is telling us, and why, and for whose benefit. I was perfectly happy before I 'being Super-sized'.
Why is our govt. improving our life without our vote? | | | |
| Q. | Comment to US Gov on selling off internet to private DNS at $10,000 per domain? | Related Search:
Politics | | | "Neither is the idea of taking ICANN/DSNO funding requirements and dividing
them by the number of ccTLD's to come up with some number, like $ 10,000 per
year."
[Link]
"The United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) seeks comments on the continued transition to the private sector of the technical coordination and management of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system (DNS).
Comments before February 15, 2008."
[Link]
"negotiated agreements among the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the U.S. Dept of Com, and Network Solutions, Inc."
[Link]
The Truth Auctioning current names:::
[Link]
| | A. | It's very consistent with the rest of the Bush administration's privatization schemes, and somehow it will result in an unregulated hodgepodge, poor service and higher prices for consumers. | | | |
| Q. | United States Cabinet? | Related Search:
Government | | | Im doing some research on the United States Cabinet and for a project i have to make my own Cabinet.
I was wondering who you guys would vote for the United States Cabinet...such as...
Department of Homeland Security, Defense, Labor, State, Education, Energy, Transportation, Health, Treasury, Security, Veteran Affairs, Housing and Urban Develpment, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Justice.
Please nominate celebraties or ppl well known, such as Oprah, Bill Gates, ect.
Thanks.
Someone plz answer. lol i need ideas. thanks.
| | A. | Oprah has the USA fooled... she owns major majority of all the stuff she promotes on her show... even the publishing company of the books in her bookclub.... just a note.
I would nominate:
Kucinich first then anyone he recommended. | | | |
| Q. | The bush admin. has steered our nation into a north american union without our consent, Is this treason? | Related Search:
Law & Ethics | | | 109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 487
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 28, 2006
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;
Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
(2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
(3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
| | A. | To quote my favourite Canadian Prime Minister.
FUDDLE DUDDLE !!! | | | |
| Q. | Why shouldn't the United States, Canada and Mexico be combined? What is so wrong with the concept of the Amero? | Related Search:
Law & Ethics | | | I am choosing to oppose the following bill:
---
I: Whereas: The United States, Canada and Mexico all engage in significant international trade with one another.
II: Whereas: the Euro improved commerce, tourism, friendship, and democratic principles within the European Union.
III: Whereas: The American Dollar, Canadian Dollar, and Mexican Peso are all relatively weak independently.
IV: Let it be resolved that: the United States shall propose the creation of the Amero, joint American, Canadian and Mexican currency, promote its acceptance to the Canadian and Mexican government, and tie the Amero to the economies of each other party.
V: The Amero will replace the American Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso as the official currency of each nation.
VI: The creation of the Amero shall be supervised by the Department of the Treasure, in conjunction with the equivalent Canadian and Mexican agencies.
VII: All laws in conflict with this legislation shall be declared null and void.
VIII: This bill shall be enacted immediately following ratification by all involved governments.
---
1) What is wrong with what this bill proposes? How is it unconstitutional?
2)Why shouldn't this bill be passed? Think of 3-5 strong and specific reasons why it shouldn't be passed.
3) What bad things would happen to the United States, Canada and/or Mexico if this bill was passed? In what ways would it be harmful?
4) In what ways does this bill simply make no sense? How is it preposterous?
If you do a little research on the topic, you'll find people opposing it and not saying specifically why. I'd like to find out why.
Good luck, and thanks for all your help.
-Andrew
I would love to discuss this with any of you. My Yahoo! screenname is wiltzandrew1989, and my AIM is wiltzandrew.
| | A. | 1)So many things are wrong with the bill. First of all, to have a common currency, we’d need to work in harmony politically, so we'd end up having to form our own version of the EU (Europe's Economic Union). Our Constitution is simply not geared for something like that). Our national sovereignty cannot be breached. Our legislation cannot be influenced by foreign nations.
2)First, Mexico would be to a North American Union what Italy is to the EU: a huge anchor around our necks. Italy perenially holds the EU back economically with its erratic and sluggish growth. A lot of people mistakenly believe the EU is some invulnerable powerhouse, but the truth is this: the Euro is losing value against many currencies. According to an article called “That Shrinking Feeling” (page 51 of the Economist Magazine, August 16-22, 2008 edition) “Europe is struggling to stay above water. Figures released on August 14th showed that the euro-area economy shrank at an annualised rate of 0.8% in the second quarter…” At least the U.S. economy grew by about 2%; the EU’s actually shrank.
Mexico is so rife with corruption, it could never be incorporated into an agreement like the EU (or in our case, the North American Union). These types of agreements are typically hundreds of pages long, with thousands of rules and regulations. Mexico would never properly comply with them. It’s just too corrupt and it government so incompetent, that even if they made a good-faith effort, they couldn’t handle the complicated rules.
Even with the added economic power of two partners, the American dollar would still be stronger and more stable alone. Part of a currency’s value is based on how much of it is in circulation, so with Mexico’s poor growth, it would just devalue the currency because it is not adding much to the overall economic growth.
3)As I stated earlier, you can’t just issue a single currency for multiple sovereign nations and not have some shared political entity governing the rules of such a union. Hence, the U.S. would lose sovereignty. Illegal immigration is a big problem, and immigration always surges when these types of agreements are enacted. Just look at the EU. You had the majority of college graduates from Poland immediately leaving to work in other countries because suddenly, you have easier access to employment in between the countries under the economic treaty.
As soon as the EU was initiated, one thing happened immediately: property prices skyrocketed. This has now spread to the entire EU. However, the citizens of these countries don’t earn more money, and hence young people starting out in the workforce have little chance of buying property with these inflated prices. Mexico, for example, could be hurt because many Americans might decide oceanfront property in Mexico is now a good deal, which would displace many Mexicans who can no longer afford to live in these areas.
This bill is preposterous because you can’t have an economic union without a political union. The EU is governed by a bunch of hard-nosed bureaucrats in Brussels (Belgium). The laws that each member country must abide by are very strict and sometimes are ridiculously expensive to comply with. For example, chicken farmers in Poland had to completely redo their chicken hatcheries because the doors had to be a certain size, and the lights had to be of a certain variety and wattage. The people who rent boats and gondolas in Italy (and remember, this is not always in “tourist” areas; some of these places are in remote mountain areas) had to comply with handicap access. It is not economically feasible for some small entrepreneur with a few small boats to provide handicap access, especially when it is a complete waste; you will never have a wheelchair-bound tourist wanting to rent a boat in the mountains of Italy.
| | | |
|
|
