Saryctos

Isn't there a large latino population in TX aswell? I believe the language barrier probably isn't helping those scores. On military spending. How much of those billions are going into the economy? I am under the assumption that almost every dollar spent on defense is purchasing American made goods or services.

De-unionize

Quite telling of the world at the same time really...

The joys of voting in Ann Arbor "Don't forget to vote straight ticket democrat!" says the group of people standing ON the line that says no political jibber jabber beyond this point. Handing out "literature" as they called it. It was just a picture of the ballot with all the circles filled in for every democrat.

On almost every ad I saw, there were lists of votes whenever they said something that their target did. Whether or not those were well aimed accusations I left up to people who had the time to care =P

We get to keep our doctors after they get sued for malpractice(which in turn have to pay insurance costs which is passed on to the customer). We get healthy illegal occupants(Illegal to turn away emergency patients, even if they can't pay, which in turn increases costs for everyone else). We(healthy people) get to pay for the old and sick through shared costs of insurance. Health insurance in this country is run exactly like social security. The young pay for the old, hoping that there will be enough people to pay for them once it's their turn. The problem with the healthcare industry is the insurance. There needs to be a better way to pay for the care that doesn't involve as much waste spending. Think of the costs that could be eliminated by cutting out the insurance industry, there's plenty of money spilling out the edges. If all the money being spent on healthcare went to the actually entities providing the care think how much the cost would go down. There's also regulation issues(iirc; I remember talking with my paramedic roommate about this, so I'm not sure if it's well rooted in fact, or just sentiment from doing the med school thing) It sounds like there is no 'thrift' healthcare. You'll always be paying for the best and greatest that's available in your area. There is a ethical thing about allowing cheaper service on the market, in that it creates a rift between 'poor care', and 'rich care'. Which is certainly an arguable point, but I feel that having lower end care would be better than none at all. There's a lot wrong with the healthcare system in this country, and very little with the actual care. The big gaping holes stem from the framework in which we're trying to make it work.

My favorite is when ads say "so-and-so voted against helping children!" Then you look up the bill and it was something that everyone voted down because it had a silly rider or something like that. It pains me to think that so many ads are so transparent yet more than likely >50% of the people watching it don't realize what a waste of breath it really was.

That's an interesting article, it lists the downside of the McCain plan as people of higher risk paying more for health care because the healthy people won't be shelling out as much money into the insurance system...

Since 1968?

The federal gov't should be more of an auditing position. Watching money flows and listening to what people want, then sending their cries for help to the people who can do something about it. Sort of like the largest middle man agency ever. EDIT: federal added and italicized because I wasn't thinking in depth about local and state level with respect to this thread.

I think this could have been avoided if he had only realized earlier that the internet is not a truck...

Living around Ann Arbor and watching TV through bunny ears I get detroit and toledo stations. Almost no political ads from the D, but when I watch Toledo station I am assaulted by them almost twice a commercial break! It's crazy I tells ya. I'm almost willing to just say **** the whole thing and keep Bush in office, better for people to keep hating him and realize that just voting someone into office to change what they themselves could do is only going to breed more complaining whiney people who refuse to help themselves. Seems like the election is just a proxy war of minds with no net gain in the end. You can raise 151 million dollars in a month but can't seem to get funding for government programs? take that money and send it to congress with a bill, see what they say to free money...

Sigh, Ron Paul '12:eyebrow:

What about socialism under a highly automated economy(>50% unemployment)?

The wording is correct, if you are a convicted felon you are unable to vote. Felonies are usually more serious crimes. The reasoning being that if someone can't follow the current laws why should they be a part in the creation process of something they themselves won't abide by.

Another angle is that the more nuclear waste we create, the more funding towards getting rid of it or containing it. The more funding going into containing radiation the safer space travel becomes(I heard that radiation is a big hurdle for long ranged manned spaceflight). I think the best solution for electricity in this country would be a stronger decentralization of the power grid. Get more smaller generation facilities. Make it easier for households and businesses to 'meter out', allowing excess energy back onto the grid. I don't mean getting rid of the big plants/energy farms, but the idea of having a more resilient infrastructure means less catastrophic black outs and less waste energy over transmission lines.

So you wouldn't want more legos because you'd have to spend more time putting them together? When I worked in an automotive plant I saw people plenty eager to work more hours. There's also the fact that even though wages are somewhat arbitrary, they're based off of some kind of demand. If someone works only 1 hour for 1k there's probably a good reason it's costing that much otherwise they wouldn't be getting paid. Time is the one true currency =P

Simply put, Republicans spend money on building the house, then the Dems live in it without expanding...just paying it off without adding to it. The more money you spend now the more money it can make you later on. Paying off the debt sounds like a reasonable idea until you think of what all that money can become if it's spent on creating more wealth. I'm also pleased with that little quote at the bottom of the graph, because it's quite accurate. Democrats are the big spenders, Republicans the big investors

The real problem? no president has had facial hair in quite some time. more mustache, more Iraqi friendship

DictatorialCommunistUtopianism?

Or in this case, shouldn't be allowed not to do. Certain freedoms can be withheld to maintain a working society, however the importance is understanding the difference between what I've heard described as 'positive' and 'negative' freedoms. Telling someone they can't do something is different than telling someone that they must do something.

Why is Russia getting so pissed off about this? If there were to be a nuclear exchange I highly doubt the ~10 missiles blocked(best case) would really change much with the other thousands of missiles swinging around the defense.

Why not drill ANWR under the conditions that a % of the profits will go to funding alternative energy solutions.

I can empathize with this sentiment. It's actually what has turned me off from posting most of the time(or at least turned me into a drive by quasi-troll:-p) This doesn't mean that this doesn't have merit. Requiring links for so many things keeps the integrity of the politics forums in line. I may not post much, but I certainly read others' posts every day. I wouldn't be coming back if I didn't think it was a great place for political discourse. There's no requirement to provide all these sources and links to make a post. However, don't expect to win any arguments that way. It has more to do with ego than anything. Don't post unless you make it a good one, seems to be a mantra around these parts(and that makes sense). Sure you could skip taking all the time you need to properly articulate your arguments, but then your ego eats at you. "I didn't make a good post, no one will listen, they'll think I'm an idiot, they'll think they're right but they're really not!". The process of finding links to support your view to actually present to people of differing opinions is much harder than simply finding links that reinforce something you already think. Thank you for putting it so poignantly. For this is exactly the problem that probably started this. It's not the mere statement of "bush is an idiot", it's the acceptance of it as fact. We don't all agree on this issue. Whenever Rev spoke out against the presidents intellect it was usually in an insulting manner. Then he would continue to go back to the thread at hand, until there was a bush comment, then Pangloss would step in to challenge the assertion. Afterwords Rev would comment about how Pangloss was still 'stuck on this topic', and proceed to insult Bush as a response to being called out on doing so. Originally I had re-read the whole "Conservatives Beating War Drums on Foreign Policy (Formerly: A Nuclear Iran)" thread and was going to analyze the whole disagreement quote by quote, but I guess I'm lazy enough to not care about going in depth. From what I've seen, I can say that I think Rev should take away from this experience an air of professionalism in his posts, since the only true reason anyone would be upset about them is the insulting demeanor. You would probably have had little, to no abrasive reaction if you had left out the insults, implied or otherwise. Obviously you didn't mean to offend anyone, but be more aware of this sort of reaction in the future and you can avoid it in the future. Pangloss, on the other hand should try and assert what he means in a more direct manner instead of trying to be so damn political about it. It's not always about some overbearing ideology, sometimes you as a moderator just don't like words that people use, say so, don't try to argue them into understanding what you mean. I could easily be mistaken on both accounts, but hopefully this shows that I've at least thought about it enough so you can try to understand why I would say these things. Because it's not about me being right, or you being wrong, but about how you react to what I've said.

It's an interesting take on the situation. I can agree that high gas prices are changing things faster than people simply demanding change. One thing to think about is if(for instance if solar became a large amount of energy production) the solar tycoons would start being abrasive to newer techs once they start development? Is the problem with the technology or the framework in which they operate? I see a problem surrounding the whole energy situation. There's little innovation in the field. Simply regurgitating old technology but slightly more efficient per each iteration is only going to work for so long. We need to start long term investments in the "final solution" to energy needs. Finding the ultimate goal instead of just the next quick fix. Won't it be great when people are talking of cutting our addiction to electricity once organic power sources get figured out?