john5746

They went to the courthouse or asked Betsy, the church pianist. She knew all the gossip about everyone.

Joe the plumber is a fiction, so unlike McCain, we don't need to keep our talking points on him. If someone is making 50,000 a year and has dreams of owning his own business someday, I think Obama's tax plan may be better for him than McCain's. If someone already owns a business and takes home over 250,000 a year, then he will pay more under Obama's tax plan.

We should be skeptical, which is why scientists are always testing their models. It all depends on how precise one is trying to be. If someone says they know the Dow will hit 12000 in three months, I am very skeptical. If someone says a cat 5 hurricane will hit New Orleans next year, I am very skeptical. On the other hand, if someone say printing shit loads of money will increase inflation, makes sense to me. If someone says pumping shit loads of C02 into the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect, well that makes sense as well. Correlation does not equal causation, but if we have a reasonable explanation that makes predictions, then its a pretty good bet. Not a 100% bet, we still are skeptical, but if we have nothing better should we ignore it?

Well, Bernanke is asking for more money as a stimulus. Now I'm starting to wonder about this guy. Mo Money

LOL, that's pretty good. Doesn't Atheism look more like a bubble recently though?

This is just a wild guess, but I think energy will be the next bubble. People will rush to put their money into companies that have a sexy idea and big promises for the future - but zero earnings. What do you think will be the next bubble? Do you think America will be able to generate another bubble?

I voted in North Carolina - there was a man outside handing out a cheat sheet for the democratic vote. Pretty good traffic. I voted in the Planetarium.

I voted for Obama today - early voting. I relocated recently and I have never been very active in local politics. Consequently, I really was not familiar with the local candidates. With the positions that I was not familiar with, I decided to choose the candidates with this method: If one candidate was female and the other male, I chose female If one candidate had Jr. or a numeral after their name, I didn't chose them If the two did not apply, I chose democrat. My wife told me she mixed it up with the parties, but leaned towards libertarian locally. After further reflection, this seemed to make more sense. See why I chose more females? Hopefully, I will be a less ignorant voter next time around.

Watched the movie today - only one small theater in my area ran it. Great movie, but the last 5 minutes was far too serious and unsupported by the rest of the movie.

Very good, especially McCain. Can you imagine Bush and Kerry doing this?

One of the arguments I have heard in regards to progressive taxation is that if the wealthy wants to pay more, they should volunteer to do just that. I say we let Obama implement his plan and if Joe wants to still contribute more so that a millionaire can keep more of his money - he should do just that. Under Obama, Joe keeps more of his money so he can acquire the business more quickly. Then, he will be in better shape to contribute more back to society. Makes sense to me. By the way, I will not benefit from Obama's plan or if I do it will be almost nothing.

Wow, I didn't think you could get those two that close.

I have received a call from someone asking to vote for Obama at least 10 times, usually at dinner time. I have had two visits to my door from Obama supporters. I have had one call from McCain supporters. This is worse than the Jehovah's witnesses. Enough already.

The problems start much, much earlier than depletion. When the flow of oil is much less than demand, energy prices soar - people starve, riot and wars break out. This may happen sooner than we think. True - diversity of solutions is the way to go.

I think its more to do with the employer system. They withhold more on overtime due to the possibility of a higher tax bracket, while keeping normal checks at a constant rate. That way, if other things are equal, all employees are withheld at a similar rate for normal hours, but fluctuations in overtime are handled separately. But, it all comes out right in the end.

Are you home schooled in English? I think you need more english conversation.

Nadar 83 % Obama 81% McKinney 69% McCain 61% Barr 51% I'll change the issue importance and take it again later.

We mostly agree, yet we can see in Tobago that taking race into account provided a clue as to a possible genetic link to disease. They had to separate people into groups somehow. While grouping people by race may not be very effective, I think it is more effective than lumping everyone into a single group. If I am an African American with hypertension, I might ask my doc about taking something other than an Ace Inhibitor for treatment or if I do take one, I would be more careful about monitoring the effectiveness.

I think this is a good link. Basically, genes and culture play a big part in the health of an individual. While race is not a great genetic marker, its better than nothing. Race and culture would be just another piece of information in your family history. Hopefully soon, we will have better genetic information on individuals. The trend should be towards treating people as unique, not as widgets. http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20020507hgene0507p3.asp African Irishmen? No there is more difference than the color of the skin. There are genetic differences as there are with everyone else in Ireland. Changing locations does not change the genes you inherited. Trying to push social norms into science is wrong. The link I provided clearly identifies racial differences in a disease. The more basic factors will be genes and environment, but until they are all determined, race and location will come in handy. Yes, social and moral decisions are choices, but genetics is not. My family history should have no affect on me socially and morally, but a decent doctor should take it into account for my treatment.

I thought this link might be interesting: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

I understand your frustration, but that's what I feel I am doing with Obama. If R Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of winning - he would change or continue to be a loser. If you are actually in the competition to win, you start to play the game - to parse your words, moderate on sensitive issues, overstate your case on winning issues and attack your opponent. If you are just a complainer, then you can just open both barrels and shoot - you get your emo group and they make a bunch of noise - which is your only goal. I know Obama is playing the game, but I also know that anyone who is going to be President has to play the game - to win the election and to rule afterwards. You have to work with people, not run over them with some horse of truth.

Maybe, but this stuff has been swirling around for a very long time. To be fair, McCain should be applauded for having this conversation with the people in this format. It would be interesting if Obama let some of his supporters talk. I wonder if their kool-aide could get just as bitter?

Oh, I agree. I actually think its worse that he is that stupid. I know any President will have to be deceptive, but they don't have to be stupid.

The article suggests McCain knows better and is trying to deceive. I am wondering if he really appreciates the technology involved. I'm sure SOMEONE in his campaign knows the difference, but I doubt he does.

Aren't you the one that wants the shiny gold standard?