john5746

I wish I got nothing from Bush-Cheney. Biden is not a sheep like Lieberman - he will either add or distract from the ticket, but he will make an impact.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had support from both parties, passed on the federal level, but was struck down by the Supreme Court. State governments then adopted similar acts with Texas under Bush being one of them. This article warns of the implications of these acts - that they are too subjective and may result in discrimination. And it did both in an Alaska case and could have allowed discrimination in the case presented in the OP.

Not quite true - we have a constitution and the court system will go against public opinion to uphold it. Also, people always complain that politicians don't represent them or the public anyway. That's what a pursuit of profit only will get you. It took a war between governments to stop it - not the free market 1) Government(the people) provide all sorts of public systems that create a society where this "free" market can happen. Try starting a business in a war-torn part of Africa - you will need to provide your own security, infrastructure, etc. 2) Individuals choose to benefit themselves, that is why society has laws. Free markets mimic evolution, which can be effective, but ruthless. So, after all of the blood and sweat of people have been paid to build a nice foundation for markets you want to just let people come and act like its free? Bullshit! If they want to act like a little god, they can go and build their own society from the ground up.

Very interesting, cows have a compass? Also, we should sleep North/South? Maybe there is something to Feng Shui? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/26/dude_wheres_my_cow/

I thought this article from 1999 was pertinent to this issue http://www.reason.com/news/show/31073.html

To make it that long we will have to be traveling in space and occupy other worlds. These different environments alone should result in changes, but we will also change ourselves both genetically and with robotics. What we think of as human now would probably no longer exist.

I was a little surprised that Obama picked Biden. He was my favorite democrat in the debates, because he seemed so genuine. He was more of a straight talker than McCain and a better speaker, but he tends to run at the mouth until his foot gets stuck in it. I think McCain needs to pick a solid Republican. With the economy becoming the top concern, Romney would be a good pick. I sense that the swing voters are becoming less concerned with Iraq - it may have jumped the shark in terms of being a top concern. Maybe he can have the "spirit of Reagan" as VP - wouldn't the faithful accept that?

The biggest difference in the US, especially rural US - is driving after drinking, IMO. In Japan(just after college), I drank much more than I did in college. I was able to ride a train, bus, taxi or walk back to my quarters. In America, you really need to plan ahead and have someone who will keep you straight after you get 5 in you and are ready to lay any woman, beat any pool shark, take on an army and win any race.

Here are some: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083542.htm http://www.cspinet.org/booze/mlpafact.htm . They have a narrow focus on their university - MADD has real world experience with kids getting killed on roads everywhere. . They are going to cheat as well - throw that rule out? How about throwing them out of university for at least a semester if they are caught drinking, drunk, etc? You think some possible punishment might limit the problem a little?

1) I hope you have noticed that the same parents can have very different children with different characteristics. 2) You are comparing the winning horse to the rest of the population of race horses - it might be more probable that a triple crown winner will sire great race horses than any other SPECIFIC horse, but not the whole population of race horses. You also are looking at winners - a better measure would be average time for all offspring. 3) If the owners are selecting only on race time, then they may miss other criteria that might make a worse horse - the triple crown winner may have a genetic problem that he was lucky to avoid, but is brought out when sired with the mare winner. A winning horse requires far more attributes than fast legs - any one of these attributes may not make it into the offspring. Nurture and luck also play a role. 4) Over time, we would expect horses bred for racing to be better at racing than horses bred for plowing. That does not mean that the best race horse will always produce the next champion - it just means the next champion is far more likely to come from the race horse population than the plow horse population.

I wonder what the religious belief is? That gay people should not have children or that unmarried people should not have children? If its just gay people, then you can replace that with any minority to see the problem easily. If it is single mothers, then it is another reason that gay marriage should be allowed.

Oh, it would be fun to send fake Hillary is my VP messages!!

It's a mess. IMO, the US is doing exactly as it should. The world needs to get used to life without big daddy trying to solve everyone's problems - especially Americans.

I don't think she is a good actress, so I believe the dumb blonde 'act'. It was a smart rebuttal though - she didn't go pro Obama, just pro Paris. She is adept at making lemonade out of lemons - or should I say getting others to make her lemonade out of lemons!

Yeah, I tried to find out to no avail. I think it may vary by state though.

Go buy a .45, then you can take out dangerous drivers while keeping you safe. This saves you for taking out more dangerous drivers in the future.

I think a strong spring connecting the two would be cool.

Looks like Obama has changed his mind. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD92BIKK00

Here is one, not very analytical http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s178/s178.html

Emotion wins elections, so each side will try and make an emotional impact either for their candidate or against the opposition. Obama's strength is that he is a fresh face and he has charisma. He represents change. To attack this strength, you make him all style and elitist. Clinton tried this and I think it worked - she did pretty well against Obama, especially amongst the working class. McCain will have a harder time with this unless Obama implodes in a debate. McCain's strength is that he has years of experience as a civil servant - military and congress. To attack this strength, you make him part of the establishment - part of the problem. Obama did this against Clinton and that is why he won. I think it works against McCain because Bush has failed miserably. So yes, the Republican line will be to paint Obama as an inexperience left wing liberal elitist. The Democrats will paint McCain as an old, tired right wing Bushie. Obama has been tempered by attacks from Clinton, but McCain never really faced establishment attacks in the Republican race. They all argued about who was most like Reagan.

I haven't seen ads and haven't paid attention, nor do I want to investigate the study, but: 1) Obama is in the lead, so it is easier to take the high ground 2) Obama can attack the establishment - an implied attack on McCain. but I do agree with iNow that McCain will need to do better in selling himself, instead of hoping Obama crumbles.

DH, Yes, I placed "fair" in quotations because of the fair tax pushed around by some conservatives and some liberals seeming to place fairness over what will work for the well-being of the country. I think a progressive tax is justified by the fact that a person's wealth is in a large part determined by the state of society. It is much harder for a billionaire to have his standard of living on an island by himself than it is for a minimum wage earner. From this example, I think it is clear that the billionaire has a much larger share of society benefit(government spending) than the other person. Without the government, he would have to spend much more of his resources on security, infrastructure etc to retain wealth. So, he owes a greater proportion of his wealth to society. The ability to pay is secondary, but important. If the lower classes are taxed to the point of starvation, they will revolt and society crumbles. If the upper tier are taxed to the point of middle class, then they will revolt and everyone becomes poor.

I have argued several times on this site that a "fair" tax is a progressive tax, so I also have a gut feel that Obama's tax plan is better. However, the conservative mantra is that lowering taxes is always the way to go. Lowering taxes supposedly grew the economy and therefore grew tax revenue under Reagan and Bush, as predicted by the Laffer curve(right side anyway). The real story is pretty complex and there are good arguments on both sides, however from a practical standpoint, I just don't see the tax rates near the top being detrimental. People will not avoid work, I mean let's face it people in those brackets really don't work more hours for pay anyway - they earn money from investments and leveraging the labor of others. I think DH's point about avoiding taxes is relavent, but I question where the money goes. I think the bulk of tax that is avoided would go towards investments. In the short term, consumption would go down and investments would increase so it might be a drag on the economy, but in the long term I think it would settle out as those in the lower brackets spend their extra bucks and the investments pay off. Obama really needs to improve his message on this issue for upcoming debates. McCain can simply say he is not increasing taxes on anyone and that it will free more money for the economy(trickle down to China via Wal-Mart). Obama has to sell his idea and debunk the mantra that lowering taxes on everyone is always the right thing to do. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, the economy grew and we had a surplus. As I said previously, there is much complexity behind both of these statements and it is foolish to think that a single tax policy is the primary factor in the economic trends of a nation, but this is politics and simple > complicated in a debate. McCain really stresses spending cuts, which is popular with most people. It is obvious that he will increase DOD more than Obama, which is difficult to argue in times of war. With a democrat congress, I doubt McCain will be successful with his cuts, so he will go the path of Reagan - lowering taxes and increasing spending in DOD. Obama may actually spend less than McCain, but I doubt he will argue in terms of lowering DOD spending, just in terms of getting out of Iraq and fighting the war on terror in a more efficient way.

LOL, if you pick the right games, they will quickly learn they are not as smart as they think.

Teenagers not having a phone stuck in their ears all the time? The humanity!!