No... it would mean that the New York City resident's vote would count EXACTLY the same as the Wyoming rancher's vote. One each.
As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.
Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?
One man (or woman)... one vote. Any system which gives greater weight to a citizen of one state's vote over the citizen of another state is a flawed system.
The electoral college system guarantees that the citizens of lightly-populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Deleware, and the Dakotas have a greater percentage say in who is the President than a citizen of California, Florida, New York, or Texas has.
That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is. That way, there won't be campaigning in just "swing" states... because every vote in every corner of the country counts the same. The Democratic candidate would have a reason to go to Texas and campaign... the Republican candidate would have a reason to go to Massachusetts to campaign... there are votes to be gotten there and they would count the same.
I am just as much a citizen of this country as some farmer in North Dakota is. His vote shouldn't be worth twice as much as mine.
Latest polls in America show Bush with an approval rating of 36%.
That means 64% of us don't like the guy. 3/4 of that 64% NEVER liked the guy, the rest of them have since come to the conclusion that they fucked up when they voted for him.
You hate Americans because of Bush? I got news for you bub... Most Americans don't care for him either.
You're twice as likely to meet an American who shares your disdain for chimp-boy as you are likely to run into one who is pro-Bush.
Keep that in mind when you're cultivating your stereotypes...
About Clinton:
1) He raised tax rates. Not only irresponsible, but downright greedy too. The government had plenty of money if it didn't waste it.
2) More important: he added more than one trillion to the national debt. It wasn't just 18 billion (the number you said). How is this responsible? He actively chose to sign way out-of-whack budgets during most of his years in office, and refused to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment.
3) He did not generate surplus. The books were cooked to make it look like he did in his last year, but the fact remains that he still wasted more money was coming in.
That's false. Clinton's budgets produced 6 years of surplus, not just one. Look it up.
And no... the total national debt was lower when he left office than when he came in. Once again, look it up.
Yes... he raised taxes in 1993. Rush Limbaugh and others predicted that this would plummet the US into a depression. Rush even bet the DNC $1 million that all five major economic indicators would be worse one year after the 1993 omnibus bill. The DNC, foolishly, did not take him up on the bet... because ALL FIVE were better one year later.
Following the tax increase, we got 34 straight quarters of economic growth, the last 26 of which were also accompanied by a federal budget surplus, according to the NON-PARTISAN GAO.. the same GAO that is producing the numbers that Bush is parroting today.
The facts don't support you. Here's your claims:
1. He raised tax rates.
yes. You got that one right. He raised the tax rates on those making more than $200,000.
2. He added more than one trillion to the national debt.
Patently and provably false. He came into office with the government 6 trillion in debt, he left with the government less than 5 trillion in debt. You have it exactly backwards.
3. He refused to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment.
The BBA never made it to his desk, so he had no opportunity to either sign OR veto it.
4. He did not generate surplus.
The GAO, which is independent of the White House, recorded a surplus for the final six Clinton budgets... Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001.
You are wrong.. the facts show you are wrong... and no amount of making things up as you go (or more accurately, parroting "facts" you heard on some right-wing nut-job talk radio program) can change that.
George Bush's government has spent like a drunken sailor and plunged this country nearly two extra trillion in debt since he took office. The "debt clock" in New York was actually turned off for the second term of Clinton's presidency, and had to be restarted during Junior's term and it is spinning at a faster rate than it did even during Poppy's term.
Clinton was the best thing (fiscally) to happen to this government in your lifetime... and you were too blinded by your hatred of all things not GOP to realize it. Your grandkids will curse you and your support of reckless GOP borrowing and spending when they're forced to pick up the tab for you.
At least my grandkids will know I fought on the correct side.
Every year of the Reagan presidency, the budget he proposed to congress had a greater deficit than the one congress eventually presented to him to sign.
The same has been true under this President.
But! During Clinton's term, the budget proposed by Clinton provided for greater surplus than the one eventually presented to him by congress. Twice, government shutdown, or threat of one, convinced the GOP congress to rework the budget to reduce deficit/produce surplus.
Clinton held the congress' feet to the fire on budgets and in the end generated surplus and was paying down the debt.
Clinton was the best CEO/CFO this country has had in the past 100 years. Whether that means he was a good President is another matter... but when it comes to "bidness", Clinton is the model. Bush, just as he did in running every business he headed into the ground before becoming President, just simply is not a financially prudent person and his administration reflects that.
agree to some extent that Clinton was a much better Republican than Bush is. I do not agree, really, with your implied conclusion that "debt = bad". I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. I am not an economist, but I've always believed that most economists feel that governments being indebted to their people is finicially sound, to some extent. A 0-debt country runs major inflation risks. Let me restate that I am not an economist. I don't know what is and is not a healthy amount of debt. I don't pretend to know. I have no other option but to trust economists (not politicians) to tell me what is and is not a healthy amount of debt.
So in conclusion, I think jumping up and down and screaming about the national debt isn't very productive for anything other than fearmongering. Getting a straight answer from economists is basically impossible, however.
The problem is that the government is NOT in debt to its people. Most of the T-bill's that make up the debt are held by international entities.
A very large percentage of the debt is in T-bills bought by the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, etc.
The Government isn't in debt to us... their in debt to outside interests. And that is NOT A GOOD THING (tm).
A government that balances is books is ALWAYS better off and better able to handle impending crises. What works for your budget at home is also what works on the large scale. Your books have to be balanced, or show the prospect of being balanced in the future. You can't run up personal debt forever without eventually going bankrupt. Neither can the USA.
I mean every household only owes about $400,000 in government debt which I'm sure is sustainable.
That number looked really wrong to me so I looked it up:
Debt = 8.4 trillion
Households = 110 million
Population = 295 million
So we owe $28,000 per person, and about $76,000 per household.
Whew.... Now I feel better. Knowing that my share of the debt is only $76k puts my mind at ease. Go Bush!
Isn't it interesting that....
FY 1993 (the last Poppy Bush budget) = deficit was $290 billion
FY 1994 (the first Clinton budget) = deficit was $150 billion
FY 1995 = deficit was $70 billion
FY 1996 thru 2001 (Clinton's last six budgets) = SURPLUS!
FY 2002 thru 2006 (Junior's first five budgets) = Deficits... highest around $400 billion, currently $296 billion
In the last 25 years, we've had 19 years of deficit and 6 years of surplus. The Republican administrations in that time are 17 for 17 in producing deficits. The Democratic administration during that time is 6 for 8 in producing surpluses.
Yet.. the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party that is fiscally irresponsible.
Facts are funny things... but NON-military spending, spending NOT related to Bush's "war on Tara" (using his pronunciation), is up an average of 9% per year during the current administration's term.
Under Clinton, the ENTIRE budget (military and non alike) averaged an increase of 4% per year.
The bottom line is... the Democrats are more fiscally sound at managing government than the Republicans.
There is more pork under the current regime than the last. The current President has never vetoed a single spending bill. The Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend" and they are borrowing the money from your kids.
But they're against flag burning.. so let's keep 'em!!! Yeeha!
Why the hell do so many people assume that kids need to "learn" socialization? Or that it must be learned in a school? Learning that most other kids can be little shits is not something that takes even an average intelligence 12-13 years to grasp.
Learning that the other kids can be little shits is not the issue.
It's learning how to deal with the little shits that can't be taught in a home-school environment.
Learning how to deal with people... good people and bad people... is a lesson that can only be taught with practice. Practice that simply cannot occur properly in a home-school setting.... even with lots of brothers and sisters around. Dealing with siblings is COMPLETELY different than dealing with non-family peers. People you can't tell "mom" on.
...This country needs more introverted geeks with no social skills and no ability to deal with people.
School is more than learning the three R's. It's learning how to deal with other individuals. Life involves cultivating relationships and learning what works and what doesn't when dealing with another human being. It's not just knowing the right information to get straight A's.
The social aspect of actually GOING to school is too-often downplayed. Your kid needs to learn how to deal with other people... both good people and bad people. Those people-skills are something you can't get in a home school setting, no matter how you try. And those skills are a better indicator of success later in life than any report card with straight A's.
(#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)
Dude.. are you retarded? Do you know what sound is? Geezus.. you learn in 4th grade science that sound is the vibration of air molecules. There is no atmosphere on the moon, doofus. Sound isn't possible.
Am I a conspiracy nutbag
You're an insult to conspiracy nutbags. Most conspiracy nutbags have IQs over 80 and don't ride the "special" bus to school or wear a helmet all the time for their protection.
Just because there are hardheaded people who believe in religion doesn't mean you can generalize that to all religious people. There are also scientists who refuse to change their beliefs, that doesn't mean you should denounce science.
One very significant difference. The scientists that refuse to change their beliefs don't go around blowing up, crusading against, or otherwise destroying the lives of the scientists who disagree with them.
Dude... you got it wrong. Women are XX, men are XY. There are no YYs in human history.
The "Y" chromosome is the male chromosome... the X is the female. Two X's is a female. One of each is a male.
The baldness gene (which is regressive) is on the X chromosome, and has no corresponding gene on the Y side to counteract it. That is why male pattern baldness is passed down from your mother's side of the family.
Anyway... there is no such thing as YY... but all women are XX.
I cannot think of a more selfish act than to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to overcome your infertility, especially considering the number of newborn children availiable for adoption, and the thousands of better uses that same money could be put to. Clearly, the people willing to do that are more interested in having a child for their own benefit than for the child's benefit. I question whether people that selfish are capable of providing the correct type of love for their child and as such their ability to be a good parent
Evolution has left us all with a strong desire to propagate our DNA. Our own DNA.
This drive is instinctual. Saying someone is selfish for wanting to overcome their infertility is saying they are selfish for being human.
Actually, selfishness... specifically, self-preservation and self-reproduction, are natural human (actually, mammal) tendencies. They are the two most basic instincts we have.
1. Protect my ass
2. Pass on my genetic code (It's really the only "afterlife" we have)
We're programmed that way. Adoption is STILL, when you get down to it, raising someone else's kid. They might be legally yours, but at the most basic, you are protecting someone else's progeny. On the subconscious level, you still KNOW that your gene-line ends with you. And that's hard to accept, even if you can't articulate why. Millions of years of evolution have built the desire to propagate your DNA into you - you can't get rid of that "fixation" with therapy....you can only suppress it.
For your information, I was paraphrasing Richard Dawkins, who happens to be an eminent scientist -perhaps THE world authority on evolution. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. I actually got his example slightly incorrect though. The example he used was not peacocks, it was widow birds. They have, he says, such long tails for one reason and one reason only, because females like it. Here is the book I got this from:
If that were true, most human males would have 10-inch penises.
My wife made this mistake with one guy when she was about 20, but it only lasted for a few months. After that, she recognized the problem, and never got involved with assholes again.
The hope here is to assist couples who are having difficulties with conception.
With this technology, two women could generate a baby that has 23 chromosomes from each of them. Men would no longer be necessary to create a new human being that is genetically half of two different individuals.
And since both "halves" would be providing an X chromosome and never a Y, the resulting baby would be female... every time.
If enough women in a society opt for this form of male-unnecessary reproduction, over a few generations there will be no more males in that society.
I can see Gloria Steinem and others of similar political persuasion creating a female-only society somewhere with this technology. An estrogen utopia.
Slashdot Mirror
As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.
Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?
One man (or woman)... one vote. Any system which gives greater weight to a citizen of one state's vote over the citizen of another state is a flawed system.
The electoral college system guarantees that the citizens of lightly-populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Deleware, and the Dakotas have a greater percentage say in who is the President than a citizen of California, Florida, New York, or Texas has.
That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is. That way, there won't be campaigning in just "swing" states... because every vote in every corner of the country counts the same. The Democratic candidate would have a reason to go to Texas and campaign... the Republican candidate would have a reason to go to Massachusetts to campaign... there are votes to be gotten there and they would count the same.
I am just as much a citizen of this country as some farmer in North Dakota is. His vote shouldn't be worth twice as much as mine.
Prison? Advocating any change in government is obviously a "terroristic threat".
He might get "Plamed".
Especially since his last name sorta-kinda looks muslim-ish.
That means 64% of us don't like the guy. 3/4 of that 64% NEVER liked the guy, the rest of them have since come to the conclusion that they fucked up when they voted for him.
You hate Americans because of Bush? I got news for you bub... Most Americans don't care for him either.
You're twice as likely to meet an American who shares your disdain for chimp-boy as you are likely to run into one who is pro-Bush.
Keep that in mind when you're cultivating your stereotypes...
That's false. Clinton's budgets produced 6 years of surplus, not just one. Look it up.
And no... the total national debt was lower when he left office than when he came in. Once again, look it up.
Yes... he raised taxes in 1993. Rush Limbaugh and others predicted that this would plummet the US into a depression. Rush even bet the DNC $1 million that all five major economic indicators would be worse one year after the 1993 omnibus bill. The DNC, foolishly, did not take him up on the bet... because ALL FIVE were better one year later.
Following the tax increase, we got 34 straight quarters of economic growth, the last 26 of which were also accompanied by a federal budget surplus, according to the NON-PARTISAN GAO.. the same GAO that is producing the numbers that Bush is parroting today.
The facts don't support you. Here's your claims:
1. He raised tax rates.
yes. You got that one right. He raised the tax rates on those making more than $200,000.
2. He added more than one trillion to the national debt.
Patently and provably false. He came into office with the government 6 trillion in debt, he left with the government less than 5 trillion in debt. You have it exactly backwards.
3. He refused to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment.
The BBA never made it to his desk, so he had no opportunity to either sign OR veto it.
4. He did not generate surplus.
The GAO, which is independent of the White House, recorded a surplus for the final six Clinton budgets... Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001.
You are wrong.. the facts show you are wrong... and no amount of making things up as you go (or more accurately, parroting "facts" you heard on some right-wing nut-job talk radio program) can change that.
George Bush's government has spent like a drunken sailor and plunged this country nearly two extra trillion in debt since he took office. The "debt clock" in New York was actually turned off for the second term of Clinton's presidency, and had to be restarted during Junior's term and it is spinning at a faster rate than it did even during Poppy's term.
Clinton was the best thing (fiscally) to happen to this government in your lifetime... and you were too blinded by your hatred of all things not GOP to realize it. Your grandkids will curse you and your support of reckless GOP borrowing and spending when they're forced to pick up the tab for you.
At least my grandkids will know I fought on the correct side.
The same has been true under this President.
But! During Clinton's term, the budget proposed by Clinton provided for greater surplus than the one eventually presented to him by congress. Twice, government shutdown, or threat of one, convinced the GOP congress to rework the budget to reduce deficit/produce surplus.
Clinton held the congress' feet to the fire on budgets and in the end generated surplus and was paying down the debt.
Clinton was the best CEO/CFO this country has had in the past 100 years. Whether that means he was a good President is another matter... but when it comes to "bidness", Clinton is the model. Bush, just as he did in running every business he headed into the ground before becoming President, just simply is not a financially prudent person and his administration reflects that.
So in conclusion, I think jumping up and down and screaming about the national debt isn't very productive for anything other than fearmongering. Getting a straight answer from economists is basically impossible, however. The problem is that the government is NOT in debt to its people. Most of the T-bill's that make up the debt are held by international entities.
A very large percentage of the debt is in T-bills bought by the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, etc.
The Government isn't in debt to us... their in debt to outside interests. And that is NOT A GOOD THING (tm).
A government that balances is books is ALWAYS better off and better able to handle impending crises. What works for your budget at home is also what works on the large scale. Your books have to be balanced, or show the prospect of being balanced in the future. You can't run up personal debt forever without eventually going bankrupt. Neither can the USA.
That number looked really wrong to me so I looked it up: Debt = 8.4 trillion Households = 110 million Population = 295 million
So we owe $28,000 per person, and about $76,000 per household.
Whew.... Now I feel better. Knowing that my share of the debt is only $76k puts my mind at ease. Go Bush!
Isn't it interesting that....
FY 1993 (the last Poppy Bush budget) = deficit was $290 billion
FY 1994 (the first Clinton budget) = deficit was $150 billion
FY 1995 = deficit was $70 billion
FY 1996 thru 2001 (Clinton's last six budgets) = SURPLUS!
FY 2002 thru 2006 (Junior's first five budgets) = Deficits... highest around $400 billion, currently $296 billion
In the last 25 years, we've had 19 years of deficit and 6 years of surplus. The Republican administrations in that time are 17 for 17 in producing deficits. The Democratic administration during that time is 6 for 8 in producing surpluses.
Yet.. the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party that is fiscally irresponsible.
Facts are funny things... but NON-military spending, spending NOT related to Bush's "war on Tara" (using his pronunciation), is up an average of 9% per year during the current administration's term.
Under Clinton, the ENTIRE budget (military and non alike) averaged an increase of 4% per year.
The bottom line is... the Democrats are more fiscally sound at managing government than the Republicans.
There is more pork under the current regime than the last. The current President has never vetoed a single spending bill. The Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend" and they are borrowing the money from your kids.
But they're against flag burning.. so let's keep 'em!!! Yeeha!
Learning that the other kids can be little shits is not the issue.
It's learning how to deal with the little shits that can't be taught in a home-school environment.
Learning how to deal with people... good people and bad people... is a lesson that can only be taught with practice. Practice that simply cannot occur properly in a home-school setting.... even with lots of brothers and sisters around. Dealing with siblings is COMPLETELY different than dealing with non-family peers. People you can't tell "mom" on.
School is more than learning the three R's. It's learning how to deal with other individuals. Life involves cultivating relationships and learning what works and what doesn't when dealing with another human being. It's not just knowing the right information to get straight A's.
The social aspect of actually GOING to school is too-often downplayed. Your kid needs to learn how to deal with other people... both good people and bad people. Those people-skills are something you can't get in a home school setting, no matter how you try. And those skills are a better indicator of success later in life than any report card with straight A's.
Will that get them to drop their stupid attack on on-line gambling?
Thank God the Senate looks like they have no interest in following up on the House's action on on-line gambling.
at least not yet....
Dude.. are you retarded? Do you know what sound is? Geezus.. you learn in 4th grade science that sound is the vibration of air molecules. There is no atmosphere on the moon, doofus. Sound isn't possible.
Am I a conspiracy nutbag
You're an insult to conspiracy nutbags. Most conspiracy nutbags have IQs over 80 and don't ride the "special" bus to school or wear a helmet all the time for their protection.
Allow me to make a minor edit:
s/God/Allah/
There... that's better. Spoken like a true member of the Taliban.
One very significant difference. The scientists that refuse to change their beliefs don't go around blowing up, crusading against, or otherwise destroying the lives of the scientists who disagree with them.
The "Y" chromosome is the male chromosome... the X is the female. Two X's is a female. One of each is a male.
The baldness gene (which is regressive) is on the X chromosome, and has no corresponding gene on the Y side to counteract it. That is why male pattern baldness is passed down from your mother's side of the family.
Anyway... there is no such thing as YY... but all women are XX.
Yes... but why would we want to propagate YOUR genes?
We're supposed to be doing something GOOD for humanity....
Evolution has left us all with a strong desire to propagate our DNA. Our own DNA.
This drive is instinctual. Saying someone is selfish for wanting to overcome their infertility is saying they are selfish for being human.
Actually, selfishness... specifically, self-preservation and self-reproduction, are natural human (actually, mammal) tendencies. They are the two most basic instincts we have.
1. Protect my ass
2. Pass on my genetic code
(It's really the only "afterlife" we have)
We're programmed that way. Adoption is STILL, when you get down to it, raising someone else's kid. They might be legally yours, but at the most basic, you are protecting someone else's progeny. On the subconscious level, you still KNOW that your gene-line ends with you. And that's hard to accept, even if you can't articulate why. Millions of years of evolution have built the desire to propagate your DNA into you - you can't get rid of that "fixation" with therapy....you can only suppress it.
If that were true, most human males would have 10-inch penises.
Unless, of course, size really DOESN'T matter...
That's why Goddess invented strap-ons.
omnipotence implies omniscience. For if he was truly omnipotent, he could give himselves the ability to be omniscient.
Hmmmm..... that's what she told YOU anyway......
Are you daft man?!? THEY'LL CUT OFF YOUR BALLS!!!
With this technology, I won't need them anymore anyway. They just get in the way as it is.
Just kidding! I love my balls!
Not in THAT way...
That's right: whether or not the child had a father around.
Actually.. the single most significatn factor in determining the likelihood of a child ending up in prison is whether the child is male or not.
More that 3/4 of our prison population is male. Eliminating males is a definite, if not desireable, way of reducing crime drastically.
The Super Bowl
Bowling Alleys
Fart Jokes
Fantasy Baseball
Not to mention the drastic reduction in demand for the four "P's":
Porn
Poker
Prostitution
Power Tools
Also, the third Sunday in June would henceforth become "My Other Mother's Day".
Havent you seen Stuart Little? (too lazy to include a link to imdb.com)
With this technology, two women could generate a baby that has 23 chromosomes from each of them. Men would no longer be necessary to create a new human being that is genetically half of two different individuals.
And since both "halves" would be providing an X chromosome and never a Y, the resulting baby would be female... every time.
If enough women in a society opt for this form of male-unnecessary reproduction, over a few generations there will be no more males in that society.
I can see Gloria Steinem and others of similar political persuasion creating a female-only society somewhere with this technology. An estrogen utopia.
I, for one, welcome our Lesbian overlords.