Most people forget that Kerry will have to convince a Republican congress to implement his plans. Almost none of his plans can be carried out by executive order.
I could see someone having a problem with 33% of their income taxed if they lived in suburban California. $100,000/yr isn't exactly high-class around there. Where I am from (rural Ohio), the "rich" people in town make $50,000/yr. It was always funny to hear people whose parents made six figures complain about being poor when the median income in my town was approximately $30,000/yr.
I think there should be credits for those people who have a much higher cost of living than those of us that don't.
As far as tax brackets are concerned, you are correct. Someone who makes $120,000 (or whatever the highest bracket starts at) shouldn't be subjected to the same tax rate as George Soros or Bill Gates.
The quality of care for those who can afford to pay is superb. If you can't pay, often times emergency rooms will not give you the same level of care as someone who does have insurance. In fact, there is talk of legislation that relaxes rules for who emergency rooms have to treat. As of now, they have to treat everyone who walks in the door.
Basically it all comes down to: "If you can't pay, you don't deserve to live."
I'm reminded of the time Ralph Nader was kept from watching one of the 2000 presidental debates even though he had a valid ticket to watch it.
He left and then later sued the pants off of the CPD for violating his civil rights and won easily.
Since the judge basically said there wasn't enough time to resolve the case, and the damage to the public interest is irrevocable if they were to go ahead with an injunction, Badnarik still may have a case after the fact. I'd be willing he could get a pretty penny for his troubles.
This rationale has been used in the SCOTUS decision Bush v. Gore.
7 out of 9 justices believed there was a violation of the equal protection clause in that ballots were counted differently in different counties. 4 out of 9 believed it was aggregious enough to extend the deadline past the mandated day for election results.
In short, there should have been a full recount, but there simply wasn't enough time to get it done.
In Ohio, if you don't have your driver's ID with you, you can simply tell the officer your DOB and SSN. Usually it isn't a problem.
Actually this happened to me once. I also had an expired proof of insurance (although I still had insurance). He just ran my numbers to verify I was who I was and that I had insurance. I got off w/a warning.
I find all US media conservative. I know people who think FOX News is liberal (you know they do have that Colmes fellow on there).
As previously mentioned, true liberals defend free speech at all costs. Most of what passes for liberalism (and conservatism) these days is simply partisan loyalty.
I once locked my keys in my car. I called up a company who dispached someone to help me out. She never asked for any ID...just up and unlocked it for me after I paid a modest fee.
Patricia LaMarche, Cobb's running mate was once quoted as saying she may not vote for herself in the coming election. She's registered in Maine and believes a vote for herself is a vote for Bush.
A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...
This is why some of us in the tin-foil hat crowd think that Cobb may be a Democratic operative. There is some sketchy evidence that prominent Democrats (such as George Soros) funded Cobb so that the Greens wouldn't endorse Nader at their convention. Cobb's "safe-state" strategy also works well to keep the Greens out of the Democrats' hait.
Incorrect. He simply needs a higher vote total than anyone else to win a state.
I think we should start requiring a majority of registered voters for a win. We'll see politicians trying every trick in the bag to get the vote out. I think it would be funny, no one would ever get elected to a seat because no one could garner 50% of the registered voter vote.
Rather OT, but I am reminded of a time when, in my International Politics class, that the definition of a rogue nation was put forward.
From a reasonable definition, we pegged the US, Israel and France (among others) as rogue nations.
The funny thing was that my professor found that that meant the term "rogue nation" was worthless because it included countries that obviously weren't rogue nations.
Moral: When the facts don't jive with your beliefs or assumptions, the facts are wrong.
1) ~45% 2) ~5% 3) ~0% (I have a few) 4) ~25% 5) ~15% 6) The rest are rips from my local libraries. An excellent source of hard-to-find music in my area.
Should I buy more of the music I download? Probably. Can I afford to? No.
I distinctly remember a story about someone in Massachusetts voting for Gore (instead of his first choice, Nader) because "he heard it would be a close race".
A lot of Americans don't understand how the electoral college works.
Greeens and Libertarians should work out an alliance based on their areas of agreement, and win some elections.
I think the best way to go about this is to unite all minor parties under a single-issue voting reform party.
I think you missed a bit on IRV. It is true that for single-seat offices like President, that IRV won't help much. I mean if Nader gets 20% of the vote, he still won't win. What is the point of IRV if your 1st choice never wins? Of course, what I think you missed is that 5% of the vote in any presidental election currently gets you federal funding next time around. Imagine what the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists(?) could do with federal matching funds.
What is more important, IMO, is proportional representation. If your party gets 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the seats. If independent candidates wish to run, there should be some sort of mechanism so that they get a seat if they reach a certain threshhold.
The main argument against GM is that modified animals could disrupt the "natural way of things" in nature.
For example, if GM fish were able to somehow spread their modified genes outside the "control area", then that could cause an unpredictable change in an ecosystem and perhaps drive naitive animals w/o the enhancements into extinction.
As far as plants are concerned, the GM plants often end up cross-pollenating with other plants which may end up wiping out many other types of competing plants.
For now, I think the best solution is to continue ahead with some research into the long-term effects into GM, and provide manufacturers to label their products if they use any type of GM.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe the mods!
Doesn't anyone remember grade school? 3 branches...create laws...enforce laws...interpret laws... no one?
A judiciary's purpose is to interpret the laws passed by law makers.
Actually, Bush was Lutheran. He is a practicing Methodist.
Very insightful.
Most people forget that Kerry will have to convince a Republican congress to implement his plans. Almost none of his plans can be carried out by executive order.
teaching kids that condoms are a form of safe sex is closer to telling them they have a 5/6 chance of surviving a round of russian roultette.
Whereas, you'd rather we just not tell them that russian roulette exists.
When armed with the facts, people make the best decisions.
Well it all depends on where you live.
I could see someone having a problem with 33% of their income taxed if they lived in suburban California. $100,000/yr isn't exactly high-class around there. Where I am from (rural Ohio), the "rich" people in town make $50,000/yr. It was always funny to hear people whose parents made six figures complain about being poor when the median income in my town was approximately $30,000/yr.
I think there should be credits for those people who have a much higher cost of living than those of us that don't.
As far as tax brackets are concerned, you are correct. Someone who makes $120,000 (or whatever the highest bracket starts at) shouldn't be subjected to the same tax rate as George Soros or Bill Gates.
This gives you only one choice between left and right wing.
Or as most Europeans (and some independents like me) see it:
A choice between conservative and more conservative.
Correction.
The quality of care for those who can afford to pay is superb. If you can't pay, often times emergency rooms will not give you the same level of care as someone who does have insurance. In fact, there is talk of legislation that relaxes rules for who emergency rooms have to treat. As of now, they have to treat everyone who walks in the door.
Basically it all comes down to: "If you can't pay, you don't deserve to live."
I'm reminded of the time Ralph Nader was kept from watching one of the 2000 presidental debates even though he had a valid ticket to watch it.
He left and then later sued the pants off of the CPD for violating his civil rights and won easily.
Since the judge basically said there wasn't enough time to resolve the case, and the damage to the public interest is irrevocable if they were to go ahead with an injunction, Badnarik still may have a case after the fact. I'd be willing he could get a pretty penny for his troubles.
This rationale has been used in the SCOTUS decision Bush v. Gore.
7 out of 9 justices believed there was a violation of the equal protection clause in that ballots were counted differently in different counties. 4 out of 9 believed it was aggregious enough to extend the deadline past the mandated day for election results.
In short, there should have been a full recount, but there simply wasn't enough time to get it done.
In Ohio, if you don't have your driver's ID with you, you can simply tell the officer your DOB and SSN. Usually it isn't a problem.
Actually this happened to me once. I also had an expired proof of insurance (although I still had insurance). He just ran my numbers to verify I was who I was and that I had insurance. I got off w/a warning.
Its all relative, my good friend.
I find all US media conservative. I know people who think FOX News is liberal (you know they do have that Colmes fellow on there).
As previously mentioned, true liberals defend free speech at all costs. Most of what passes for liberalism (and conservatism) these days is simply partisan loyalty.
Indeed.
I once locked my keys in my car. I called up a company who dispached someone to help me out. She never asked for any ID...just up and unlocked it for me after I paid a modest fee.
But don't you understand? Why can't you think of the children...the poor children!
This is for the kids (much like the Wu-Tang Clan).
I haven't looked but I bet it has something to do with "Jew bankers".
Yes...keep believing all of the adherents of a particular religion are out to rule the world in an elaborate conspiracy.
Indeed!
Patricia LaMarche, Cobb's running mate was once quoted as saying she may not vote for herself in the coming election. She's registered in Maine and believes a vote for herself is a vote for Bush.
Logic is failing me.
Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose ...
You're right...it couldn't have been because 11% of self-described Democrats voted for Bush.
A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...
This is why some of us in the tin-foil hat crowd think that Cobb may be a Democratic operative. There is some sketchy evidence that prominent Democrats (such as George Soros) funded Cobb so that the Greens wouldn't endorse Nader at their convention. Cobb's "safe-state" strategy also works well to keep the Greens out of the Democrats' hait.
Incorrect. He simply needs a higher vote total than anyone else to win a state.
I think we should start requiring a majority of registered voters for a win. We'll see politicians trying every trick in the bag to get the vote out. I think it would be funny, no one would ever get elected to a seat because no one could garner 50% of the registered voter vote.
I'll bet the Libertarians could run with this.
Rather OT, but I am reminded of a time when, in my International Politics class, that the definition of a rogue nation was put forward.
From a reasonable definition, we pegged the US, Israel and France (among others) as rogue nations.
The funny thing was that my professor found that that meant the term "rogue nation" was worthless because it included countries that obviously weren't rogue nations.
Moral: When the facts don't jive with your beliefs or assumptions, the facts are wrong.
1) ~45%
2) ~5%
3) ~0% (I have a few)
4) ~25%
5) ~15%
6) The rest are rips from my local libraries. An excellent source of hard-to-find music in my area.
Should I buy more of the music I download? Probably. Can I afford to? No.
Do I feel bad about it? No.
I distinctly remember a story about someone in Massachusetts voting for Gore (instead of his first choice, Nader) because "he heard it would be a close race".
A lot of Americans don't understand how the electoral college works.
The world ends for more and more American soldiers and their families each month because we are in Iraq. President Bush put us in Iraq.
And it will continue to end for those same families under Kerry. Bush put us there; Kerry will keep us there.
Is it any coincidence that every other presidential candidate that has a mathematical chance of winning is staunchly against the invasion of Iraq?
Indeed.
Of course Nader didn't 'steal' votes. That proposition assumes that those votes were owned by someone else and he took them.
The only votes Nader got were those of people who gladly gave them up.
Greeens and Libertarians should work out an alliance based on their areas of agreement, and win some elections.
I think the best way to go about this is to unite all minor parties under a single-issue voting reform party.
I think you missed a bit on IRV. It is true that for single-seat offices like President, that IRV won't help much. I mean if Nader gets 20% of the vote, he still won't win. What is the point of IRV if your 1st choice never wins? Of course, what I think you missed is that 5% of the vote in any presidental election currently gets you federal funding next time around. Imagine what the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists(?) could do with federal matching funds.
What is more important, IMO, is proportional representation. If your party gets 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the seats. If independent candidates wish to run, there should be some sort of mechanism so that they get a seat if they reach a certain threshhold.
The main argument against GM is that modified animals could disrupt the "natural way of things" in nature.
For example, if GM fish were able to somehow spread their modified genes outside the "control area", then that could cause an unpredictable change in an ecosystem and perhaps drive naitive animals w/o the enhancements into extinction.
As far as plants are concerned, the GM plants often end up cross-pollenating with other plants which may end up wiping out many other types of competing plants.
For now, I think the best solution is to continue ahead with some research into the long-term effects into GM, and provide manufacturers to label their products if they use any type of GM.