john5746

I think I might have voted no on Amendment 64. Tax drugs for schools? I think that is misleading. I think the tax money should go for healthcare and increased drug testing, since I think these will be impacted.

I agree. I think the filtering is the worst part, though. The media is so fragmented that nuance gets no audience. More time is spent attacking other media viewpoints than discussing an issue. Even worse, I think they are just openly deceitful. Bill O'rielly loves to make the point that FOX is the most popular, as if that's the only measure that matters(it is business-wise, I know). Gangsta rap is more popular than classical music and the more gangsta it is, the better. Candy is more popular than broccoli, etc. He isn't a moron and I know he would make this argument if he were on the other end. It just has no place in this media circus.

Unfortunately, Mexico borders a country that has a bunch of money and gets orgasmic pleasure from drugs and guns. Their government is relatively weak in comparison. I lived quite a bit of my life in Poor Valley, TN. You can't get there from here, that's how rural it is. I got a .22 before I got a 10-speed bike. I euthanized both of my dogs with a pistol while on spring break from college. I tried hunting, but never had the patience. Guns can be useful, I understand. We shouldn't be interested in making this "fact of life" easier. You can accept it, because you think it will never happen to you. It is interesting to read some of the deliberations on the amendments. These men argued and compromised and had major concerns not relevant today. Some did not want a standing army. Some were concerned with religious sects fighting amongst each other. Some were concerned about religious sects who would not fight if asked. They did not stop slavery, they did not include ALL people in these rights. Do you think they might have seen the gun issue more clearly if slaves were allowed to own guns? That a populace armed with guns might come at a cost greater than a standing army? A useful video on reducing violence. From 11:30 onward is particularly relevant. Pinker - Ted Talks

If Obama proposes it, it becomes a communist, big government redistribution of wealth. I think Romney actually proposed eliminating second home loopholes for wealthy people, but I think he has learned it pays to be vague. He is just trying to make people think he will reduce their taxes. He is going to cut rates by 20%, but it will bring in the same revenue and the wealthy won't pay less % of taxes. And he is doing this to help small business. So if it helps them, who pays more?

Even if I believe this story, not sure that he didn't ask himself why he was doing this. He should have thought about it more, because it would have been much better to not have this crap about human sacrifice lingering on in the future. It is just stupid. Even if I am sure about the source, I know it is evil. Only evil would ask one to kill their own son. If you are god and my son needs to die, then kill him yourself.

If sexuality is on a continuum, then maybe those on the extreme ends are not the optimum. Maybe a man with some feminine traits and a woman with some masculine traits generate the most successful offspring possibly genetically and/or with better nurturing. Maybe they are also more attractive.

Why does God need me to kill my son? This is all your opinion. You are making the justification. Overriding your higher moral sense. Yes, we want to contribute to the greater good, hopefully enjoying it along the way. But, you are more interested in satisfying your opinion of God. You wouldn't even ask the question. You fail.

Yep, this was a screw-up and four Americans lost their lives. I can believe that Hillary may not have discussed it with the President, so not sure I hold him personally responsible, but still he is at the helm. So that is one in the bad column. Compare that to all the pluses. Still voting for Obama

Biden voted for the two wars, but voted against the prescription drug benefit and the tax cuts. He didn't say he didn't vote for the wars or was even against them, just implies they shouldn't have been on a credit card. The way it is worded, he could Romney out of it by claiming "them" only refers to the last two items. But this stuff is more directly related to the deficit than the recession, maybe the Iraq war was a distraction from the economy, one could argue. I think the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and any other deregulation of banks was a more direct cause of the great recession. They both voted for that, but I would say that Ryan, being a Randian, would be far more suspect going forward. He thinks Atlas is holding up the world by himself. He doesn't see all the "little" people underneath his feet.

I didn't watch all of it, but I felt Biden won his debate more than Romney did. Of course, I'm biased.

In this case, it is more like a ritual(graven image?), not a belief. I think it is the other way around, people's beliefs are wrapped into their religion and they are unable to separate the two. It feels much better to have your opinions bolstered by the creator of the universe than to have to justify them on your own.

I agree, although I don't think Obama really had that "bad" of a day. I think it isn't his style to be an attack dog and he doesn't speak quickly. He is "professorial". Since everyone understands the Mitt isn't a dribbling idiot and is capable of talking, the expectations are more realistic now. Just watch a debate between a creationist and a scientist. Its much easier to debate from a place of stupidity than from facts, especially if the audience just wants a dog fight.

In terms of ignorance, maybe not. But there is a difference. This guy isn't saying "I don't care what wicked scientists say, islands float". He quickly adjusted his thinking when presented with information. The other guy is willfully ignorant, thinks he was a scientist at some point and thinks people who disagree with him are of the devil. That's Al-Queda without the violence(so far).

Are you suggesting one must be religious in order to celebrate the torture of a human being? Why do you think science-hating morons use technology?

I'll go further and say it is human to have the "us vs them" mentality. We even make it up - sports teams for enjoyment. We just have to recognize that this is who we are and not let it get out of hand. In regards to the OP, I think the issues with Christmas really struck a nerve with the main stream. I can see the point somewhat. I think you need a balance of "when in Rome do as the Romans" and not expect everyone to say happy holidays. Jews shouldn't be offended by Merry Christmas and Christians shouldn't be offended by Hannukah or the solstice or just happy holidays. But, the main culture says Merry Christmas. I can see where taking the term God out of the pledge and the dollar would lead one to think secular = godless. God isn't specific - Jesus, Allah, etc. Of course, I think it would be best to remove them, but on the other hand, it doesn't establish a specific religion, IMO. Yeah, its BS that we trust in God, more like in synthetic derivatives we trust. I guess it just isn't a battle worth picking for me.

I said cannot decide, because to be honest, I am ignorant on how it is applied. Intuitively, it would seem to pick certain minorities over more qualified people. Am I worried that it is harming white males? No. More likely, other minorities, such as Asians, which are probably over-represented with higher SAT scores, would be potentially harmed. I understand the thinking behind it. Would be nice to know if there are any rules at all as to implementation. Does anyone review the demographics of those rejected to see if too many poor Asians with good scores were rejected for example? I understand that SAT scores aren't the only measure as well, especially if the scores are reasonably close. But, if there is a significant gap, are we just lowering standards? Poor is poor. If you are a poor white person from the Appalachia region, you have less in common with Mitt Romney than an upper class African American in the suburbs. I guess I am much more affirmative action for the poor than I am for race.

I feel the opposite. I flipped between CNN and PBS while watching the debate. PBS showed each candidate full screen, while CNN had a split screen and a stupid graph on the bottom. Split screen makes for better TV and one could argue that at the live debate, you would also see both candidates. I feel that it is a distraction and I felt the graph was trying to tell me what to think or how to feel. Less is better for me. It is up to the candidates to make their points in a debate. Fact checking and commentary comes afterwards. While watching PBS, I felt Obama was doing OK, but was on the defense, which makes sense. The economy sucks, that's reality. Even Romney couldn't etch-a-sketch that one. I think Obama was caught off-guard from the beginning with taxes. He didn't expect Romney to completely back track on that. It would be like Ron Paul getting up there and saying he would not make any spending cuts that would result in someone losing their job. I think Obama will do better in the town hall format, plus there is a better chance that Romney will need to defend some of his statements or social positions. But Romney really doesn't have to defend much, because he hasn't been doing anything for so long. He can etch-a-sketch statements to fit the situation. I look for Obama to start hitting him on that, rather than specifics. In the final debate on foreign policy, if Romney looks unprincipled, people will turn away.

Well, they knew that a damn video was heading out on the internet that would piss people off over there and maybe cause some unrest. But you didn't like them trying to deal with that did you? I guess they were supposed to start carpet-bombing pre-emptively, just in case.

Some info: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html • Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6] • Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6] • The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7] • Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8] • Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8] • Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation, in 2008.[2] • The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[11] • In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women’s mental health.[13]

Mitt must be an idiot-savant or something. I mean the guy went from being the son of a Mexican immigrant to being richie rich. With no help from anyone, he built it. Wow

Couldn't you try to talk to them first? Give everyone the same dream for several nights where you ask them to not be a dick and care for each other?

Yeah, they should have posted the following: "Bring it on, we'll stick a boot in your a**" Yep, I miss our former redneck foreign policy

We had 8 years of Bush and we didn't hang him by his balls, so yeah, we'll go along with just about anything.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals Sometimes, you have to do some reading. Excerpt from link: Tehran Research Reactor “Fuel Swap” Proposal In June 2009, Iran informed the IAEA that it was seeking assistance to refuel its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), a U.S.-supplied 5 megawatt research reactor that produces medical isotopes. Following Iran’s entreaty, the United States proposed that, in return for a supply of 120 kilograms of fuel for the TRR, Iran ship out an equivalent amount of uranium enriched to 4%, totaling about 1,200 kilograms. The 1,200 kilograms accounted for roughly 80% of Iran’s LEU stockpile at that time, a percentage that diminished as Iran continued to produce LEU. At an initial meeting between the United States, France, Russia, Iran, and the IAEA October 1, 2009, Iranian officials agreed “in principle” to the exchange. Iran exports 1,200 kilograms of LEU in a single batch before the end of the 2009 Russia further enriches Iran’s LEU to about 20%, a process producing about 120 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium for the TRR fuel rods France manufactures the TRR fuel rods for delivery about one year after the conclusion of the agreement, prior to the depletion of the current TRR fuel supply The United States works with the IAEA to improve safety and control implementation at the TRR Following reservations expressed by Iran about the terms of the deal, the P5+1 indicated their readiness to take some steps to facilitate the arrangement: A political statement of support by the six countries to guarantee that the TRR fuel would be delivered to Iran Financing for the movement of LEU and fuel An option for the IAEA to hold Iran’s LEU in escrow in a third country until the TRR fuel is delivered In the months following the initial agreement of the TRR proposal Oct.1, Iran delayed giving the IAEA and the P5+1 a definitive response to the proposal, with many prominent Iranian politicians voicing their opposition to the arrangement, motivated at least in part by their opposition to President Ahmadinejad. Iranian officials publicly suggested alterations to the fuel swap proposal, including: staggering the export of Iran’s LEU over the course of a year or transporting 400 kilograms of LEU to Iran’s Kish Island to exchange for TRR fuel. These proposals, however, undermined or eliminated the confidence-building nature of the export of the bulk of Iran’s LEU. Tehran began to increase the enrichment level of some of its LEU to 20% in February 2010, ostensibly for TRR fuel. Brazil, Turkey, Iran Tehran Declaration Brazil and Turkey carried out a diplomatic initiative in the Spring of 2010 to broker the TRR fuel swap with Iran. In an April 20 letter to the leaders of the two countries, President Obama said Iran’s agreement to export 1,200 kilograms of LEU “would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile.” The initiative resulted in the May 17 Tehran Declaration agreed between Presidents Lula da Silva, Erdogan, and Ahmadinejad. The three countries “recall the right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities)” Iran transfers 1,200 kilograms of LEU to be held in escrow in Turkey within one month Pending their approval of the Tehran Declaration, the IAEA, France, Russia, and the United States (the Vienna Group) would agree to provide 120 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium fuel to Iran within one year If the terms were not filled by the Vienna Group, Turkey would transfer the LEU back to Iran (which maintains legal possession of the material) France, Russia, and the United States rejected the Tehran Declaration on a number of grounds identified in a June 9 letter to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. The key critique was that the declaration did not address Iran’s production of 20%-enriched uranium and Iran’s accumulation of a larger amount of LEU. Second article from Wall Street Journal - I tried link, but asked for subscription, so: Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei claimed last week that his government isn't interested in nuclear weapons: "Our motto is nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none," he said. A better perspective was provided almost simultaneously from the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which on Aug. 30 released its latest report on Iran's nuclear activities. The report, written in a mix of bureaucrat-speak and obscure science, nevertheless conveys a worrying message. It shows that Iran continues to expand its capacity for enriching uranium. There are now two new groups of centrifuges installed at Fordow—the hardened site built under a mountain near the holy city of Qom—which signals a doubling of the site's capacity since May. Crucially, Iran continues to stockpile uranium enriched to 3.5% and 20% purity—levels for which Iran has no immediate use unless it is planning to make an atomic bomb. (Its stockpiles of 20% uranium far exceed Tehran's claimed needs for a reactor making medical isotopes.) Iran is now operating around 11,000 centrifuges categorized as "IR-1," which are based on a Dutch design acquired by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. This means that, despite international sanctions and surveillance, Iran has acquired (and perhaps continues to acquire) important supplies from abroad, particularly maraging steel and high-strength aluminum. Alternatively, and no less worrying, is the possibility that Iran is now able to produce such special metals domestically. A piece of apparent good news is that Iran's IR-1 centrifuges are performing at half their design potential, producing less enriched uranium than they might otherwise. This indicates quality problems, perhaps due to the manufacturing process or to the raw materials used. It also appears that Iran remains slow in developing more advanced centrifuge types. This could be because of design and manufacturing problems. Or Iran could be saving the advanced centrifuges for another secret, yet-to-be-revealed facility. We can only speculate. Judging from this report, Iran seems determined to achieve the capability of producing nuclear materials suitable for nuclear weapons. Whether it has made a decision to produce a fully operational nuclear weapon is unclear. (The Obama administration says it hasn't, according to its latest declared intelligence on Iran's government.) Going forward, the matter of advanced centrifuges will be important to watch. If Iran acquires or develops them, it could pursue a "fast break-out"—moving within months to 90%-enriched uranium, which is weapons-grade—using its already sizable and growing inventories of 20%. Once it has five or six bombs-worth of 90% enriched uranium, it would essentially be a latent nuclear-weapon state—whether it has actually tested a bomb or not. Indeed, given the intelligence uncertainties involved with monitoring whether such a secretive program moves to "break-out," even a stockpile of five or six bombs-worth of 20%-enriched uranium would effectively make Iran a nuclear-weapon state. Last week's IAEA report also shows that inspectors continue to struggle to get access to the controversial site of Parchin, outside Tehran, where satellite imagery shows that Iran has carried out substantial landscaping and construction activities, presumably to cover up past nuclear work. Similar Iranian obstructionism and destruction of evidence has taken place in the past. Still, the IAEA has powerful inspection tools—plus information from member states such as the U.S.—which means it could take a view on what earlier happened at Parchin. The suspicion is that Iran used a giant steel chamber at the site to experiment on "implosion," the technique of squeezing a nuclear explosive (such as highly enriched uranium) into a critical mass using conventional explosives. Evidence of such testing would be a "smoking gun" indicating Iranian military nuclear intentions. Cautious politicians will argue there is still time for diplomacy, plus sanctions and military threats, to succeed. But Iranian leaders give little impression they are about to give in to pressure. And during last week's flurry of news, this newspaper reported that Iran's suspected chief nuclear bomb maker, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, appears to have been brought back to the fore after several years of apparently being sidelined. The IAEA report concludes by saying that Director-General Yukiya Amano "will continue to report as appropriate." But Mr. Amano does not have a sign on his desk saying "the buck stops here." The future of Iran's nuclear program is in the hands of whoever does.

Nah, that would make too much sense. http://www.masslegalhelp.org/income-benefits/fshomelessness I'm all for a national ID system. But, the very ones pushing this last minute voting requirement would be against it, claiming government intrusion. Go figure.