EL-DUDERINO

[quote]I am sorry if somebody's choice of lifestyle includes actions that violate other people's rights. But the onus is on THEM to change their lifestyle, not on everybody else to accomodate it.[/quote] Some research has shown that associations with overweight people causes people to gain weight, does that mean we should enact laws that dictate how much people can weigh? There is tons of research that indicates that alcoholism is an inherited disorder, should we prevent alcoh

[quote]No. It is the attackers' fault.[/quote] Try to sue the "attacker" for damages that you incur because you knowingly put yourself in harms way. The court should toss out the suit. Again I'm not saying the robbers were blameless in my scenario, I was merely stating that when you knowingly enter a bank that is being robbed you must accept responsibility if you get injured.

[quote]No, it's the robbers' fault, obviously.[/quote] If you knowingly put yourself in harms way it is YOUR fault that harm comes to you. If you jump off a cliff is it the cliffs fault for existing or is it your fault for jumping off? In my analogy I wasn't saying that the robbers have no blame, I was simply stating that if you enter a bank while it is being robbed then you must accept the risk that you may get hurt. [quote]No. Living in a free society does not me

[quote]My only beef with the government doing a universal internet is that it would put many people currently at work at different ISP's out of work.[/quote] I disagree. Does cable and satellitte tv put broadcasters out of work? Of course not. I think what is being suggested here is that the government provide free internet access but it would be incredibly slow so that if users want more speed then they have to pay for a service from an ISP and I think there will al

[quote]Using that logic you can excuse any crime. "What was he doing living here in this city anyway?" "If he didn't want to be poisoned, why didn't he just give me his money and move away? Stupid uncle Bob!" "He was in my way. He put himself in harm's way. He could have been in Nebraska and I wouldn't have shot him." I think you are confusing somebody's choice to be positioned at X for reason Y (with Y != "wanting to breath smoke") with somebody's

I haven't read all the comments so maybe this has been said before I appologize if that's the case. My feeling is that government shouldn't be able to ban smoking in anything other than government buildings. Now if they want to enact regulations that mandate that businesses must ensure "clean air" for patrons that is different. What I mean here is that if a business wants to allow smoking the ventelation system used in the "smoking area" must be completely separate from th

[quote]Yeah, their shelf life is rather short, at least in most cases.[/quote] I have a few reforms that would improve their shelf life but none of them will ever happen: 1) First and foremost, term limits. The notion of a career politician should simply NOT exist. 2) No one actively sitting in one elected or appointed office should be allowed to campaign for another position, possibly during recess periods but preferably not at all. 3) Pay raises for ele

[quote]We need to start an Anit-Incumbent Party. Every elected official should have a 'Use by' date, since they inevitably spoil & rot.[/quote] Unfortunately it seems like that "use by" date is about 2 days after they are sworn into office. The first two days all they do is orientation stuff so they don't have the chance to do any real damage.

I felt the same way when the Patriot Act was passed but nothing changed. The same idiots kept getting re-elected, and now Obama has taken control of the Census so I'm sure things are only bound to get worse. It would really be nice if people would stop re-electing the same people but unfortunately too many of the masses believe that their representatives are doing a good job, it's all the other ones that are screwing things up. We need a complete overhaul on congress.

[quote]See I dont think I really fit into any one group when it comes to politics... I go from one side to the other on issues. I love the gov to live withen the means and not raise taxes... That makes me conservative right? But on the other hand, i dont mind giving a helping hand to honest hard working people that have had a string of bad luck.[/quote] I am much the same way. I consider myself Libertarian or essentially fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I don't min

[quote]El... I dont have problems with her getting help with the disabled kids... because Me and the old lady get the same for our boys... but heres where we part from this wack job[/quote] Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't mind her collecting disability payments for her disabled kids, but let's call a spade a spade when you're unemployed receiving government assistance you are on some form of welfare no matter what it's actual source is. It was her semantics that bothered m

[quote]Anyway what are you proposing instead? That you cut off welfare and leave the mothers+their children to starve on the streets? That you have a child cap policy similar to China's 1 child one? That you ban people from having IVF if they're not earning a certain level of income? That you only allow the rich to have children? Any one of those sounds like a far worse alternative.[/quote] I don't know about anyone else but I would be asking that the folks in charge of regulating the

I have been following this story since it broke and the more I learn about it the more annoyed I get. This woman obviously has some major mental problems, how they were missed when she worked in a mental hospital is beyond me. There are so many things to "love" about this story: 1) She claims that she doesn't consider herself on welfare. She is on social programs that are out there that because of her three disabled kids she qualifies for. I don't know about yo

[quote]My predictions for this "talk show host" format: It will not last long. As soon as more folks realize they aren't going to be able to retire at 25 or the new house isn't coming, the crowd will turn into something less adoring. Entertaining though if you like that sort of thing.[/quote] My prediction is a little more dire. Right now people are euphoric over Obama being the president and his approval ratings are extremely high at the moment. I have a feeling the after

[quote]Though i do agree we need to get back to manufacturing our own stuff for the most part.[/quote] This is key to our economy really recovering. If we can't make our own goods we will be in serious trouble if our money ever becomes unusable in a world economy. Imagine for a moment a world where due to the state of our national debt countries no longer value our currency, how are we supposed to continue importing all of our goods? At the moment we import most of w

[quote]Ed why do people still insist on blaming the rep for the last bail out? Has it not been proven that for a matter of fact that there was very little Rep support for it and yet the Dems overwhelmingly voted for it? O thats right...because Bush okayed it that must mean its a Rep thing...even though bush pretty much threw away his rep lable in his second term[/quote] I think it just comes down to standard politics, the previous President was a Republican and he spend most of his te

[quote]In case you haven't noticed, I'm not too sanguine on the future of our Constitutional republic. Our representatives no longer seem to represent.[/quote] According to an article that I read on either Foxnews or cnn (I can't remember which) the democratic representatives are told to basically fall in line with the party leadership. I beleive the representative that was interviewed (the name escapes me but it was one of the 11 that voted against the stimulus bill in the Hous

[quote]It's too late to save now, but that shouldn't mean the second part is similarly abandoned - it would still be better to borrow now (and repay it in the next growth period) than to let the recession get even worse - for a start you'd help avoid some of the 'negative spiral' effects such as demand falling causing firms to fire staff to cut costs causing demand to fall further.[/quote] That'd be nice it would work but as past experience has shown us once the government grows it do

[quote]Yes you are. Most (possibly even all - I cant be bothered to check all the minute details) democrats that supported the first bail out supported the second. None of the republicans that supported the first bail out supported the second. Given that the second had more (economic) justification than the first, that means that when it comes to hypocracy the republicans are the worst offenders in this case. I wouldn't expect you to see that though, since you seem blind to anything other tha

[quote]Did we see the same news conference?[/quote] That was pretty much my response as well. I watched most of it, and I was less than impressed. First of all I blame the reporters, why the hell did someone ask about Obama's opinion of A-Rod's confession related to the use of "banned substances"? Why not ask an important question like a couple of the other reporters asked related to how Obama could guarantee that this stimulus bill will "save" our economy like "on

[quote]p.s. I hate Congress.[/quote] You're not alone. And before people go claiming that I'm only saying that because I hate Dems, I hated congress when the Republicans were running the show too. Congress has a major disconnect with their constituents. Why anyone re-elects these jokers is beyond me. We need a complete overhaul in congress, kick everyone out and start anew, and start by adding term limits to the offices.

[quote]Obama will take the brunt of it because he is the one showing his face on tv screaming how the Republicans are not being bipartisan,[/quote] What I love is that at the moment bipartisan means that Republicans cave to whatever the Democrats want to do instead of what it should mean as the Democrats and Republicans actually working together to come to a consensus.

[quote]It doesn't need to create long lasting jobs, it just needs to create jobs for a couple of years when things will have started to recover and those jobs can be filled elsewhere. At least with energy efficiency you will have a long term benefit (saving) that will help offset wholly or partially the interest payments on the debt you've had to take out to fund the spending initially.[/quote] But see that's the danger of temporary jobs. What if the economy takes longer to reco

[quote]So if I'm reading this right, spending money on energy efficiency, security personel, waste disposal, flood defences, fighting health epidemics, education, and fire services is all 'pork'?! In that case, give me all the pork I can eat![/quote] I haven't heard anyone claim that the money allocated in the porkulus bill isn't "needed". What people have been saying is that a lot of the items in the bill are NOT stimulus, they will do nothing to actually stimulate the economy.

The more I think about it the more I am of the opinion that the Obama and congress seem to think that the way to fight a fire is with gasoline. They figure if we toss enough onto the fire then it will go out and everything will be great. But if just one ember remains the fire will re-ignite and be much, much worse. Here's my prediction: The porkulus package will pass the Senate and will start getting applied in the May-June timeframe much like last years.