Poor John Huntsman. He seems to be the best candidate of the lot, but he is a moderate and he is sane. I wonder if he felt like he should have stayed in China rather then return to this political farce. Maybe he should simply say, 'Hey, why do you think Obama and the Dems wanted me in China where I could not compete against them', but that might backfire as the other candidates could welcome him to leave. Perhaps Michelle Bachman would say, 'John, return to your Godless China, your no republican anyway.'

As a side note, I have seen a few profile pictures where he looks a little like Bill Marher with a haircut. Not necessarily a separated at birth look, but enough for a double take.

pacino wrote:two of the biggest applause lines of the night: death penalty and death by lack of health insurance

The death by lack of health insurance got me. Worse yet was when the guy from the audience screamed out "let him die". wtf is wrong with these people? So their position is pretty much that there shouldn't be universal health care and those who can't afford it should just die. But how it started off was just as good. The lady asked a question about how they'll control health care costs. If you want a free market and a small government, why would you be asking what the candidates would do to keep costs down? That completely goes against what they supposedly stand for. Those idiots have no idea what they believe. Maybe is the fat lady actually took care of herself she wouldn't be too concerned with the cost of her health care.

That's their economic plan. Many of the uninsured are unemployed or underemployed. Death by lack of health insurance would lower the unemployment numbers.

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:two of the biggest applause lines of the night: death penalty and death by lack of health insurance

The death by lack of health insurance got me. Worse yet was when the guy from the audience screamed out "let him die". wtf is wrong with these people? So their position is pretty much that there shouldn't be universal health care and those who can't afford it should just die. But how it started off was just as good. The lady asked a question about how they'll control health care costs. If you want a free market and a small government, why would you be asking what the candidates would do to keep costs down? That completely goes against what they supposedly stand for. Those idiots have no idea what they believe. Maybe is the fat lady actually took care of herself she wouldn't be too concerned with the cost of her health care.

The Teeper handlers on some of the cable shows I saw today were feverish to distance the tribe from the "let him die!" shouter and all that noxious cultural jazz, insisting with remarkable unanimity that the Party is all about (and practically only about) fiscal conservatism.

That they were all late-middle-aged white guys is entirely coincidental and totally beside the point. They have that hawt thin-lipped, hard-bitten-looking chick with the bad makeup and hair-dye job going for them too.

jeff2sf wrote:Do both you and Roger Dorn advocate returning to the gold standard? I assume you'll respond to this at some point in October.

I dont. But I also dont see why people are not allowed to develop metal-based currencies (see Liberty Dollar).

Werthless wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Do both you and Roger Dorn advocate returning to the gold standard? I assume you'll respond to this at some point in October.

I dont. But I also dont see why people are not allowed to develop metal-based currencies (see Liberty Dollar).

The name of the guy behind the Lib Dollar is Nuthouse. Well it's not, but his actual name to Nuthouse is as Liberty Dollar is to genuine legal tender.

He DOES have a knack for unique promotional stunts, however - what better than the publicity of a federal trial to round up more fools to hose with your scam?

(not a rebuttal, merely an assortment of observations)

also, apparently the coins carry the graven image of Ron Paul, which is just wrong on so many levels

Change proposed for state's electoral vote process

Pennsylvania looking to divvy up electoral votes by Congressional district

I think this would be fine to implement nationally, but a state, especially a competitive one, doing it is really stupid. It turns Pennsylvania into Nevada. Instead of 20 EVs up for grabs, there are a half dozen at most.

And the GOP seems to think pushing this will help, but Obama's polling pretty poorly in PA, and winning the state outright seems just as likely as not.

jerseyhoya wrote:Change proposed for state's electoral vote process

Pennsylvania looking to divvy up electoral votes by Congressional district

I think this would be fine to implement nationally, but a state, especially a competitive one, doing it is really stupid. It turns Pennsylvania into Nevada. Instead of 20 EVs up for grabs, there are a half dozen at most.

And the GOP seems to think pushing this will help, but Obama's polling pretty poorly in PA, and winning the state outright seems just as likely as not.

Well, it's stupid to think about this (or any other reform (like eliminating the filibuster)) on the basis of the next election. Consider down the road--on balance, over the course of say the next 50 years, I think this does help the GOP. And, let's be honest. If the Republicans win PA outright, they win the election, whether or not PA splits its electoral votes.

On your point regarding PA's interests overall, you are of course correct.

Werthless wrote:I dont. But I also dont see why people are not allowed to develop metal-based currencies (see Liberty Dollar).

Here is a problem with the Liberty Dollar: What is $20? You make a coin out of something and call it $20.00, what is the backing? In 2009 the base value of Liberty Dollar was $20 Liberty Dollars to one ounce of silver. Metals, especially silver, have fluctuated wildly meaning that an exchange would need to be set so that you could reconcile how much metal you were trading with the mintage which can change minute to minute. With a sliver reserve of X, what if the market crashes for silver (I know that never has happened) meaning there are more coins then backing metal meaning they are not worth $20 at all (again, they are pegging to the dollar they are competing with). Then you roll in the whole member versus non-member layer with participating merchants with fess, royalties, discounts, maximum spot charges, etc., it gets pretty out of hand fast. The end game seems to be that you exchange for Federal Reserve Notes, so why not just use a buck? Lord knows it is easier to tell what you really have in your hand and it is backed by something a lot more credible. With all the look over here, no there, at that, run away you can see why the feds cracked down on them.

Now it is not counterfeiting unless it is passed as legal tender and stated to be backed by the USA. These coins and notes have the word Negotiable on them. It is a lot scary in my view. Where it works is regional, merchant bases "notes" that can be passed. The biggest barrier is making a note that is credible and not easy to counterfeit, which take extreme resources or is an acceptable risk due to low value (call it a coupon).




Today's silver price is $40.96/ounce if you are curious. That makes the one a $4.09 note.

thephan wrote:Poor John Huntsman. He seems to be the best candidate of the lot, but he is a moderate and he is sane. I wonder if he felt like he should have stayed in China rather then return to this political farce. Maybe he should simply say, 'Hey, why do you think Obama and the Dems wanted me in China where I could not compete against them', but that might backfire as the other candidates could welcome him to leave. Perhaps Michelle Bachman would say, 'John, return to your Godless China, your no republican anyway.'

As a side note, I have seen a few profile pictures where he looks a little like Bill Marher with a haircut. Not necessarily a separated at birth look, but enough for a double take.

only in this world could he be considered a moderate for simply being sane and believing in the concept of science. he is thoroughly a conservative.

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:Poor John Huntsman. He seems to be the best candidate of the lot, but he is a moderate and he is sane. I wonder if he felt like he should have stayed in China rather then return to this political farce. Maybe he should simply say, 'Hey, why do you think Obama and the Dems wanted me in China where I could not compete against them', but that might backfire as the other candidates could welcome him to leave. Perhaps Michelle Bachman would say, 'John, return to your Godless China, your no republican anyway.'

As a side note, I have seen a few profile pictures where he looks a little like Bill Marher with a haircut. Not necessarily a separated at birth look, but enough for a double take.

only in this world could he be considered a moderate for simply being sane and believing in the concept of science. he is thoroughly a conservative.

That's the point, right? Keep pushing what is "normal" and "moderate" to the right until we are so far to the right that we don't know where the center resides.

He makes Nixon look like a leftist lunatic. Of course, Obama makes Nixon look like a raging lefty.... again, how far right can we go?

Federal appeals court panel puts Carl Lewis back on ballot for state Senate race.

I don't even know why the state bothers having election laws. The courts apparently never think any of them matter.

It shouldn't for the senate.

jerseyhoya wrote:Federal appeals court panel puts Carl Lewis back on ballot for state Senate race.

I don't even know why the state bothers having election laws. The courts apparently never think any of them matter.

I'd agree if the state election law actually stated what a "resident" was. And if, in the absence of this, it didn't designate a political hack to make this interpretation (one who, in her hackdom decided to misrepresent/ignore/misinterpret/lie about the evidence in front of her.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but there's simply no way anyone can look at that law and not see that in this case it allows for interpretation either way. And since it comes down to interpretation I'd rather the courts do it than someone who owes her fealty to the head of the opposition party.

PA GOP is trying to change the votes simply because they've gerrymandered the districts enough that most democratic ones aren't competitive. a million more democrats than republicans are in the state and yet the representation somehow isn't that way at all. the supposedly swing-state PA hasn't voted for a republican for president since 1988.

Elizabeth Warren is running for Senate!!!

Paul's response to the insurance question and the audience's reaction were appalling.



"Shana, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say let em crash."

Some Republican harassed me at the county fair.

pacino wrote:Elizabeth Warren is running for Senate!!!

Yup. The one candidate to whom I'll probably give money in the 2012 cycle.

Much as the right will try to demonize Warren as some kind of redistributionist Jacobin--I'm sure the Murdoch properties are already going through their files for unflattering pictures and distortable quotes--this is someone whom I don't think any sane person can listen to without acknowledging that she makes a lot of sense.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Federal appeals court panel puts Carl Lewis back on ballot for state Senate race.

I don't even know why the state bothers having election laws. The courts apparently never think any of them matter.

I'd agree if the state election law actually stated what a "resident" was. And if, in the absence of this, it didn't designate a political hack to make this interpretation (one who, in her hackdom decided to misrepresent/ignore/misinterpret/lie about the evidence in front of her.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but there's simply no way anyone can look at that law and not see that in this case it allows for interpretation either way. And since it comes down to interpretation I'd rather the courts do it than someone who owes her fealty to the head of the opposition party.

I'm no fancy big city lawyer (and admittedly have read little about this case and the whole appeals process so maybe I'm taking this line way out of context), but I don't get how there isn't a compelling state interest in enforcing its election laws.

In a court order issued about six hours after Lewis made a list-ditch appeal, the panel said the state "failed to demonstrate compelling state interest in the application" of the residency requirement.

...

Judge Thomas Ambro, who wrote the decision, was skeptical of the state’s case, saying the requirement exists to make sure candidates know their districts and voters know the candidates. "It’s hard to say that this candidate doesn’t know the local issues affecting the 8th Legislative District, and it’s kind of hard to say the voters don’t know who he is," Ambro said.

I dunno. Kinda seems like the judge is saying that because he grew up here and is a famous track star he doesn't really have to have lived in New Jersey for the last four years. If he was just some random guy that lived and voted in California but had a house in the district would the residency issue matter, since people would be less likely to know who he is?

I'm also very glad we took political hackery out of the matter and let the judges appointed by Clinton and Obama outvote the judge appointed by Reagan 2-1 in putting Lewis on the ballot.

now i may be just a simple country hyper-chicken,