yeah i knew a lot of other states didn't require it, just wondering what problems have come up and if there have been any movements to bring i back. it's almost like a voting card to me. Even if shitty, it's the only mode of transportation for a lot of people, and getting it taken away from them could be horrible

When I lived in Ohio, there was no inspection. Not coincidentally, every rush hour there was a car broken down and often on fire.

Used to be every 6 months in PA!!

That's an interesting topic, though. One would think statistical evidence could easily be compiled in order to support an opinion either way.

yeah, i'd like to see if it matters or not. maybe it doesn't!

cars suck comprehensively, so there's that

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:i guess it would be interesting to see what problems there are in other states that don't require it.

found it
i didnt realize so many states didnt have any inspections at all. so people can just keep driving around shitty cars without repairing them?s lt seems like, other than emissions, the Northeast is pretty much an outlier. I didnt realize that.

Been driving with a cracked windshield for a couple of years now!

But really, a lot of state inspection programs are just rackets for mechanics and such. You just pay the guy a couple of hundred and you get a sticker.

drsmooth wrote:cars suck comprehensively, so there's that

Technically, they suck air for the internal combustion process

/larryliteral

I've seen so many cars with the roof rusted through that I started calling them "Florida Sunroofs".

Bill O'Reilly still wasn't fired for lies. Amazing.

He works for a network that's cool with that. This shouldn't surprise you.

Been away, so don't know if this has been posted. Nicely done CNN:



can't imagine this crowd is unfamiliar with the original, but here it is:

That was pretty good

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/34211

A good episode of The Wright Show.

Iowa State Representative Ross Paustian (R) is thoroughly engulfed in the debate.

Mainly for Jerz, who I presume still lives for interesting polling info from around the world:

The election outcome in Scotland remains the single factor most likely to shape the composition of the next government. As things stand, no combination of parties – with the exception of an unlikely Labour-Tory grand coalition – would have the numbers needed to form a stable government without the votes of the SNP

UK general election is May. Next Year We have Scottiah elections again. If the SNP perform as predicted, they will be faced with the tricky decision of whether to put a referendum back on their manifesto again for Scottish elections. Latest poll put support for independence at 45%, narrowly ahead of staying in UK, but 11% undecided. We remain in interesting times.

International Monetary Fund study finds inequality is damaging to economic growth

The whole paper is linked with the article. Another blow to trickle down theory.

Wizlah wrote:Mainly for Jerz, who I presume still lives for interesting polling info from around the world:

The election outcome in Scotland remains the single factor most likely to shape the composition of the next government. As things stand, no combination of parties – with the exception of an unlikely Labour-Tory grand coalition – would have the numbers needed to form a stable government without the votes of the SNP

UK general election is May. Next Year We have Scottiah elections again. If the SNP perform as predicted, they will be faced with the tricky decision of whether to put a referendum back on their manifesto again for Scottish elections. Latest poll put support for independence at 45%, narrowly ahead of staying in UK, but 11% undecided. We remain in interesting times.

Interesting, thanks for posting. This whole election is fascinating, and I'm going to have to make an effort to follow it closer as it approaches. Some rambling, uninformed thoughts to follow...

I imagine you are supporting the SNP? Do you think they would agree to a deal with Labour? Would you want them to strike a deal with them? The article seems to look at it from Labour's side but not too much from the SNP perspective. With how poorly being the junior partner in a coalition has gone for the Lib Dems, I would think they'd want to stay out of government. But maybe if they back Labour they could make the government in their image in a way the Lib Dems haven't been able to. There's ideological overlap, but I think so much of the SNP's success has come from being Not David Cameron (could be totally wrong on that) and if they were to get in bed with Milliband and be seen as having real power at Westminster, that might hurt their ability to succeed in the local Scottish elections/hinder future independence referendum success/etc. I guess it will come down to what kind of deal they can get and what they envision as their most important goals for the next five years.

In a first past the post system, it's quite strange to see this proliferation of parties. I wonder how that happens and whether it could ever happen here. Canada has 4 big parties, but one is only in Quebec, and the NDP only really surged last time because the Liberals totally imploded. Australia just has two big parties (one is a weird coalition). Maybe the regionalization (SNP, Plaid Cymru) allows the smaller parties (Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens) breathing space in the system because it's not all about Labour and Conservative? Or the EU elections allow some parties to have relevance (UKIP, Greens) and that's creeping into the Westminster elections? Seems like a trend that is increasing though.

I guess the Conservatives are likely (though by no means guaranteed) to get the most seats, but all of the smaller parties bar UKIP are left of center, so they won't have anyone to govern with (unless the remnant Lib Dems would take another five years of this). In plenty of countries that wouldn't matter and if the left leaning parties got the most seats they'd be in charge, but it'd be unusual in the UK for the second largest party to supply the prime minister. I do kind of wonder if as things get closer if the Conservatives don't eat up undecided voters in England who a) don't see Ed as a plausible prime minister and b) don't want the SNP having such a say in government. Honestly hadn't even considered a grand coalition between Labour and the Conservatives before reading that article. That'd be effing bizarre.

In the old days they'd just muddle along with a minority government until they lost a big vote, then call new elections, but Cameron instituted fixed terms, right? Seems like that might lead to five years of chaotic rule no matter who ends up as PM.

The Education of Jeb Bush - Fairly interesting Jeb profile in The Weekly Standard. Written for a conservative audience obviously.

Really wish his last name was Smith.

Ted Cruz officially threw the hat into the ring

remember when Pat Buchannan was considered the crazy right?