politicalmetrics.org

What gets me is that it didn't pass until the Senate added another $150 BILLION in pork. That should tell you something. Plus, El Presidente Bush just announced that the first 250 Big Ones (and I mean BIG ONES) are going to be used to buy stocks in various banks. Whiny Donks can complain that it is lining the pockets of Wall Street fat cats, and us capitalist-minded folks can complain that it is blatant creeping socialism.

Wait, good for the Republicans or the Democrats?

Funny you should mention that. I think there are still plenty of wedge issues, and "gun control" is still one of them. The ruling was very narrow and leaves a lot of room for more gun control. It clearly isn't a dead issue. Of course, smart democrats abandoned the issue years ago.

I just have to know the logic behind this...
http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/032207gasprices.jpg

The electoral college protects less populous states from NY/CA/IL/etc. In addition, statistically, your individual vote is more powerful via the electoral college than it would be via a popular vote.

Normally I'd agree with you. Simple party-affiliation isn't a valid reason to fire someone. However I do believe it is valid to fire someone for being a member of an anti-American group who conspires to undo the American way of life.

Might as well start posting direct Marx quotes :)

'ours' should be 'its'... where's that edit functionality?

For the "against" vote, why would someone who can legally carry a gun in downtown Boise Idaho act differently in a national park?

yeah, site admin. what the heck do you do all day anyway? get on it!

Yeah. This site sucks. I want my money back.

This should be separated into two questions. Hiring decisions are significantly different, legally speaking, from insurance coverage decisions.

Green flying unicorn eaters should also be globally banned.

Clearly, anyone who believes in "wealth distribution" is a raging socialist.

Yep! Too many darn socialists in this world. And all of them are either worthless hippies, hypocrites or both :) Capitalism is what made our country great, Socialism is what will destroy it.

It doesn't really matter anymore anyway. I figure if he's alive, he's suffering in a cave somewhere, which is rather appropriate.

All proliferation of nuclear weapon technology is a threat.

None of the above. The government should have no role whatsoever in the sacrament of marriage.

Irregardless isn't a word. ;)

Depends on whether you mean "spend more tax money promoting alternative energy" or "give tax breaks to companies that pursue alternative energy". I'd support the latter, but not the former.

That depends. "Separation of church and state" isn't legally defined anywhere. I think it is clear that Jefferson, et. al., believed that the government must be excluded from religion, but that doesn't necessarily exclude religion from government.

This question doesn't really make sense... it would only be relevant if it was in the context of a specific incident.

They ought to reflect the constitution and the law. Nothing more, nothing less. If the law is wrong, change it, don't allow legislation from the bench!

The two are not mutually exclusive.

And what age limit should that be? I know 18-year-olds who aren't mature enough to own a gun, as well as 8-year-olds who are. Should parental responsibility come into play here?

If you understand the history of the constitution and specifically the second amendment, it is the ownership of precisely this types of arms (those in common military use at the time) the founding fathers meant to protect. There is a false understanding that the second amendment somehow related to hunting rifles. The founding fathers intended civilian ownership of military arms as a check on tyranny.
In addition, the terms "military-style" and "assault weapon" are weasel-words. What people think of when they hear those terms are automatic assault rifles, which are already heavily regulated and nearly impossible for civilians to own. In reality, anti-gun lobbyists invented those terms to apply to any scary-looking gun, regardless of its function. The reality is a civilian legal "military-style assault weapon" functions no differently than a modern deer rifle. It only looks different.

I'd agree if the sentence continued "as soon as the Castro regime is dethroned and replaced with a real democratic government."

The constitution (you know, that old document written by dead white guys who used "F"s instead of "S"s a lot) is clear that the President is the Commander in Chief, and Congress only controls the budget.

I find it amazing that anyone believes the government has the right to tell a business owner what they may or may not do on their private property in cases where nobody's rights are being violated. Smoking in a bar doesn't violate your rights, since it is your choice to patronize a bar. If a bar, in the name of capitalism, decides to ban smoking in the hopes of attracting the non-smoking crowd, then good for them.

According to my faith marriage is between one mand and one woman. However, I don't think there should be any such thing as an "institution of marriage" at the government level. They have no right interfering with or legislating anyone's faith. If your faith says that marriage can exist between two women, then the government has no right to say otherwise.

There's no such thing as "free health insurance"... only "government subsidized" which simply means we're paying for it, but letting the government mandate how it runs, guaranteeing it won't be done efficiently.

When the government "subsidizes" something with (my money), they ALWAYS meddle with it. Maybe not at first, but down the road when something isn't done how the bureaucrats want it done, they'll use the purse strings as a means of control. Funneling taxpayer money directly into private industry, especially one so large and important to the nation's economy and overall welfare, is simply "indirect socialism." Or worse, it leads directly to socialism.

Those who say, "a little bit of wealth re-distribution is ok, but I wouldn't want to live in an entirely socialist country" are all too willing to dive head-first onto the slippery slope. It is a universal truth that governments never shrink nor give up power without revolution. I accept that today's bureaucratic monstrosity cannot be easily downsized. However, supplying it with fuel to grow bigger and more powerful is only the goal of fools and marxists.

Not as bad as Obama's own statements... or his wife's statements.

At least it is more entertaining and surprisingly less depressing than most "real" news shows.