Dan J

One has nothing to do with the other. Its a right of any citizen to vote, its not a right to see Mrs Obama at a book signing.

There are cases where more technology does not improve outcomes, but it certainly improves the bottom line of the companies providing the technology, or the doctors providing it because they can charge more.

But this is kind of stupid and meaningless anyway. Its trying to measure the loss of life extension based on innovations that are not realized. Somehow this is more important than addressing care issues where a benefit can be realized (Providing better care to the currently uninsured).

This will probably end up as a very expensive Pyrrhic victory. Walker and his supporters spent nearly 10 times as much as his opponent, most of that money coming from out of state. While Walker won, it appears that the Republicans lost control of the state senate. Considering how decisive has made state politics, he will now be a lame duck.

And mine went up.....AGAIN.

It probably has more to do with getting older than an overall increase in rates

Obama is not as liberal as much of the Democratic party. If someone voting in the primary thinks he is too liberal, then they are voting in the wrong primary.

Recent studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents are actually more likely to turn out homosexual themselves. It may not be intentional, but for some their environment growing up can determine their 'comfort' later on in life.

Its more likely that homosexual children in homosexual relationships are more likely to be comfortable coming out, than homosexual children in straight relationships.

If humans cannot control their own population, nature will do it for them.

To me, all these efforts to help the poor in developing nations never made sense. Addressing the needs of the poor results without addressing population growth results in a continue cycle that will never be broken. We provide enough resources for people to meet their needs, but not enough to push development to a point of declining population growth (As seen in developed countries).

and the last time I checked, delegates are what matter in a primary, NOT popular vote.

The beautiful part about delegates, is they don't have to vote for whomever the popular vote person was.

Unless you are a super delegate, you are generally bound to vote for whomever wins your state (Some states have different rules that control the distribution of delegates). Now, if no candidate receives the majority of delegates through the primary process, then they can vote for whoever they want, but that's not going to happen. It used to be in the past that the primary was more of a suggestion, but now it binds the votes of the delegates.

Now who gets chosen as a delegate can influence other things such as the party platform at the national level.

So Romney is wealthy - he ought to be damn proud if it. There was a time in this country when being wealthy did not elicit scorn and envy.

It's still ok to be wealthy, just not wealthy and conservative.

One of the most important factors in getting elected as President is how likable you are. Having a lot of wealth can complicate that, especially if you can't relate to the people will be voting for you. Which is something Romney is having trouble with.

If you read the entire article, you will see that they had assets taking into account inflation of $375,000 dollars. They may have chosen to be very frugal with their spending, but that is not just "scraping by". Most people in that situation does not have the choice to be frugal, they have to be frugal.

Not only that, alot of costs now days have outstripped inflation. $62 per month rent would be $350 today. A quick check of rents in Provo, UT today show that they start around $600 per month. Collage tuition has increased faster than the rate of inflation, in many cases 2 to 3 times as much.

Romney should just stop trying to pretend he is someone he is not.

There are quite a few small airports that are living off of government subsidies.

None of the Republican candiates will have an easy time winning the general election.

1. Romney isn't conservative enough to get the base out to vote for him, and he plays nicely into the occupy narrative.

2. Santorum for as much as he hates Iran, sees it as an ideal form of government. Not a fan of freedoms that are not found in his interpretation of the bible.

3. Paul is just Paul, does anyone really believe a Libertarian can really win a major party nomination much less the general election?

That is bunk. The technology has to stand on its own. It is not the Feds role to force us to use any technology. It is a huge overreach of the Feds to try and force a technology on us when there is no need to do so. As it stands now the U.S. has enough fuel to power this country for a long time.

I have no problems with driving a battery powered car. The electric car has been trying to become a reality for decades. It is a great idea but it is impracticable as battery technology is not there.....yet. Want to make a electric car that can stand on its own then figure out the battery storage problem that is making the car a joke as it stands now. And do it at a comparable price to a carbon engine car. If the Feds want to really help and not hinder then spend money on the few things stopping that technology by research funds. Right now the Feds are wasting money and time and thus hindering what needs to be done.

In most cases it eventually does. But government funding has been significant in development of many technologies we rely on today. Many companies are reluctant to do the kind of investment and research some of the alternative technologies need. It could be too expensive, have too long of a window to realize returns or be considered too risky. This is where the government can step in an help provide research that would benefit most people.

This is not to say that every single investment made by the government is going to go well. Some are going to end up producing no results and costing a lot of money. But often times it provides some knowledge on at least what not to do. If the government is as risk adverse as corporations when it comes to research, then forget about it, we are screwed.

What happened with Solyndra came as no surprise and it did not have to happen -- in fact based on the due diligence performed it was expected they would go belly-up. All industries get tax breaks, oil and gas is no different.

Wanna guess who makes more per gallon of gasoline sold than the producers -- yes, government? The state and federal are "hugely benefiting" more than the actual oil companies.

The federal government puts an $0.184 tax on a gallon of gas, states add an up to an additional $0.40 per gallon. Unless gas costs less than $1.20 per gallon, the government is not taking the most out of the price of a gallon of gas.

The alternatives are not cost effective yet. When you and your clueless brethren get the costs of the alternatives down to even near what us cost conscious people want then that technology will not need HUGE subsidies and laws forcing us to use the technology. The alternatives need to stand on their own. As it stands now it is riddled with corruption. The money could be used to pay down a huge debt but is used to pay off donors. As it stands now we are being ripped off and anyone that advocates ripping us off is an idiot.

Its going to take years if not decades to develop alternative energy technologies. If we let the free market drive research and adoption, we will probably just be starting research now. Energy prices would be quite high before we got any alternative solution.

Alternative energy is also long term strategy, also well outside the window of return for most investors. I don't know too many investors that will invest in something that make take longer than just a few years to produce returns.

The government will be involved in shaping and investing a long term energy strategy, just like they are with fossil fuels.

Oil and gas pay for themselves, tax payers pay for green energy. I say if the LWNJ want that energy let them pay for it, don't make everyone suffer for what they want. Solyndra.

Solyndra story is a bit more complicated, and a story of the real risk in any new technology venture. Solyndra was started to find an alternative method to creating solar power in response to rising prices of silicon. Unfortunately the prices for silicon dropped (and less directly the drop in natural gas prices) and the market moved away from its technology.

Oil and gas still receive direct or indirect tax breaks and subsidies totaling much more than what was lost on Solyndra. But at this time its hugely benefiting from economics of scale that other energy sources have yet to build.

Its interesting how certain conservatives criticize Iran, but also see it as a model form of government.

It appears your ringleader is even unsure, wanna rethink your absolutist position?

After your search for God has been extremely limited, you are certain he doesn't exist in places you have never been to..... even with a telescope.

Think about that.

Unlike organized religions, there is no ringleader. each person comes to atheism or agnosticism on their own free will.

Science can explain the how we exist, but not so much the why. You are going to get a point where you have to face this question. To many people, a simple answer that we just exist is too traumatizing and they need to assign meaning to it.

Humans are good at finding patterns in chaos even if they don't exist. A lottery is completely random, but many people try to find patterns and assign meaning to what numbers are selected. The same goes for religion. Its an answer the chaos that we see when we try to explain why we exist.

Personally I don't care what people believe. I understand why many people find their religion important. It saves them from having to face questions they can't handle. My only issue with religion is when people use religion as a basis to shape society beyond their own personal lives.

dummy Israel has one of the highest gdps in the middle east. if it was not or oil then it would be the highest. numbers came from the middle east, but it must have been a Jew who invented.

Would they still be in the same economic position if they didn't get the economic and military aid that the US provided them?

This whole thing is an issue only because employers commonly provide health insurance. Why should your employer care about what kind of health care you receive any why?

Outsourcing wont last for much longer I believe. By 2015 some estimate that USA might get back 2-3 million jobs from China. Cost of manufacturing goods in China is becoming too high to be profitable. US workers are considered to be among the most profitable in the world, approximately 4 times more profitable than Chinese workers. Logistics such as shipping and storage are increasing, renminbi can't be depreciated for munch longer in comparison to dollar so US companies will soon figure out that it makes more business sense to manufacture goods in the States.

As for the rest in your article, that just proves that China is just as much capitalistic and greedy as the rest of the western world.

If china gets too expensive, they will move to other low labor cost countries that have enough infrastructure to ship products to europe/us. If all those countries become too expensive, they will replace workers with robots.

Alot of factories in the US are much more automated than similar chinese factories. Labor costs are higher which makes automation more cost effective. But eventually cost of automation will drop as technology improves and even chinese workers will be too expensive.

No, I want to turn them into independent citizens with educations, jobs, homes of their own. <GASP!>

Don't you?

If the country were to follow libertarian ideals we would go back to a the country we had at the beginning of the industrial age when we hardly had any regulations on companies/economy.

Poverty rates were 40%+. Workers worked in factories with long hours, in dangerous conditions making hardly anything. Any attempts to organize were often countered with violence (directly or by proxy) by the factory owners.

In business, monopolies were common, and they are also good for companies as it can significantly increase profits. But not good for everyone else.

The drive of companies is profit and only profit. There is little adherence to ethics in the drive for profits. The only way we can keep them from destroying society is to have equally powerful forces that counterbalance companies and represent the interests of workers and greater society (Often Unions or Government as imperfect as they may be).