Dan J

I kept it simple. Just papercliped the related documents together and ordered it as wrote on the cover letter.

The idea that the US (or any country) can claim broad 'moral authority' is just bizarre. That's romantic nonsense and entirely subjective. Might work in the pages of a comic book, but history tells a very different story.

ACA has been a convenient scapegoat for some employers to shift more costs on employees.

ACA has been a convenient scapegoat for some employers to shift more costs on employees.

A Ponzi scheme works by paying earlier investors their investment + interest by getting new investors into the scheme. Of course, this eventually falls apart.
Social Security pays a basic income to retirees funded by contributions from non-retirees. This is not an investment, nor was it ever designed to be one. Some people will certainly make more contributions to social security than they will ever see in benefits.
The long term sustainability of social security relies on maintaining a balance between non-retiree contributions and retiree benefits. Up until this point, social security has been growing a surplus due to baby boomers being part of the workforce. Now that this is shifting, that surplus will eventually deplete. Other changes have happened since social security was established like a growing income inequality (wage cap only tracks with inflation) and growing systematic unemployment (jobs being replaced by automation).

Its a company that does document preparation services.
http://www.wethepeopleusa.com/

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

He is upset that he and his buddies(Sheldon Adelson, Koch Brothers, etc.) couldn't buy the election.

They are still living in their alternate universe.

They are still living in their alternate universe.

They are still living in their alternate universe.

Toss up is what you call it to keep the drama alive. But when several different polls put Obama ahead, its likely that he is ahead even if he is still within the margin of error to call it with certainty. He is ahead in Ohio, and doesn't show any likelihood of changing. Without Ohio, Romney's chance of winning is very small. This is a helpful visualization of the difficulty that Romney has to win: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

And yet Ellen has been openly gay for 15 years and just celebrated 10 years on air for her show

His campaign style certainly reflects that. He keeps repackaging himself to different audiences. If we had a Republican incumbent this year, he would probably switch parties and try to run as Democrat.

A lot of people have preferred candidates or parties, but that does not preclude them from being able to make a neutral analysis. If you take into consideration the data and historical trends, its not hard to conclude that Obama has a higher probability of winning than Romney. But its still in the end just a probability. Romney could still win even if Nate Silver has estimated a 30 some percentage chance of him doing so.
The storm that is about to hit the east coast could effect turnout, and untimely the outcome. Maybe that will increase the probability that Romney will win, or decrease it. Its probably going to come down to which states are affected, and which of those states have early voting (Get the vote in before the storm) or are using electronic voting machines (They wont work if the power is out on election day).

Nate Silver is a statistician who has been pretty damn accurate. In the polling biz you make your money based on how close you can predict the result not on whether or not not your predictions fit one party's idea of reality. But there is a self fulfilling prophecy angle to this. If the media/pollsters are saying your candidate is going to loose anyway, why bother going out to vote? By not going to vote, you make the prediction come true. This is what Romney and other conservatives are trying to attack.

Pretty much everyone does that, cherry pick what fits your existing values and conveniently ignore the rest. To some extent, you kinda have to to compensate for the contradictions.

If Voter ID laws were really about in person voting fraud, the laws would also address absentee voting fraud, vote selling, and voting machine tampering (including full disclosure of all the source code powering electronic voting machines). But instead they just expense and hassle to a mostly non-existent problem.
Also ironic is that voter ID laws will cost states and counties in providing IDs and training election judges to verify them. Which means bigger government from the party which claims to want smaller government.

If you look at what the parties stand for today, its likely the labels would be switched. Republicans used to be progressive too, what happened to that?

If you look at what the parties stand for today, its likely the labels would be switched. Republicans used to be progressive too, what happened to that?

1. Credit ratings don't really matter when every other option is worse.
2. Quantitative Easing is relying on getting wealthy people and companies to spend more money to create jobs, which is more of a conservative principle on how the economy works, although there is little else the Fed can do when it comes to job creation.