Ducky

Not much needs said beyond that eh.

I went once when I was 14 and I've wanted to go again ever since. We did class 4, I wouldn't mind trying class 5.

Nothing really to add mate, I've always agreed with what you've said about corporate fiscal matters and taxation in general.

He feels justified buying a high class mattress for a romp with a low class hooker. !@#$%^&*, here I am not contributing again. The zingers are too easy and no one else is doing them.

You should be fine. I'm not sure whether you like to dry hump hard or soft mattresses, but I hear you can change that.

Off the bat, no one is saying cut necessary fuel options. You simply evolve necessary fuel options. Because it's changed and not simply dropped, economies will not tank to the point you seem to suggest. No one is debating ability at all. The need for the effect is what drives the innovation in the first place though, the ability comes down the road through trial and error. If something is 'impossible' because of lack of ability, that doesn't mean that attempts won't be made until ability is discovered in some form. People have been trying to fly for hundreds of years. It was only recently that they've discovered the ability to fly not because they lacked the material they needed but because flying was never a necessity and as such had a limited pool of ideas. There are answers to our energy crisis, but while it's not a necessity, the answer is going to come slower than if it had when and if it becomes one. Swapping oil for coal is not one of these answers. It's a bandaid solution because yet again, it's a limited resource. Astro nailed it perfectly when he said necessity accelerates innovation in a controllable manner and it's irresponsible to act otherwise. We didn't need a microwave or lightbulb, they came on it's own. A product of invention not out of need. But because it wasn't needed, you cannot control its existence in the first place. The invention of both where both whimsical and if not then, when? It could have taken 20 more years for that same innovation to take place. If there WAS a candle shortage, that same lightbulb concept (or something there of) would have arrived much earlier than it had. A ground breaking strategy may never come, but the more it's necessary to deal with, the higher probability you have of figuring it out.

It's a pretty logical view. Things are created out of need first and foremost. There's a reason people joke about giving the 10 richest persons in the world cancer and finding 6 different cures in a year.

I don't understand this topic. Be brief and answer the question based on your candidates view. The answers to each question were answered by all parties. Since we're not supposed to defend or attack the answers, can't I just write down what they all suggest? If that's the case, why didn't you just make a topic asking what the different viewpoints are. This topic serves absolutely no purpose. One might suggest you're the one posting dribble.

Gotcha, thanks

The problem I see with the whole "he can't win the states needed against republicans" isn't really a known factor. He lost them against Clinton, but that doesn't mean the democrats that voted for Clinton won't vote for him anyways just because he's the democratic nominee. I don't buy too much into exit polls, the amount of people who say they are voting but actually never do isn't counted.

So, car insurance basically. You pay a little in the hopes you don't have to pay a lot. Right now, Health insurance is not affordable. So not only are people not getting it, they aren't paying ridiculous medical bills either. That seems rather broken to me. In reality, 90% of drivers don't need car insurance where as 90% (if not more)will need hospital attention at some point in their lives. At the going rate of just an ambulance ride from my local hospital, I'd say it's a fair deal if it were cheap enough. If 50 million extra customers are s!@#$%^&*ing out money monthly, I'd assume the price wouldn't just drop a little. I just don't see the problem in it. In most cases, you simply don't choose to part with your money or not if you're in the hospital for a serious reason. 12 grand benign hernia surgeries in the 10% chance it doesn't become worse, a 2 grand 4 block ambulance drive... The system is completely broken. I'm not a fan of this particular quick fix, I'd rather just have free across the board. It's SOMETHING though.

Everyone required to have insurance generally means lower healthcare prices right?

*boggle* I'm not understanding why manditory healthcare is bad, can someone enlighten me? Honest proposal.

religionafk

That's the internet for you. Can't blame anyone though, they're all a product of the liberal media.

The only way to not let it affect your vote is to be knowledgeable about the actual facts with-in the ads. Something that the majority of Americans are incapable of. When the majority of Americans can't pinpoint major countries on a map and dictate the 4 major gospel names of the bible, well... You can kind of assume that the former fact is impossible by any standards

In regards to the Iraq vote, I find it easier to support an individual who recognizes it as a mistake opposed to someone who flaunts his disapproval and lack of vote to invade Iraq when he was never even in the senate to actually cast a vote. It's easy to say what you would have done in hindsight when there's no possible record of it recorded.

. Fine with me, I'll drop the topic. You have the right to play god in 'self defense' all you want and nothing I ever say is going to change you or anyone elses mind. America, home of the free, blah blah and so on.

Rofl, Good americans are supposed to cling to their rights? Good americans acknowledge when rights should simply be evolved and amended after time. Good americans should be intelligent enough to understand we have the facilities now that soldiers don't needlessly have to camp in people homes, that the right to own a gun is given against national military take over and not so you can randomly shoot whoever is on your property. Why are most civil matters still taken care of by a secular judge when the total amount of damages is over 20 bucks? It's because the amendment in itself is outdated, we're not going to blow a complete jury's time over a civil matter of 30$ Good Americans realize that amendments made over 200 years ago do not have the same context that they do today and shouldn't needlessly cling to them as 'rights'. --------- I have to give props towards the lolworthy post you just made though

"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." How is that statement wrong, at all, EVER. That statement is exactly what it says. Every politician comes through here saying it will get better. Everyone has a 'plan', an 'idea' that doesn't pan out. It never does, It never will. The people get pissed and the people being relatively stupid can't/won't do anything about it on a large scale so they cling to topics of guns and terrorism as an excuse for the people they wanted in office. They cling to it because they don't want to blame themselves for thier own mess. Everything about the statement is completely true. I don't support Obama, and yes it probably was elitist. But so what? Elitist things can't be true? ----------------- As for the "Obama getting the educated vote in pa" I really don't know where this is all spewing from. It's a 10 point or less difference. This isn't nearly on the level of Clinton wiping the floor with Obama with older people or Obama wiping the floor in the black vote. It's an apples to oranges comparison because one excels in an older population and the other in a younger. It's common sense to say that older americans aren't as well educated as younger americans. That's for everywhere where this psuedo stat has popped up.

I don't think anything will be screwed this time around no matter who gets in. Now, if Bush gets in, we'll be screwed. Oh wait.

massive college call outs around here in Pittsburgh for Obama. Almost the entirety of my personal friend base will be voting for him. Of everyone else I've had the pleasure of talking to however, it seems they are stuck on Hillary for whatever reason. The Hillary attack on Obama about people in Pennsylvania (which obviously is taken out of context) seems to be part of the reason they will choose her. The sad thing is, Obama said something entirely true for once and people around me took it the wrong way. They do cling to immigration and terrorism.

Got a chance to hit up a town meeting for Obama in Greensburg PA. Still the same stance.

Isn't perfume already made out of people?

I think after either flavor of politician is in the major role of president, we'll see a decline of unreasonable voting. Everyone who votes this way seems to want to see that "white male" stigma get battered down. Whether it's right or not. And there are sides, there are always sides. No idea where that reply came from. I've been on these boards long enough to know every political debate you've been apart of jointly with me and it seems kinda odd that you'd throw that out there just now.