Callie

If we're going to have a state by state primary system we could at least randomize them every election year so candidates don't have to exclusively pander to Iowans with promises of ethanol subsidies and whatnot.

The standard course load at my university is usually four classes, but most science-based majors take five. I do have six courses, but humanities classes are absurdly easy to BS in, and all the seniors in my major tell me engineering communications is really easy. I wanted to get all of my humanities and core math classes out of the way before I hit the more advanced chemical engineering courses junior and senior year, such as physical chemistry. I also have to take a diversity class at some point but I have no idea what that means.

This is the same MPAA which brought you film ratings: something that doesn't seem so sinister in purpose but ultimately acts as a form of censorship. The film ratings are voluntary, but it's extremely difficult to make a profitable film without the MPAA's little seal of approval--and they can do that because all the big film distribution companies are in cahoots with them. The NC-17 rating is their preferred murder weapon, and they flip out when a film depicts any kind of sensuality which offends their prudish, homophobic, and hyper-masculine social mores. So yeah, when I read the linked article I really wasn't surprised. It's an industry that thrives off of monopolistic practices and corruption. If Strom Thurmond and Joseph McCarthy had a love child, well, you'd probably have the MPAA. /diatribe

Being hundreds of years old does not mean it's not the law, and what's the point of having laws if you can conveniently ignore them? If there's so much support for giving the executive branch the power of indefinite detention then the Constitution provides for it to be amended to reflect such sentiment. The constitution does give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus when "the public Safety may require it," which is sufficiently vague to accommodate modern conflicts. The reason that Congress is given such power and not the executive branch is that the framers did not want the President to be like a king, and it's looking like the President has very slowly been approaching that level over the centuries.

How does the government determine widespread support though? Even then, that's running into the kind of problem in which minorities become oppressed, kind of like Guantanamo Bay...which is still open. I don't think the public can be relied upon to object to government abuse of power, and besides, this bill gives the executive branch that kind of power. Bush had used the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force as an excuse for his administration's military detention. The new bill pretty much affirms that power, so now the President no longer needs to loosely interpret the AUMF as an excuse. In other words, it transfers the power to suspend habeas corpus from Congress over to the executive branch, thereby violating the constitution and avoiding debate by giving the President even more power.

That's the problem: it's on the table for the government to use in the future. I see no reason for the government to reserve that kind of right. After all, the constitution does give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus if need be.

Isolationist is what Japan used to be: not trading. Switzerland actively trades with other countries, allows for immigration, and engages in diplomacy.

Being peaceful is not isolationism. Do you consider Switzerland to be isolationist?

Off the top of my head (Original artist in parentheses): Led Zeppelin - "When the Levee Breaks" (Memphis Minnie and Kansas Joe McCoy) Peter, Paul, and Mary - "Blowin' in the Wind" (Bob Dylan) The Byrds - "Turn! Turn! Turn!" (Pete Seeger) Johnny Cash - "Hurt" (Nine Inch Nails) Jimi Hendrix - "All Along the Watchtower" (Bob Dylan) Kingston Trio - "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" (Pete Seeger) The Beatles - "Twist and Shout" (Phil Medley and Bert Russel)

I think people will generally like their own representatives/senators more than other members of congress. That being said, I don't like any of Nevada's representation. When Harry Reid was up for election I voted "None of these candidates." We had a special election recently to replace our representative after said representative was appointed to John Ensign's former seat...I left the ballot blank. I don't like the senator/former representative, and will probably vote "None of these candidates" again in 2012.

The spring semester starts next monday for me, and I am taking the following courses: CH 203: American Experience and Constitutional Change ME 241: Statics CHE 245: Computers in Chemical Engineering ENGR 301: Engineering Communications MATH 352: Probability and Statistics EE 220: Circuits I EE 220L: Circuits I Lab

Aran has a similar, far-more-crowded map which proves that Spiderwebbers naturally arrange themselves into rainbow cones.

I can has copyrights! Originally Posted By: Karoka Originally Posted By: Excalibur That is nothing new. Okay, that's it. I'm moving to Canada. I know little about Canadian politics, but surely they have their own problems as well, like proroguing.

Being a member of my own antisocial corner (one that is also purple, apparently), I do disagree with a few things you said, but agree with your rant as a whole.

Originally Posted By: Karoka As in, they are breaking their own law? WHAT IS THIS?!?!?! That is nothing new.

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Excalibur Oh gee, thanks, because everyone who advocates the Austrian school of economics is insane. i'm glad we can all agree on something but seriously Austrian economics explicitly rejects the use of empirical evidence. if that's not a working definition of insanity i don't know what is Yeah, I don't actually agree with that, which admittedly, is the major tenet of Austrian school. The term "Austrian school" tends to be used more in a colloquial sense than an academic one. It's more of a blanket term for advocating free markets, even though free markets are advocated by a number of economic schools that apply different methods. Similarly, "Keynesianism" is also used in its colloquial definition more often than its true academic definition. The US hasn't actually had Keynesian policy for a long time, but people often use it to mean "whatever Democrats are doing." If you were to accuse me of using colloquial language in what should be an academic setting you'd be right. It's just that other people I meet on the internet do the same thing out of convenience (as do I), so I don't readily assume that people are using an academic definition. Even then, I don't think it's fair to label people as insane, even in that context. A lot of people hold beliefs that aren't necessarily based in empirical evidence, so labeling an idea as insane is more along the lines of needless provocation. Edit: @ Dantius, I clearly misread your above statement, but even then, there are inevitably going to a be number of Republican supporters on these forums who support the same ideas you're ranting against. (You did refer to it as polemical at times, but that isn't going to stop people from reading it.)

Oh gee, thanks, because everyone who advocates the Austrian school of economics is insane. Calling your political opponents crazy isn't going to get you anywhere.

Now that we have a protest against SOPA maybe people should pay attention to the US government retaining the right to indefinitely detain US citizens...or assassinate them without due process.

Opposing imperialism is not isolationism. Also, relaxing the federal government's power does not suddenly overturn the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution, or congress' power to regulate commerce.

I just read a Wikipedia page by taking a screenshot of it before before the blackout screen could come up. I am such a rebel. Edit: Ironically, you can still view the article for SOPA.

Before Gary Johnson dropped I would have cast my vote for him, since he's an ideal libertarian. Paul is libertarian to an extent. His main problem is that he has baggage--his newsletters. He's very dodgy about it and there's really no explanation as to how he could have been unaware of their content, although I do believe he didn't actually write them. It's not in his style, and contradicts a lot of his rhetoric about drug policy. As to why he isn't an ideal libertarian: He's extremely pro-life. Although he insists the federal government should have no control over abortion, he actually voted for the Sanctity of Life Act. His views on immigration are similar to most Republicans, although he thinks building a wall is irrational and favors streamlining the immigration process (very vague) while denying amnesty. At times he even seems sympathetic toward conspiracy theorists. Despite that, I support his candidacy, with reservations. He has vocal anti-war sentiments, opposes the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, etc. and is highly critical of US drug policy. With the exceptions noted above, he's right-wing on economic issues and mostly left-wing on social issues (as Ratt noted, he doesn't pander based on his religious beliefs). He voted to overturn DADT and thinks the government should stay out of marriage. --- I find it unlikely that anyone other than Romney will win. He has far better organizational and fundraising capabilities, in addition to being favored by establishment Republicans. I'm not sure why Perry hasn't dropped out yet. Santorum is campaigning on social issues when the economy is bad. Gingrich, along with Santorum, has a fairly anemic campaign that will probably burn out by the time the Nevada caucus swings around. Paul is probably the only other candidate who could continue campaigning, since he has the organizational ability to obtain ballot access fairly easily (He and Romney are the only ones on the Virginia ballot), but I don't see him plausibly being able to win any states, although he'll probably win enough delegates to disgruntle people at the Republican Convention. Originally Posted By: BainIhrno Looking at the Senate map, if things are in favor for Democrats, the only states I can see them picking up are MA, NV, and maybe AZ (the likely candidate is actually an independent who is running as a Democrat). I highly doubt Democrats will pick up Nevada's senate seat. The incumbent (Dean Heller) has been a popular figure in Nevada politics for a long time, and he doesn't have the kind of baggage most politicians have.

FYI, I can make the 21st so hopefully the session will be then, but I can't make it the 22nd.

Not everyone is going to read a campaign thread if they're not a member. The call for new characters has only been in this thread, and I think that's what the problem is.

*is doodling* Thanks!

Photoshop is a much better program than Paint. Paint is nice if you're doing something simple, and it's free.